iTHE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.15901 of 2006 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Eswaraiah) Aggrieved by the order of the A.P.Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, in O.A.No.225 of 2003, dated 27-10-2005, allowing the said application filed by the respondents, the present writ petition has been filed. Respondents 1 and 2 herein were appointed as Cook and Watchwomen vide proceedings of the Deputy Director of Social Welfare, dated 31-08-2002, in the existing physically handicapped backlog vacancies after following the due procedure for appointment and selection by a duly constituted selection committee. Pursuant to the said appointment order, the respondents are working in the said posts. Within a month of their appointment, by order, dated 27-09-2002 in Rc.No.A2/237/02, the self same Deputy Director, Social Welfare Officer, cancelled the said appointment orders, dated 31-08- 2002, which reads as follows:- “In the reference read above, the physically handicapped backlog physically handicapped postings are hereby cancelled on public interest.” It was the contention of the petitioners herein before the Tribunal that even before the respondents, who are deaf and dumb, joining in the posts they were terminated in the public interest and, therefore, no vested rights have been conferred on the respondents by merely issuing the appointment orders and, therefore, the principles of natural justice are not required to be followed and in that view of the matter, no notice was issued while cancelling the appointment orders. Further, the respondents herein, who are physically handicapped being both deaf and dumb, On the other hand, it was the contention of the respondents- applicants before the Tribunal that they have joined duties and while they were working in their respective posts to the satisfaction of the superiors, the Deputy Director, Social Welfare, issued the aforesaid order, dated 27-09-2002, abruptly cancelling the appointment orders. Aggrieved by the aforesaid cancellation order, the O.A. was filed and the Tribunal after hearing both sides and taking into consideration the counter filed, allowed the O.A. setting aside the said cancellation order on the ground that when once the individuals were appointed and joined in the posts against which they were appointed, the question of cancellation of postings does not arise. Further, no public interest was involved in cancelling the appointments. The order of cancellation does not show any reasons and they are accordingly misconceived. Even assuming for a moment that there was an error in computing of vacancies and the vacancies were meant for women, there is no bar under law for appointing women as they are also differently able, which is an admitted fact. Admittedly, the said vacancies are meant for physically handicapped women only and though the nature of handicap may be different, the handicapped persons alone were appointed. The appointment orders do not show as to whether the said posts were earmarked for visually handicapped as contended by the petitioners, but the appointment orders clearly show that as against the existing physically handicapped backlog vacancies only they were appointed. Therefore, the said cancellation order cancelling the appointment orders being passed, without giving any notice is illegal and as such, the same are liable to be set aside. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the authorities of the State filed the present writ petition and this court after hearing both sides, refused to grant interim suspension on 29-11-2006 in W.P.M.P.No.19826 of 2006 on the ground that the appointment orders of the applicants were cancelled without issuing any notice and there cannot be any justification in granting any interim order. As against the said interim order, the petitioners-State preferred Special Leave Appeal (Civil) No.22605/2007 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the same on 07-08-2009 directing this court to decide the matter preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. Heard both the counsel. Admittedly, respondents 1 and 2 were appointed as Cook and Watchwomen respectively and the said posts cannot be handled by visually handicapped persons and, therefore, there cannot be any justification on the part of the petitioners to cancel their appointment orders. For the said posts, physically handicapped persons alone are more suitable than the visually handicapped persons. As a matter of fact, the blind women cannot perform the duties of Cook or Watchmen. Therefore, it cannot be said that the appointments of respondents, who are physically handicapped persons are not in the public interest. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners submits that as per G.O.Ms.No.72, dated 05-08-1997, the roster points fixed under the said G.O. shows that these vacancies must go to the visually handicapped persons. It appears that this is a sole ground for cancelling the appointments of the respondents herein. It is the case of the petitioners that the posts against which the respondents were appointed are to be filled up by visually handicapped women, hearing handicapped men and orthopaedically handicapped men as per G.O.Ms.No.72, dated 05-08-1997. It is not known what is the roster point against which the recruitment has been taken place. However, fixation of the roster point in respect of the posts of Cook and Watchwomen cannot be earmarked in favour of visually handicapped women, hearing handicapped men and orthopaedically handicapped men. However, none of these grounds have been mentioned in the cancellation orders. For the first time before the Tribunal alone in the counter affidavit it is stated that those posts were earmarked for the visually handicapped women, hearing handicapped men and orthopaedically handicapped men. However, it is clear that the said categories of handicapped persons cannot be able to perform the duties of cook and watchmen. However, no records have been placed before us with regard to the roster points and suitability of particular handicapped persons to be recruited for the said posts. The appointment orders specifically go to show that those posts are backlog vacancies earmarked for the physically handicapped persons. In the absence of any records, we do not find any infirmity legal or otherwise in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Tribunal is set aside to the extent of costs of Rs.1,000/-. Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J ________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dated: 06-10-2009 Prv