Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
R Ravichandran, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 30 April, 2022
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
WRIT PETITION No.25484 OF 2021
ORDER:-
This Writ Petition is 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 respondent authorities in keeping the petitioner promotion on hold and by passing his candidature in the promotions to the cadre of Junior Assistant in terms of Sections 20 and 34 of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 in terms of G.O.Ms.No.42 Department for Women, Children, Disabled & Senior citizens (DW) dated 19.10.2011, and G.O.Ms.No.188, General Administration (SER-D) Department dated 18.12.2017, wherein employees with disabilities are provided 4% reservation in promotions and accordingly, roster point no.6 is reserved for the blind as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and also Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for next level promotion...."
2. Case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Office Subordinate (Attender) in the V.H.(General) Category vide Rc.No.1441/A4/2008, dated 28.8.2008, pursuant to the proceedings of the Joint Collector and Chairman, Task Force Committee, Chittoor vide R.C.No.A/123/S.R.D./2008, dated 09.06.2008, wherein applications were invited from the visually handicapped persons for filling up of the vacant backlog vacancies of the visually challenged persons. Later, the petitioner was promoted to the category of Record Assistant vide Rc.No.Promotion/B3/2012, dated 26.09.2012, of R.J.D.I.E., Kadapa.
2
It is the further case of the petitioner that in the year 2015, he made a representation to respondent No.2 submitting that he was appointed as Office Subordinate in the year 2008 and later, promoted as Record Assistant on 26.12.2012 and his services were regularized from 05.10.2012 vide Proc.R.C.No.455/a4/2014, dated 13.08.2014, of R.J.D.I.E., Kadapa and his qualification as on that date was B.A., B.Ed., and hence, he is eligible for promotion to the post of Junior Assistant in Roster Point "6", which is vacant post for blind (VH) as the petitioner is a blind (VH) person having 100% disability.
It is the further case of the petitioner that on 20.7.2018, the petitioner again made a representation to respondent No.2 submitting that some of the Record Assistants got promotion as Junior Assistants as per roster in the jurisdictions of D.V.E.O., Chittoor District during the years 2015 and 2018 but no handicapped person was given any promotion from Record Assistant to Junior Assistant during the years 2015 and 2018 and thereby, requesting the authorities to promote him from Record Assistant to Junior Assistant as there are chances of promotion in near future, as he already acquired the higher qualification i.e., M.A., B.Ed. On 03.12.2018, the petitioner again made a representation for promoting him to the post of Junior Assistant in Roster Point "6" in the vacant post for blind (VH) for which he is eligible and also furnished „Satisfactory Service Certificate‟ from the Principal, Government Junior College for Girls, Puttur, Chittoor District.
It is the further case of the petitioner that the National Federation of the Blind, India, vide Lr.No.298/NFB-AP, dated 3 26.8.2021, submitted a representation that the petitioner, who is working as Record Assistant in Government Junior College for Girls, Puttur since 2015, is a totally blind person and eligible for promotion to the post of Junior Assistant in view of his seniority and also in accordance with Sections 20 and 34 of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.42, Department for Women, Children, Disabled & Senior Citizens (DW), dated 19.10.2011, and G.O.Ms.No.188, General Administration (SER-D) Department, dated 18.12.2017, wherein employees with disabilities are provided 4% reservation in promotions and accordingly, roster point No.6 is reserved for the blind.
The case of the petitioner is that his case is not considered for promotion in spite of the facts mentioned above. As such, the present writ petition is filed.
3. Heard Sri Jada Sravan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-III appearing for the respondents.
4. Counter-affidavit is filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 denying the allegations made in the writ affidavit more particularly, stating at para No.3 as under:-
"It is submitted that previously the roster point for blindness or low vision (women) was provided at roster point No.6 and blindness or low vision (Open) at roster point No.106 and as per the latest G.O.Ms.No.2 dated 19.2.2020, as amendment was issued to the above GO. and substituted blindness or low vision (Open) at roster point 106 and blindness or low vision (women) at roster point 6. However the petitioner is not eligible for promotion as Junior Assistant, since roster point 6 is filled in with one D.Jayaramaiah in the year 2012 and the question of 4 consideration of the petitioner, does not arise now and in the next roster point i.e. roster 106 provided for such category, the promotion of the petitioner would be considered as per his eligibility criteria for such promotion according to his turn.
Therefore there is no force in the contentions and pleadings of the petitioner in the writ petition."
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the contents more so what have been stated in the writ affidavit and he further submitted that in the counter, the respondents have admitted that in the next roster point, promotion of the petitioner would be considered as per his eligibility criteria. In those circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner requested that the petitioner is ready to submit a detailed representation to the respondent authorities and a direction may be given to the respondent authorities to pass appropriate orders on the said representation as per law.
6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-III appearing for the respondents submitted that as per G.O.Ms.No.42, Department for Women, Children, Disabled & Senior Citizens (DW), dated 19.10.2011, the reservation for disabled is 3% but not 4%. However, he reported no objection for considering the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, without going into the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the writ petition can be disposed of at the stage of admission by permitting the petitioner to make a representation to the respondent authorities and directing the respondents to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 5
8. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to make a detailed representation by mentioning all the facts and rule positions, as mentioned in the affidavit, within one week from today and on such representation being made, respondent No.3, who is the competent authority to take decisions on the petitioner‟s representation, is directed to pass appropriate orders by strictly following the rules in vogue within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of such representation and communicate the same to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
________________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date : 30.4.2022 AMD 6 174 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION No.25484 OF 2021 DATE: 30.04.2022 AMD