IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 12646 of 2008 Between: P. Seshu S/o. P.S. Bhaskar Rao R/o. 9-1-33/A/12, Langer House, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Bharat Dyanamics Limited, Ministry of Defence, Kanchan Bagh, Hyderabad, rep. by its Managing Director. 2 Chief Commissioner for the persons with disabilities, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India, Sarojini House, 6, Bhagwandas Road, New Delhi. 3 Director, Disabled Welfare & State Commissioner under persons with disabilities Act, 1995 6th Floor, Chandra Vihar M.J. Road, Nampally, 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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.1 in not considering the case of the writ petitioner for appointment to the post of Junior Technician with ITI qualification under the visually handicapped quota subsequent to notification dated 12.04.2007 as unconstitutional and consequently, direct the respondents to offer appointment to the writ petitioner for the post of Junior Technician, ITI qualification in respondent No.1 organization with effect from May 2007 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.S.MURTHY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE The Court made the following ORDER: The first respondent issued a notification, dated 12.04.2007, inviting applications to fill backlog vacancies of the persons with disability. One such post, was Junior Technician (Radio Mechanic). Out of the 11 vacancies, 5 were earmarked for visually disabled candidates and 6, for hearing disabled. The petitioner submitted his application for the post of Junior Technician. He claimed that he is suffering disability to the extent of 40%. The first respondent did not consider the case of the petitioner, stating that his disability as per the parameters framed by it, is only 30%, whereas the minimum percentage of disability, to enable a candidate to be selected against the vacancy is reserved for the persons, is stipulated as 40. The petitioner challenges the action of the respondents. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. The first respondent has got its own set of Rules and Regulations, not only providing for classification of disabilities, but also stipulating the minimum levels. On a consideration of the case of the petitioner, the first respondent found the disability of the petitioner as only 30%. The Rules mandate that unless a person suffered disability to the extent of 40%, he cannot be treated as a candidate for the vacancy reserved for disabled persons. This Court cannot sit as an appellate authority over the decision in matters of such nature. The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, provides for assessment of the disability, by an authority, which, in the present case, is the second respondent. The petitioner submitted representations, dated 28.01.2008 and 25.02.2008, to the second respondent. In view of the fact that the petitioner is a disabled person, his case cannot be kept pending indefinitely. The determination by the second respondent would have its own impact upon the opportunities of the petitioner. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the second respondent to pass appropriate orders on the representations, dated 28.01.2008 and 25.02.2008, submitted by the petitioner, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of a receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt: 10.07.2008. Note: Issue cc in three days. (B/o) kdl