THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.2742 of 2005 DATED: 08.06.2010 Between: P. Bangar Raju. .. Petitioner. And State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary, Women Development, Child Welfare And Disabled Welfare (DW) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad, and others. .. Respondents ORDER: According to the petitioner, he studied upto 10th class and he is certified to have 45% of eye site disability. It is his case that in view of the notification issued by the 3rd respondent on 17.09.2003, which was published in Andhra Bhoomi daily newspaper, inviting applications for the post of Attender from the candidates belonging to Physically Handicapped to fill up the Visually Handicapped back-log post in the 3rd respondent-College, he responded to the said notification along with others and was called for the interview by the Selection Committee on 20.10.2003 and was selected for the said post. Pursuant thereto, the 3rd respondent addressed a letter dated 22.10.2003 to the Director of Higher Education, seeking approval of the action of the Selection Committee in selecting the petitioner to the post of Attender reserved for Visually Handicapped persons against roster point No.6. However, the 4th respondent-Director of Collegiate Education, A.P., vide proceedings dated 21.12.2004, communicated to the 3rd respondent that the selection of the petitioner for the post to which he applied for cannot be approved on two grounds namely-(1) that the roster point No.6 is reserved for woman candidate belonging to Visually Handicapped and (2) candidates possessing 100% disability are to be given priority over partially handicapped in the selections. Aggrieved by the action of the 4th respondent in issuing the proceedings dated 21.12.2004, denying the approval of his selection, the petitioner filed this writ petition seeking appropriate directions. Sri P.S. Rajasekhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that so far as the first ground i.e., the roster point No.6 is reserved for woman candidate belonging to Visually Handicapped is concerned, for non-consideration of approval of selection of the petitioner to the post of Attender, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.31, dated 23.12.2004, keeping G.O.Ms.No.41 dated 27.11.2003, whereunder the 6th point in the roster was reserved in favour of Visually Handicapped women, in abeyance till the end of March, 2005. With regard to the second ground i.e., that persons with 100% disability are to be given priority over partially handicapped in the selections, the learned counsel relied upon a judgment of Full Bench of this Court in S.Murali Krishna and others v. Principal Secretary to Government, Education Department and others[1], wherein the Full Bench, in the light of the judgment of the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in E.V.Chinnaiah v. State of A.P. and others[2], dismissed the writ petition filed by 100% visually handicapped persons, for a direction to the 1st and 2nd respondents therein to effect legislation to Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and to Rule 22 (2) of Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Services Rules by giving effect to His Lordship Mr.Justice P.A. Chowdary’s judgment in the case of “M.Rajender Reddy Osmania University” as reported in 1991 (2) ALT 179 that the Higher Degree of Disability for the Physical handicapped person has to be taken as criteria and not the Marks secured for the purpose of services. He, therefore, submits that rejection of the approval of the selection of the petitioner for the post of Attender on the two grounds stated above is arbitrary and illegal. Thus, in view of the aforesaid submission, I am of the considered opinion that the action of the 4th respondent in issuing the impugned proceedings dated 21.12.2004, denying the approval of the selection of the petitioner, who was certified to have 45% disability, for the post of Attender, is arbitrary and illegal and, as such, the impugned proceedings cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned proceedings dated 21.12.2004, and the respondents are directed to consider approval of the proposal sent by the 3rd respondent on 22.10.2003, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 08.06.2010 v v . [1] 2005 (4) ALT 216 (F.B.) [2] 2005 (1) ALT 1 (SC) = (2005) 1 SCC 394