N Jagannadha Naidu vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

WRIT PETITION No.19404 of 2023 ORDER:

The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

"… to issue a Writ, Order or Direction particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2 nd respondent in issuing Memo No.AB/A1/WP.No.28391 /2022/781 M, dated 17.10.2022 wherein rejecting the petitioner's application for promotion in the cadre of Superintendent, Irrigation Circle, Chittoor against Roster Point No.31 (Hearing Impairment) as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and contrary to Section 34 (1) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and in violation of G.O.Ms.No.2 (Department for Women, Children, Differently Abled and Senior Citizens) dated 19.02.2020 and G.O.Ms.No.121 General Administration Department, dated 12.10.2022 and consequently set aside the same by directing the respondents to issue promotion in favour of the petitioner as Superintendent, Irrigation Circle, Chittoor against Roster Point NO.31 (Hearing Impairment) and pass such other order or orders…"

2. It is the case of the petitioner that initially the petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant in the 3rd respondent office under Physical Handicapped Quota and subsequently promoted as Senior Assistant and working as such since long time. Inspite of the representations made by the petitioner and the orders, dated 06.09.2022, passed by this Court in W.P.No.28391 of 2022, the respondent authorities rejected the petitioner's case for promotion in the cadre of Superintendent against Roster Point No.31 on the ground that the total sanctioned strength of Superintendent posts

in Irrigation Circle, Chittoor is only 6 and the 4% is calculated, the result of adequacy comes only 0.24 to the disabled category for the purpose of Superintendent Promotion in the said circle vide Memo, dated 17.10.2022, which is illegal and arbitrary.

3. It is further stated that the Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.2, dated 19.02.2020, wherein provided 4% reservation in appointment and in promotions in every Government establishment in favour of bench mark disabilities as per Section 34 of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. As per G.O.Ms.No.2, dated 19.02.2020, it is specifically mentioned that the reservation in promotions for physically Handicapped i.e., wherever the cadre strength would be more than 5 in any cadre, the 4% of reservation to be followed. In pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.121, dated 12.10.2022, the 4% reservation should be provided for the physically handicapped for promotions without mentioning any conditions against Roster Point Nos.6,31,56 and 86. In the impugned order, dated 17.10.2022, the 2nd respondent has further stated that the vacancy to be carry forward to the subsequent panel year only when the adequacy reaches atleast one and there is no provision to PH employees as in case of STs to the effect that the required adequacy may be taken as one for the post, whose cadre strength is 6,7 or 8 in terms of G.O.Ms.No.4 SW

2

(ROR-I) Department, dated 24.01.2007, as such, it is clear that the 2 nd respondent ought to have got clarification from the Higher Officials to carry forward the vacancy to the subsequent panel year instead of rejecting the case of the petitioner for promotion.

4. The existing 100 point roster already prescribed under Rule 22 of A.P.State and Subordinate Service Rules by State Government shall be followed in case of promotions i.e., Roster Point Nos.6, 31, 56 and 86. The provisions are very clear that the required number of disabled employees are not available in feeder category, the vacancies earmarked for disabled employees according to the roster will be carry forward.

5 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the 2nd respondent is issuing promotions as Superintendents to the open category candidates against the roster points which are earmarked for disabled employees, it would suffice if a direction is given to the respondents to consider the representation, dated 26.11.2022, made by the petitioner requesting for promotion to the post of Superintendent from Senior Assistant under physically handicapped quota.

6. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents does not refute the said submission.

3

7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, without touching the merits of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition directing the 2nd respondent to consider the representation, dated 26.11.2022 made by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the existing Rules, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

8. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

Date : 03.08.2023 SPP

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

WRIT PETITION No.19404 of 2023

Date : 03.08.2023

SPP