IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 16019 of 1998 Between: M.V.Ramakrishna, S/o M.Dattatreyulu, Central Exise Department, Central Excise, Hyderabad IX Commissionarate. Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Central Board of Excise & Customs, Rep by its Chairman, Govt. of India, North Block, Central Secretaiat, New Delhi. 2 The Collectror-I, Customs & Central Excise Department, Govternment of India, Head Qrters Office, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad - 029. 3 The Deputy Collector (P & V), Customs & Central Excise Department, Government of India, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad - 029. 4 The Assistant Collector, Customs & Central Excise Dept., Govt. of India, Hyderabad-VIII Division, Central Excise, 2nd Floor, Posnett Bhavan, Ramkote, Hyderabad. 5 The Central Administrative tribunal, Hyderabad Bench at Hyd., Rep by its Registrar, 1st Flr, HACA Buildings, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue appropriate Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari and call for the records relating to and connected with the O.A.No.827/94 on the file of C.A.T., Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad and quash or set aside judgement of Hon'ble Tribunal and declare the decision of respondents 1 to 3 holding the applicant as ineligible for promotion as Inspector of Central Excise and Customs and issue consequential directions to respondents 1 to 3 to promote the applicant as Inspector of Central Excise & Customs with all consequential benefits and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.KISHORE RAO Counsel for the Respondents: MR.RAMAKRISHNA RAO SIDDANATHI (SC FOR CG) The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Smt. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRIAH W.P. No. 16019 of 1998 O R D E R: (Per THE HON’BLE Smt. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner – applicant against the order dated 17.9.1997 in O.A. No. 827 of 1994 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad. The petitioner filed O.A. No. 827 of 1994 before the Central Administrative Tribunal challenging the proceedings dated 28.6.1994 of the 3rd respondent and the proceedings of the D.P.C. which met on 15.4.1994 to select the candidates for promotion to the post of Inspector of Central Excise and to quash the decision of the D.P.C. that the petitioner is ineligible for promotion as Inspector of Customs and Central Excise, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner herein also sought for a direction to the respondents to interview him and to promote him to the post of Inspector of Customs and Central Excise. Having considered the material available on record, the Tribunal dismissed the said O.A. Hence, this writ petition by the petitioner – applicant. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. It is evident from the material available on record that the petitioner was appointed as U.D.C. in the physically handicapped quota. As per the instructions vide letter bearing F.No. B-12017/5/91- AD.III.B dated 13.7.1993, no reservation would be admissible to physically handicapped persons against the executive posts of Inspectors/Preventive Officers/Examiners/Inspectors. The contention of the respondents is that since the petitioner – applicant was appointed against the physically handicapped quota he was not called for interview before the D.P.C. held on 15.4.1994, but due to inadvertence and loosing sight of the instructions contained in the letter dated 13.7.1993 the petitioner was directed to undergo the physical test and merely because the petitioner has qualified in the physical test it cannot be construed that he is suitable for the post of Inspector of Central Excise and Customs which is an executive post. Apparently, the letter dated 13.7.1993 clearly states that physically handicapped persons are not suitable for the executive post and it is not disputed that the post of Inspector of Central Excise and Customs is an executive post. The petitioner did not challenge the said letter dated 13.7.1993. As rightly pointed out by the Tribunal, mere passing the physical test does not confer any right on the petitioner to claim appointment to the post of Inspector of Central Excise and Customs, more particularly, in the light of the letter dated 13.7.1993 which was not challenged by the petitioner. It appears that the instructions contained in the letter dated 13.7.1993 are further clarified vide letter dated 19.4.1996. The petitioner also failed to prove that such executive letters are issued contrary to the recruitment rules. The Tribunal has considered all the aspects and rightly came to the conclusion that there are no merits in the O.A. filed by the petitioner – applicant and accordingly dismissed the said O.A. Having considered the material available on record, we find no error or legal infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal warranting interference of this Court. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances, we direct the respondents that the petitioner’s case may be considered for allotting table work, as the fact that he is physically handicapped is not disputed. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the above direction. T. MEENA KUMARI, J. G. CHANDRAIAH, J. Date: 04-03-2008. MVB.