HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO. 873 OF 2011 Between: P. Jayasree W/o P.V. Satyanarayana ………….Appellant AND The Executive Officer, The Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam and three others ………….Respondents JUDGMENT : (Per Honourable the Acting Chief Justice GHULAM MOHAMMED ) This Writ Appeal has been filed against the order dated 10.12.2010 passed in W.P.No. 1533 of 2009 by a learned Single Judge, whereby, the Writ Petition was disposed of observing that the next vacancy in O.C woman category has to be filled through physically handicapped, as and when selection is to take place. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is working as Lecturer in vocal music, on contract basis in Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam. The Devasthanam issued a notification on 30.8.2005 inviting applications for various posts including a post of Lecturer in music in Sri Venkateswara College of Music and Dance. The vacancy was reserved for physically handicapped O.C Woman. The appellant and the 4th respondent herein and several others applied for the same and the Devasthanam selected the 4th respondent and appointed her. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant herein filed Writ Petition and the Writ Petition was disposed of with the following observation: “Music is an art and very few people pursue to the level of post graduation. It is difficult to find people of required accomplishment in such a rare activity. Added to that, the reservation has several layers, namely, (a) woman, (b) O.C., within that category and (c) physically handicapped. There is a further categorization in the physically handicapped reservation. It is but natural that it would be almost impossible to find a candidate, who fulfils so many conditions. The Selection Committee did not find any suitable candidate in that category. Whenever a candidate is not available in a too restricted category, it is permissible for the appointing agency to broaden the scope of reservation layer by layer. If a suitable candidate is not available in the physically handicapped category, it was permissible to broaden the scope by considering the O.C woman candidates. When such a course is adopted, it is not as if the vacancy earmarked for physically handicapped category is abandoned. The next vacancy in O.C woman category has to be filled through physically handicapped, as and when selection is to take place. Hence, it cannot be said that there is any illegality.” Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Appeal is filed. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that since the appellant is working with respondents for the last 5 years and discharging her duties on contract basis, the respondents ought to have considered her case instead of selecting the 4th respondent, erroneously. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents submits that the 4th respondent secured 67.25% in all whereas the appellant secured 34.24%, therefore, the 4th respondent was found fit and she was appointed though she is not physically handicapped. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is quite reasonable and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and also perused the material made available on record. It is no doubt true that one vacancy was reserved in favour of physically handicapped O.C woman. As the Selection Committee did not find any suitable candidate in the physically handicapped category, it is permissible for the appointing authority to broaden the scope of reservation layer by layer. In that process, respondents selected the 4th respondent. Therefore, it is not as if the vacancy earmarked for physically handicapped category is abandoned but the next vacancy in OC woman category has to be filled through physically handicapped, as and when selection is to take place. In view of the above, we see no reasons to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the Writ Appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ​ __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, HACJ _________________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J 4th NOVEMBER, 2011 K. AMMAJI ... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies.