Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Nallamala Nageswaraiah vs The State Of Ap on 28 March, 2022
Author: Prashant Kumar Mishra
Bench: Prashant Kumar Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
W.P.No.8594 of 2020
(Proceedings through physical mode)
Nallamalla Nageswaraiah
s/o Venkata Ramana
r/o V. Papireddygari Palli,
Rayachoti mandal
YSR Kadapa District .. Appellant/Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary -
Transport Department, Secretariat,
Amaravathi, Guntur District,
Andhra Pradesh and four others.
.. Respondents
Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. Venkateswarlu Kolla
Counsel for
1. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 - Government Pleader for Services-II
2. Respondent No.4 - Mr. N.A. Ramachandra Murthy,
Standing Counsel for APPSC
3. Respondent No.5 - Mr. J. Sudheer
ORDER
Dt. 28.03.2022 (Per M.Satyanarayana Murthy, J)
1) Initially this writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:
"declaring that G.O.Ms.No.147 FINANCE HR I Plg Policy DEPARTMENT date 6.8.2016 and AP Transport Subordinate Service Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.529 Transport Roads And Buildings (Ports) Department Dt 04.06.1999 are illegal arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Rights of Persons With Disabilities Act, 2016 and violative of provision of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the CJ & MSM,J WP.No.8594 of 2020 2 Recruitment Notification No 11/2018 Dt 5.12.2018 issued by R4 for Recruitment of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspectors in Transport Department of the state and/or to declare that action of R4 in not selecting the candidature of petitioner for the post of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector as per the recruitment notification mentioned supra and direct respondents to select the petitioner as Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector as per the seniority got by him in the merit list."
2) Later, the prayer was amended by order of this Court in I.A.No.2 of 2021 dated 22.10.2021 by substituting the following (lines):
"declaring that G.O.Ms.No.147 Finance Hr I Plg Policy Department date 6.8.2016 and AP Transport Subordinate Service Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No 71 Transport Roads And Buildings Serv-Iv Department Dt 19.2.2009 are illegal arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of of Persons With Disabilities Act 2016 and violative of provision of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the Recruitment Notification No 11/2018 Dt 5.12.2018 issued by R4 for Recruitment of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspectors in Transport Department of of the state and/or to declare that action of R4 in not selecting the candidature of petitioner for the post of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector as per the recruitment notification mentioned supra and direct respondents to select the petitioner as Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector as per the seniority got by him in the merit list
3) During pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner also impleaded Respondent No.5/Pagidadla Srinivasa Reddy as party Respondent No.5 to the writ petition, as per order in I.A.No.1 of 2021 dated 01.07.2021, since he is an affected party having selected and appointed as AMVI, in case the relief is granted.
4) The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner is a Post Graduate in Mechanical Engineering from I.I.T Bombay belonging to Backward Class Community, Yadava by caste. In response to the General Recruitment Notification No.11/2018 dated 05.12.2018 (hereinafter referred as „Notification‟) issued by Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC) for recruitment of 6 backlog and 17 fresh posts of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspectors (AMVIs), the petitioner applied for the same. The above said posts are Zonal Posts. The State of Andhra Pradesh is divided into four CJ & MSM,J WP.No.8594 of 2020 3 Zones and the petitioner is permanent resident of YSR Kadapa District, which falls under Zone-IV. The petitioner competed for one post of general category local candidates of Zone-IV, as there is no post reserved for BC-D category. Further, as there is one post each in Zones II to IV for general category non-locals, the petitioner competed for those four posts out of the total notified posts. The petitioner appeared for the examination held on 17.04.2019 and as per the results declared by A.P.P.S.C, the petitioner secured 194.26 marks out of 300 and stood in the second position in the total merit list for the entire state. Subsequently, certificate verification was done and the petitioner was asked to attend to medical test in K.G.H Visakhapatnam. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared for medical test and A.P.P.S.C declared results, selecting 21 candidates. To the shock and surprise, the name of the petitioner was not found among the selected candidates. Upon verification, the petitioner came to know that he was declared medically unfit on the ground that the petitioner had „flat foot to the right leg‟.
5) The petitioner contends that, the Recruitment Notification is based on G.O.Ms.No.147 (HR.I.Plg.Policy) Department dated 06.08.2016 and Andhra Pradesh Transport Subordinate Service Rules (for short „the Rules‟) issued in G.O.Ms.No.529 Transport, Roads and Buildings (Ports) Department dated 04.06.1999 and by then the persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunity) Protection of Rights and Full Participation Act, 1995 was in force governing the right of physically disabled persons.
CJ & MSM,J WP.No.8594 of 2020 4
6) It is contended that, subsequently the Central Government enacted a new Act called as The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟). Since it is central Act it is binding on the State of Andhra Pradesh. The Act was enacted to bring Indian law in tune with International Convention adopted by United Nations on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities on 13-12-2006. The objects of the said Act, inter alia, are to ensure that the persons with disabilities enjoy the right to equality, life with dignity and respect for his integrity with others. No person shall be discriminated on the ground of disability.
7) As per Section 2. (zc) of the Act, only 4 kinds of Physical Disabilities are identified Viz., (a) disability, (b) Visual impairment
(c) underline Loco Hearing impairment and (d) Speech and language disability. Though mental disability, intellectual disability and sensory impairment are recognized as disabilities, they are not relevant to decide for the case on hand. As per Section 2 (s) of the Act, person with disability is defined as person with long term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairment which in interaction with barriers, hinders his full and effective participation in society equally with others.
8) Section 2(r) of the Act, person with bench mark disability is defined as a person with not less than 40% of specified disability, where specified disability has not been defined in measurable terms and includes a person with disability where specified disability has been defined in measurable terms, as certified by certifying authority. As per Section 34 of the Act, reservation of 5% is CJ & MSM,J WP.No.8594 of 2020 5 provided for all jobs in all Government departments and establishments for those suffering from bench mark disabilities.
9) It is further contended that G.O.Ms.No.147 and APTSS Rules, were not amended by the State of Andhra Pradesh after enactment of the Act. Flat feet/foot is not identified as any kind of physical disability under the Act. But, as per Regulation No.11 of G.O.Ms.No.147, candidates with „flat foot‟ are declared as unfit for the post of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector. Similarly as per Rule 10(b)(iii) of APTSS Rules also flat foot is provided as disqualification for the post of AMVI. In the Recruitment notification issued by R4 for the posts of AMVIS, it is provided that physically handicapped persons are not eligible for the posts. It also provided flat foot as disqualification, based on APTSS Rules.
10) It is further submitted that when flat feet/foot is not recognised as physical disability under the Act, the rules/provisions in GO.MS.No.147, the Rules and Recruitment notification for the posts of AMVIs, providing flat feet/foot as disqualification is illegal, not valid in law as they are against the provisions of the Act governing the rights of persons with disabilities. For argument sake if flat foot is taken as disability and reservation should be provided for those suffering with such disability as provided under Section 34 of the Act. If, reservation is provided for disabled persons, the petitioner is entitled to be selected in that quota, as such the petitioner is entitled to be selected as AMVI, thereby, the recruitment notification to that extent is invalid and liable to be set aside or modified.
CJ & MSM,J WP.No.8594 of 2020 6
11) Respondent No.1 - Principal Secretary to Government, Transport, Roads and Buildings Department filed counter affidavit, denying material allegations while admitting the factum of petitioner‟s appearance for the examination in pursuance of Notification No.11/2018 dated 05.12.2018 for selection of 23 candidates for appointment for the post of Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector in Transport Department, marks received by the petitioner and availability vacancies etc.
12) As per Rule 10 of Special Rules for the Andhra Pradesh Transport Subordinate Service Rules, 2009 issued in G.O.Ms.No.71 dated 19.02.2009, the following are the physical requirements for appointment as Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector:
―A candidate for appointment by direct recruitment or by transfer or by promotion to the post of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector or Transport Constable shall satisfy the following physical requirements:
(a) In respect of male candidates, the minimum height must not be less than 165 cms in height and must not be less than 86.3 cms round the chest on full inspiration with a minimum expansion of 5.00 cms;
(b) In case of women the height shall not be less than 157.5 cms and must not be less than 86.3 cms round the chest on full inspiration with a minimum expansion of 5.00 cms:
(c) In case of male candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes communities and aboriginal tribes the minimum height must not be less than 160 cms in height and must not be less than 83.80 cms round the chest on full inspiration with a minimum expansion of 5.00 cms.
(d) Must be certified to possess the visual standards specified below without glasses:
(i) Right eye : Distance vision 6/6 Near Vision 0.5 (on Shellen's Chart)
(ii) Left eye : Distance vision 6/6 Near Vision 0.5 (on Shellen's Chart)
(iii) Each eye must have a full field of vision.
(iv) Color blindness, squint or any morbid conditions of the eyes or lids of either eye, knock knees, pigeon chest, flat foot, varicose veins, hammer toes, fractured limbs and decayed teeth shall be deemed to be a dis-
qualification.‖ CJ & MSM,J WP.No.8594 of 2020 7
13) Thus, Respondent No.1 fixed specific physical standards for appointment of persons as Assistant Vehicle Inspectors. It is contended that, G.O.Ms.No.529 Transport, Roads & Buildings Department dated 04-06-1999 is superseded by G.O.Ms.No.71 Transport, Roads & Buildings (Ser.IV) Department dated 19-02-2009 which came into force with effect from 19.02.2009. It is submitted that the petitioner quoted the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 claiming reservation of 5% to the persons with disability. The Government of Andhra Pradesh has also provided reservation for physically disabled persons for appointment for service in the State of Andhra Pradesh in many categories of the posts to the extent and in the manner as prescribed under Rule 22 of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996. But, as per Rule 5 of the Special Rules issued in A.P. State Transport Subordinate Service Rules, 2009, no appointment shall be reserved for Physically Handicapped persons. Further, as per Rule 10 of the said Special Rules, a candidate for appointment by direct recruitment or by transfer or by promotion to the post of Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector shall satisfy the physical requirements as mentioned under the said Rules.
14) It is further submitted that under Rule 10(d)(iv) of Andhra Pradesh Transport Subordinate Service Rules, 2009 issued in G.O.Ms.No.71 Transport, Roads & Buildings (Ser.IV) Department dated 19-02-2009 certain disqualifications for appointment to the post of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector have been specified and the same is extracted hereunder:
CJ & MSM,J WP.No.8594 of 2020 8
(iv) Color blindness, squint or any morbid conditions of the eyes or lids of either eye, knock knees, pigeon chest, flat foot, varicose veins, hammer toes, fractured limbs and decayed teeth shall be deemed to be a disqualification."
15) It is specifically contended that the petitioner herein is having „flat foot‟ which is disqualification for appointment to the post of AMVI and the petitioner herein is not a disabled person.
16) It is submitted that, Government have issued orders vide G.O.Ms.No.4, TR&B (TRP.I) Department dated 22.03.2021 exempting reservation for the Persons with Disabilities in the posts of Motor Vehicle Inspector (by Promotion), Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector (by Direct Recruitment and Promotion), Transport Head Constable (by promotion) and Transport Constable (by Direct Recruitment) in the Transport Department as it is a pre- condition that the persons holding these uniformed positions must possess driving license.
17) It is also submitted that apart from the merit in written examination the selected candidate must possess the physical standards specified under Rule 10 of the AP Transport Subordinate Service Rues, 2009, notified vide G.O.Ms.No.71, TR&B (Ser.IV) Dept., dated 19.02.2009. The condition "flat foot shall be deemed to be a disqualification" is one of the disqualifications under Rule 10(d)(iv) of said Rules. The disqualifications ordered under Rule 10 of said Rules are not the disabilities defined under Section 2(i) of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to claim the appointment either under the Act and he is disqualified for appointment under Andhra Pradesh State Transport Subordinate Service Rules and various CJ & MSM,J WP.No.8594 of 2020 9 G.Os referred above and thereby, not entitled to claim any relief, since the notification is not in contravention to the Acts and the provisions and requested to dismiss the writ petition.
18) Respondent No.5 - Pagidala Srinivasa Reddy filed separate counter affidavit while admitting issue of notification for AMVI, Selection of Respondent No.5 as AMVI in the selection process, as he is fully qualified in all respects, including medical examination and physical standards. The petitioner is not a disqualified person, but did not meet the physical standards prescribed therein and various G.Os referred by Respondent No.1 and whereas, Respondent No.5 fulfilled the physical requirements which are statutory in nature. The allegation made against Respondent No.5 is not based on any material and thereby, the petitioner is not entitled to claim any relief and requested to dismiss the writ petition.
19) The petitioner filed additional affidavit and better affidavit, after amending the prayer in the writ petition, specifically contending that, during hearing, it was brought to the notice of the petitioner that G.O.Ms.No.529 dated 04.06.1999 was superseded by G.O.Ms.No.71 dated 19.02.2009 before the impugned notification. But, due to oversight, the petitioner sought a declaration that G.O.Ms.No.529 dated 04.06.1999 as illegal and arbitrary. However, as there is no change to the G.Os regarding disqualification, it is contended that G.O.Ms.No.71 dated 19.02.2009 is also illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Rights of Persons With Disabilities Act, 2016 and requested to grant relief as sought above.
CJ & MSM,J WP.No.8594 of 2020 10
20) During hearing, Mr. Venkateswarlu Kolla, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that, „flat-foot‟ is not a physical disability as per the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the petitioner would not fall within the meaning of „disabled person‟ to claim any reservation. However, if the official respondents treat „flat foot‟ as disability, the petitioner is entitled to claim reservation under Section 34 of the Act. It is also contended that, prescribing „flat- foot‟ as disqualification for appointment to the post of Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector by direct recruitment is totally in contravention to the object of the Act and it is nothing but discriminating the persons having flat-foot with the persons having normal foot and therefore, such discrimination is illegal, arbitrary and denial of appointment to this petitioner on the ground that this petitioner is having „flat-foot‟ is nothing but an arbitrary exercise of power by Respondent Nos.1 to 4. Moreover, „flat-foot‟ will not come in the way of discharging duties by the petitioner as Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector, since it is not a disability. However, prescribing such disqualification for appointment as Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector is nothing but discriminating the persons having flat-foot with persons having normal foot is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and therefore, General Recruitment Notification No.11/2018 dated 05.12.2018 and G.O.Ms.No.71 dated 19.02.2009 are illegal, arbitrary and requested to issue a direction and consequential direction as stated above.
21) Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Madras High Court in R. Sharavanan vs The CJ & MSM,J WP.No.8594 of 2020 11 Transport Commissioner1. On the strength of the principle laid down in the above judgment, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that, the petitioner is similarly placed to the person in the above judgment and requested to apply the same principle and pass appropriate order as claimed by this petitioner.
22) Whereas, learned Government Pleader for Transport, Roads and Buildings, would contend that, „flat-foot‟ is a disqualification as per the Rules and it is not a disability, as defined under the Act, thereby, the petitioner is not entitled to claim reservation in terms of Section 34 of the Act, as „flat-foot‟ is not a disability. At the same time, the petitioner is not eligible for being appointed as Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector, in view of the disqualification prescribed under the Rules vide G.O.Ms.No.71 dated 19.02.2009.
23) Denial of appointment or selection of this petitioner for the post of Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector on the ground that the petitioner is having flat-foot to the right leg is not a discrimination to attract violation under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, flat-foot is a hindrance to discharge the duties outside the office and not sedentary post. Therefore, there is any amount of justification in prescribing flat-foot as disqualification for appointment as Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector by direct recruitment. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to claim any relief in the present writ petition, including declaration or direction by way of writ of mandamus and requested to dismiss the writ petition.
1 Writ Petition No.9812 of 2012 dated 05.07.2012 CJ & MSM,J WP.No.8594 of 2020 12
24) Whereas, Mr. J. Sudheer, learned counsel for Respondent No.5 submitted that, Respondent No.5 was selected based on merit, possessing requisite physical standards prescribed under the Rules and therefore, appointment of Respondent No.5 cannot be set-aside since he was appointed after undergoing necessary tests, prescribed under the Rules, including written examination and medical tests and requested to dismiss the writ petition.
25) Considering rival contentions, perusing the material available on record, the points that need to be answered by this Court are as follows:
1) Whether flat-foot is a physical disability?. If so, whether the petitioner being a disabled person is entitled to claim reservation in terms of Section 34 of the Act?
2) Whether the 'flat-foot' is a hindrance to discharge the duties as AMVI in transport department. If not, failure to provide reservation under Section 34 of the Act and whether denial of appointment to the petitioner as AMVI is in violation of General Recruitment Notification No.11/2018 dated 05.12.2018 and in violation of G.O.Ms.No.71 dated 19.02.2009?
P O I N T No.1 & 2:
26) As both points are interconnected, I find that it is expedient to decide both the points by common discussion.
27) The first and foremost contention of the petitioner is that, „flat foot‟ is not a physical disability and it would not come in the way of the petitioner in discharging his duties. At the same time, the petitioner is contending that, he is entitled to claim reservation CJ & MSM,J WP.No.8594 of 2020 13 if „flat foot‟ is treated as disability, in view of Section 34 of the Act.
Whereas, Respondent Nos.1 to 4 is contending that, „flat foot‟ is not a disability, but deformity, thereby, the question of claiming reservation does not arise.
28) In view of rival contentions, it is necessary to advert to the provisions of the Act and its object. The Act is enacted with an avowed object to give effect to the proclamation on the Full Participation and Equality of the People with Disabilities in the Asian and Pacific Region. The word „disability‟ is not defined in the Act, but the term „person with disability‟ is defined under Section 2(s) of the Act, which means a person with long term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairment which, in interaction with barriers, hinders his full and effective participation in society equally with others. Various types of disabilities are enumerated in the Act itself, but the present case would not fall within any of the disabilities defined under the Act. Therefore, „flat- foot‟ is not a disability within the meaning of the Act, as admitted by the petitioner himself. Therefore, the question of application of the provisions of the Act to the petitioner‟s case does not arise to provide reservation in terms of Section 34 of the Act.
29) At this stage, it is relevant to advert to second proviso to Section 34 of the Act to answer the present issue. Section 34 of the Act deals with „Reservation‟ and it is extracted as under:
Reservation:
(1) Every appropriate Government shall appoint in every Government establishment, not less than four per cent. of the total number of vacancies in the cadre strength in each group of posts meant to be filled with persons with benchmark disabilities of which, one per cent. each shall be reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities under clauses (a), (b) and (c) and one per CJ & MSM,J WP.No.8594 of 2020 14 cent. for persons with benchmark disabilities under clauses (d) and
(e), namely:--
(a) blindness and low vision;
(b) deaf and hard of hearing;
(c) locomotor disability including cerebral palsy, leprosy cured, dwarfism, acid attack victims and muscular dystrophy;
(d) autism, intellectual disability, specific learning disability and mental illness;
(e) multiple disabilities from amongst persons under clauses (a) to
(d) including deaf-blindness in the posts identified for each disabilities:
Provided that the reservation in promotion shall be in accordance with such instructions as are issued by the appropriate Government from time to time:
Provided further that the appropriate Government, in consultation with the Chief Commissioner or the State Commissioner, as the case may be, may, having regard to the type of work carried out in any Government establishment, by notification and subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in such notifications exempt any Government establishment from the provisions of this section.
(2) Where in any recruitment year any vacancy cannot be filled up due to non-availability of a suitable person with benchmark disability or for any other sufficient reasons, such vacancy shall be carried forward in the succeeding recruitment year and if in the succeeding recruitment year also suitable person with benchmark disability is not available, it may first be filled by interchange among the five categories and only when there is no person with disability available for the post in that year, the employer shall fill up the vacancy by appointment of a person, other than a person with disability:
Provided that if the nature of vacancies in an establishment is such that a given category of person cannot be employed, the vacancies may be interchanged among the five categories with the prior approval of the appropriate Government.
(3) The appropriate Government may, by notification, provide for such relaxation of upper age limit for employment of persons with benchmark disability, as it thinks fit
30) Thus, as per second proviso to Section 34(1), the appropriate Government, in consultation with the Chief Commissioner or the State Commissioner, as the case may be, may, having regard to the type of work carried out in any Government establishment, by notification and subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in such notifications exempt any Government establishment from the provisions of this section. Therefore, the CJ & MSM,J WP.No.8594 of 2020 15 second proviso to Section 34(1) of the Act, permits to claim exemption from the application of the provisions of the Act, i.e reservation depending upon the nature of employment in a particular department. In the instant case on hand, Respondent No.1 Paragraph No.7 specifically pleaded that the State Government issued orders vide G.O.Ms.No.4 TR&B (TRP.I) Department dated 22.03.2021 exempting the reservation for Persons with Disabilities in the posts of Motor Vehicle Inspector (by promotion), Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector (by direct Recruitment and Promotion), Transport Head Constable (by promotion) and Transport Constable (by Direct Recruitment) in the Transport Department as it is a pre-requisite condition that the persons holding these uniformed positions must possess driving license. Copy of G.O.Ms.No.4 dated 22.03.2021 is placed on record. The State issued notification in exercise of power under Section 34 of the Act, whereas, in the Transport Department the application of reservation in appointment as AMVI (by direct recruitment and promotion) is exempted. Therefore, in view of second proviso to Section 34(1) of the Act, the transport department is totally exempted from applying reservations for the post of AMVI either by direct Recruitment or Promotion.
Consequently, question of the petitioner‟s appointment under reserved category under Section 34 does not arise.
31) One of the major contentions of the petitioner before this Court is that, person having „flat foot‟ is not eligible for being appointed as AMVI, which is contrary to the provisions of the Act. But, this contention is ex-facie without merit, in view of the CJ & MSM,J WP.No.8594 of 2020 16 exemption granted under second proviso to Section 34(1) of the Act. Therefore, the contention of this petitioner that, the notification is contrary to the provisions of the Act is without any merit and the same is hereby rejected.
32) As discussed above, „flat foot‟ is not a disability as defined under the Act and various disabilities prescribed under the Act and Rules framed therein. But, „flat foot‟ though not a disability, it will come in the way of this petitioner in discharging the duties, since the post of AMVI is not a sedentary job and they are bound to discharge different duties, as enumerated in Andhra Pradesh Manual of Transport Department.
3.6 Powers and responsibilities of a Motor Vehicles Inspector or an Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector: -
a. As Officer in the cadre of a Motor Vehicles Inspector or an Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector may have to serve in any of the following posts.
I. Motor Vehicles Inspector / Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector - Regular II. Motor Vehicles Inspector / Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector - Check-post III. Motor Vehicles Inspector / Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector - Enforcement b. Powers and responsibilities of the Motor Vehicles Inspector / Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector-Regular: -
1. The Motor Vehicle Inspector / Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector- Regular should,
2. Work under the direction, supervision, guidance and control of the head of the District i.e., a JTC / a DTC / an RTO.
3. Should always be in uniform while on duty. Attend to enforcement work regularly. Shall adjust the enforcement timings in such a way that it shall not effect regular work causing inconvenience to public.
4. Attend office during office hours while not on tour or attending meetings.
5. Exercise effective control over the staff working under him. Exercise control over the allotted jurisdiction.
6. Maintain all prescribed registers in order and upto date.
7. Test all drivers for learners licensing.
8. Test all drivers on road for fresh Driving license.
9. Inspect all Motor Vehicles produced for various purposes like registrations, alteration, fitness certificate etc., personally.
10. Test drive all Motor Vehicles produced for renewal of F.C and then only decide to renew or otherwise.
CJ & MSM,J WP.No.8594 of 2020 17
11. Inspect all accident vehicles on requisition.
12. Verify all referred stoppages and report in time.
13. Conduct route surveys entrusted to him.
14. Collect arrears of tax and compounding fees referred to him.
15. Inspect Government and other Local body vehicles for the purposes of repairs, condemnation or fixation of upset price.
16. Procure vehicles for District administration for purposes of election duty, for civil supplies or during natural calamities.
17. Services of notices that are specifically entrusted.
18. Perform touring and make night halt outside head quarters as per instructions from the Head of the Department.
19. Attend to enforcement work regularly. Shall adjust the enforcement timings in such a way that it shall not effect regular work causing inconvenience to public.
20. Exercise reasonable control over the drivers and vehicles in his jurisdiction.
21. Submit diaries on time explaining in detail the work turned out.
22. Inspect all private during schools regularly to see that driving is taught properly.
23. Surprise check the private pollution checking station on issuance of PUC certificates.
c. Powers and responsibilities of the Motor Vehicles Inspector / Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector - Check-post
1. The Motor Vehicle Inspector / Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector should work under the direction, supervision, guidance and control of the head of the district i.e., a JTC / a DTC / an RTO.
2. Shall always be in uniform while on duty.
3. Exercise effective control over the staff working under him. The MVI shall direct, supervise, guide and control the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspectors and other staff working in a check-post. The Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspectors shall work under the Motor Vehicle Inspector and following the directions given by him from time to time.
4. Maintain the upkeep of the check-post in a neat and clean manner.
5. Shall attend the check-post duties as per duty chart on time. Whenever, the Motor Vehicles Inspector / Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector goes on leave shall take the prior permission of the concerned officer in writing in advance wherever it is not possible to take permission in advance or telegram to that effect shall be given.
6. Shall declare the personal cash in the prescribed register.
7. Shall keep the government cash in a cash chest under lock and key.
8. Shall note the names of the officers on duty on display board for the knowledge of vehicle owners / drivers.
9. Shall be on a constant move in and around the check- post for proper supervision.
10. Shall stop and check each vehicle, which is suspected of violating Motor Vehicles Act and Rules thereunder.
11. Shall record the number of vehicles passing trough the check-post in the movement register.
12. Book cases of all vehicles found with violations.
13. Shall inspect records of vehicles for finding violations relating to non-payment of taxes, vehicles without fitness, permit etc. CJ & MSM,J WP.No.8594 of 2020 18
14. Shall inspect engine numbers and chassis number of vehicles at random to find if any vehicles are plying with forged numbers/ documents.
15. Shall maintain all registers as prescribed in the check- post chapter of the departments manual.
16. Shall maintain the check-post in a disciplined and orderly manner.
17. Shall be responsible for not allowing private persons to loiter or work in the check-post premises.
d. Powers and responsibilities of the Motor Vehicle Inspector / Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector-Enforcement: -
1. The Motor Vehicle Inspector/Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector enforcement should:
2. Work under the direction, supervision, guidance and control of the head of the district i.e., a JTC / a DTC / an RTO attend office to take instructions regarding the enforcement work to be done by them.
3. Shall always be in uniform while on duty.
4. Attend to Enforcement work atleast 20 days in a month and see that all types of cases are booked against all classes of vehicles.
5. Inspect all referred accident vehicles.
6. Maintain all prescribed registers in order and up to date.
7. Verify all referred stoppages and report on time to time.
8. Collect arrears of tax and compounding fees referred to him.
9. Procure vehicles for district administration as advised by the Controlling Officer.
10. Execute all work entrusted to him by his Controlling Officer.
33) When the petitioner has to discharge various duties, as stated above, in the event of his selection as AMVI, the pre- requisite is to obtain a driving license and move from various places including route watch etc. But the person having „flat foot‟ will not have grip while walking or running with „flat foot‟, thereby, it becomes hindrance to discharge his duties as AMVI. When the post of AMVI is not sedentary job, „flat foot‟ of this petitioner certainly will come in the way in discharging duties by this petitioner. Consequently, it is difficult to discharge his duties with „flat foot‟ as enumerated in Andhra Pradesh Manual of Transport Department.
34) One of the major contentions of the petitioner is that, exemption from providing reservation under Section 34 of the Act CJ & MSM,J WP.No.8594 of 2020 19 to the Transport Department in Andhra Pradesh is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. But, the respondents contended that, it is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, since the second proviso to Section 34(1) of the Act permits any of the department of the State Government to exempt from application of reservations to the department. It is not an arbitrary exercise of power to exempt, since the Act itself permits to apply exempting from reservations to benchmark disabled persons.
35) This Court can exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, if such act infringes the statutory or fundamental right of the petitioner. Article 14 of the Constitution of India deals with equality before law, but, the Courts exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to set-aside the arbitrary acts of the State, based on Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu2, the Apex Court laid down certain guidelines to decide arbitrariness. Ever since its inception, „arbitrariness‟ has been a beleaguered doctrine. While some jurists have criticized the term for its imprecise import and its likely adverse impact on the „equality‟ analysis under article 14, others have been indifferent in their response to this new development in that they believe that it is not a new test at all but simply a reassertion of the reasonable classification or nexus test. The view held by the latter group of jurists finds support from the fact that the term „arbitrary‟ was not a new addition to the lexicon on constitutional adjudication concerning article 14. It was often used in reference to the first 2 1974 AIR 555 CJ & MSM,J WP.No.8594 of 2020 20 limb of the reasonable classification test, namely, intelligible differentia and it was emphatically held that in order to satisfy the test of reasonable classification under article 14, the differentia must not be „arbitrary, evasive, or artificial‟. Hence, it was unclear as to whether the doctrine of arbitrariness was simply a gloss on the reasonable classification test or vice-versa or was a standalone test having its own substantive content.
36) The recent decision of a division bench of the Supreme Court in Rajbala v. State of Haryana3 has rejuvenated the debate on the content and scope of the doctrine of arbitrariness propounded by a constitution bench of the Apex Court in E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu case (referred supra).
37) The later decisions of the Supreme Court sought to give some content to the doctrine by equating it with the concept of „unreasonableness‟ but it was still unclear whether this unreasonableness pertained to the „distributive aspect‟ of article 14 or could be a basis for constitutional scrutiny even in the absence of some comparative unreasonableness.
38) In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India4, His Lordship Justice Bhagwati speaking for Five Judge Bench, applied the test of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and acknowledged that Royappa did nothing more than explore and bring to light the „vital and dynamic aspect‟ of equality that had till then been lying „latent and submerged in the few simple but pregnant words of article 14‟. Thus Article 14 essentially embodied a guarantee against „arbitrariness‟ and therefore, the test of 3 (2016) 2 SCC 445 4 (1978) 1 SCC 248 CJ & MSM,J WP.No.8594 of 2020 21 „reasonable classification‟ was itself informed by the doctrine of „arbitrariness‟. In this sense, „arbitrariness‟ was not a new test at all but in fact the principle underlying the evolution of doctrinal tools and judicial standards for determination of the negation of the right to equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The same was considered in Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi5 and held as follows:
"It must therefore now be taken to be well settled that what Article 14 strikes at is arbitrariness because any action that is arbitrary, must necessarily involve negation of equality. The doctrine of classification which is evolved by the courts is not para-phrase of Article 14 nor is it the objective and end of that Article. It is merely a judicial formula for determining whether the legislative or executive action in question is arbitrary and therefore constituting denial of equality. . . .Wherever therefore there is arbitrariness in State action whether it be of the legislature or of the executive or of "authority" under Article 12, Article 14 immediately springs into action and strikes down such State action. In fact, the concept of reasonableness and non- arbitrariness pervades the entire constitutional scheme and is a golden thread which runs through the whole of the fabric of the Constitution."
39) As discussed above, the Transport Department is exempted from application of reservation under second proviso to Section 34(1) of the Act. When the Act permits such exemption, the Act of the respondents in not applying the reservation cannot be declared as an arbitrary act, since the official respondents acted totally in consonance with the provisions of the Act.
40) Apart from the exemption granted to the Transport Department under Section 34(1) to apply reservations to various employees enumerated above, as pleaded in Paragraph No.7 of the counter affidavit, the State Government by exercising its power under Article 309 of the Constitution of India framed Special Rules known as Andhra Pradesh Transport Subordinate Service Rules, 2009 issued in G.O.Ms.No.71 dated 19.02.2009. The 5 (1981) 1 SCC 722 CJ & MSM,J WP.No.8594 of 2020 22 G.O prescribes certain qualifications and physical standards for being appointed as Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector, Transport Head Constables and Transport Constables and they are as follows:
Sl.No Category Method of appointment
(1) (2) (3)
1 Assistant Motor (i) By Direct Recruitment (OR)
Vehicles Inspector (ii) By promotion from the category of
Transport Head Constables of Transport
Departm4nt.
(iii) If no qualified and eligible Transport Head Constables are available for appointment by method (ii) by promotion of qualified and eligible candidates from the Category (3) of this service of respective units.
(iv) By appointment by transfer from the category of Senior Assistants of Transport Department.
(v) If no qualified and eligible Senior Assistants are available for appointment by method (iv) by transfer of eligible candidates from the category of Junior Assistants (APMS) of Transport Department from the respective units.
2 Transport Head By promotion from the category of Transport
Constables Constables
3 Transport By Direct Recruitment
Constables
41) The Additional Transport Commissioner is the appointing
authority to AMVI. Qualifications and physical requirements are also prescribed in Andhra Pradesh Transport Subordinate Service Rules, 2009. But, the qualifications and other requirements are not in dispute, except physical requirements. Rule 10 deals with physical requirements (standards) and they are as follows:
A candidate for appointment by direct recruitment or by transfer or by promotion to the post of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector or Transport Constable shall satisfy the following physical requirements:
(a) In respect of male candidates, the minimum height must not be less than 165 cms in height and must not be less than 86.3 cms round the chest on full inspiration with a minimum expansion of 5.00 cms;
CJ & MSM,J WP.No.8594 of 2020 23
(b) In case of women the height shall not be less than 157.5 cms and must not be less than 86.3 cms round the chest on full inspiration with a minimum expansion of 5.00 cms:
(c) In case of male candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes communities and aboriginal tribes the minimum height must not be less than 160 cms in height and must not be less than 83.80 cms round the chest on full inspiration with a minimum expansion of 5.00 cms.
(d) Must be certified to possess the visual standards specified below without glasses:
(i) Right eye : Distance vision 6/6 Near Vision 0.5 (on Shellen's Chart)
(ii) Left eye : Distance vision 6/6 Near Vision 0.5 (on Shellen's Chart)
(iii) Each eye must have a full field of vision.
(iv) Color blindness, squint or any morbid conditions of the eyes or lids of either eye, knock knees, pigeon chest, flat foot, varicose veins, hammer toes, fractured limbs and decayed teeth shall be deemed to be a dis-
qualification.
42) In view of the prescription of physical standards for being appointed as AMVI by direct recruitment, the petitioner has to satisfy the physical standards. But, here, the petitioner is having „flat foot‟ to right leg which is not permitted under Rule 10(d)(iv) of the Andhra Pradesh Transport Subordinate Service Rules, 2009 issued vide G.O.Ms.No.71 dated 19.02.2009. When the petitioner is disqualified from being appointed as AMVI, he is estopped to contend that the Rules are ultra-vires to the Constitution, having participated in the process of selection, the conditions have to be fulfilled by the petitioner for appointment as AMVI, as prescribed in the notification. Though the petitioner has appeared in the written examination and acquired qualification to meet the physical standards prescribed under the Rules and participated in the process of medical examination, but when he was found ineligible on account of „flat foot‟ to right leg, he resorted to this present litigation without any basis.
CJ & MSM,J WP.No.8594 of 2020 24
43) Yet, G.O.Ms.No.147 (HR.I.Plg.Policy) Department dated 06.08.2016 was issued by Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission issuing regulations relating to physical Medical Examination of candidates appearing for recruitment to certain posts. Various physical standards are prescribed for appointment as AMVI. Serial No.8 in the table deals with „Minimum Physical Standards‟ for being appointed as AMVI, the same is extracted hereunder:
Height Chest girth Expansion
fully expanded
/Weight for
Female
Candidates
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Assistant Motor Vehicle 165 cms (M) 86.3 cms 5 cms
Inspector 157.5 cms (W) 82.30 cms (W)
160 Cms 83.80 cms
(ST/SC & (ST/SC &
Aboriginal Aboriginal
Tribes) Tribes)
152.5 Cm 79.80 cms (SC-
(W/SC/ST) (W)/ST-(W)
44) Thus, not only the Andhra Pradesh Transport Subordinate
Service Rules, but also the Regulations prescribed by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission for appointment as AMVI by direct recruitment, „flat foot‟ is not a disqualification. However, the petitioner challenged G.O.Ms.No.147 (HR.I.Plg.Policy) Department dated 06.08.2016 and G.O.Ms.No.71 dated 19.02.2009 in the present writ petition on the ground that the Rules are contrary to the Act, as the Rules does not provide reservation to the disabled persons. But, as discussed above, „flat foot‟ is not a disability and the person having „flat foot‟ is not entitled to claim reservation under Section 34 of the Act and that the second proviso to Section 34(1) of the Act permits a particular department to claim exemption and notify the same. Accordingly, the Transport CJ & MSM,J WP.No.8594 of 2020 25 Department obtained exemption from providing reservation, as enumerated under Section 34(1) of the Act and therefore, the Rules and Notification cannot be held to be contrary to the provisions of the Act.
45) One of the major contentions of the petitioner is that, the Act is contrary to Articles 14 & 15 of the Constitution of India. But, this contention cannot be accepted, in view of the above discussions.
46) To decide about reservation of Posts, every appropriate Government shall appoint in every establishment such percentage of vacancies not less than three per cent for persons or class of persons with disability of which one per cent each shall be reserved for persons suffering from (i) blindness or low vision;
(ii) hearing impairment; iii) locomotor disability or cerebral palsy, in the posts identified for each disability; provided that the appropriate Government may, having regard to the type of work carried on in any department or establishment, by notification subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in such notification, exempt any establishment from the provisions of the Act.
47) The exemption was obtained by the second respondent. However, it should be understood that the question of fitness involves the future as well as the present and that one of the main objects of medical examination is to secure continuous effective service and in the case of candidates for permanent appointment to prevent early pension payment, in case of premature death. It is at the same time to be noted that the question is one of the CJ & MSM,J WP.No.8594 of 2020 26 likelihood of continuous effective service and that rejection of a candidate need not be advised on account of the presence of a defect which in only a small proportion of cases is found to interfere with continuous effective service.
48) We find that there is a contradiction between G.O.Ms.No.147 (HR.I.Plg.Policy) Department dated 06.08.2016 and G.O.Ms.No.71 dated 19.02.2009, though the Act permits such reservation. At the same time, the same provision permits to claim exemption depending upon the nature of duties to be discharged by AMVI, as extracted above. The Act provides, inter alia, laying down the disabilities and the extent to which they can be permitted to join services. However, the very fact services have been excluded from this Act is clear that while respecting the rights of the disabled persons, the framers of the Act did not wish to impose any efficiency burden with the organization. In a landmark decision namely in the case of Government of India vs. Ravi Prakash Gupta6, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, inter alia, directed that the law should be implemented and the fact of appointment to the IAS during the period from 1995-2006 had been totally excluded. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had directed that all the vacancies for these years should be calculated and filled up.
49) In view of the principle laid down in the above judgment, the Act has to be given effect, in view of the proclamation on the Full Participation and Equality of the People with Disabilities in the Asian and Pacific Region. Though the State being significant to the Convention on the Rights of persons with Disabilities and Optional 6 2010 (7) SCC 626 CJ & MSM,J WP.No.8594 of 2020 27 Protocol with the municipal laws of the country, is not under obligation to implement the same, as the Act itself provides an exemption. However, we have noted that the service to be discharged by the petitioner is not a sedentary job and enumerated the duties in the above paragraphs. Those jobs particularly Transport Department involve a strenuous schedule where persons are required to put in long hours on work and in times of crisis for days together. For instances when accidents or other emergency takes place, officers may be required to put in duties continuously for days together and spending for long hours supervising the work. AMVI is not sedentary service and the requirements have already been laid down in G.O.Ms.No.147 (HR.I.Plg.Policy) Department dated 06.08.2016 and G.O.Ms.No.71 dated 19.02.2009. The mode of examination of candidate by Medical Board is prescribed under G.O.Ms.No.147 (HR.I.Plg.Policy) Department dated 06.08.2016. Where the requirements of the jobs have been specifically provided, these requirements have to be respected unless and otherwise not within the ambit of Section 34 of the Disability Act.
50) In K. Gangadhar vs. A.P. State Road Transport Corporation7, the appellant was denied employment on the ground that he was cosmetically unacceptable to the public on account of suffering with excessive Vitiligo. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that the appellant could not be denied appointment solely on the ground of Vitiligo but did not proceed to 7 2007 ( 1 ) ALD 14 CJ & MSM,J WP.No.8594 of 2020 28 appoint him straightaway and directed the respondents to verify that whether he satisfies the physical condition otherwise.
51) Coming to the issue of the practice being discriminatory and other persons having been appointed despite the disability, the petitioner filed additional affidavit and contended that, the person who secures less marks or who is less meritorious i.e. Respondent No.5 was appointed to the post of AMVI. The denial of appointment to the petitioner is not on account of any other reason, but on account of failure to satisfy the physical standards prescribed under the Rules referred in G.O.Ms.No.71 dated 19.02.2009 and G.O.Ms.No.147 dated 06.08.2016.
52) In the case of Syed Bashir-ud-din Qadri vs. Nazir Ahmed Shah & Others8, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the golden rule. Here, the issue was simple that the services of the respondent, who was a school teacher, were terminated on due scrutiny by an Expert Committee on the ground that he was not able to discharge the functions of a teacher as he was suffering from cerebral palsy. The Hon'ble Court was of the opinion that the respondent suffering from slight speech disability, which was apt to worsen on account of nervousness when asked to appear before the Expert Body or the Court to answer. It was the intimidating atmosphere of the Court that probably triggered a reaction in the respondent on account of which he was unable to respond to the questions put to him. The respondent otherwise in a position to discharge his duties as a teacher and the students had become accustomed to the same. However, the facts of the above case are 8 2010 (3) SCC 603 CJ & MSM,J WP.No.8594 of 2020 29 different from the facts of the present case, for the reason that, cerebral palsy is not only physical condition, but also mental condition, whereas, „flat foot‟ is only a physical condition of a person and question of triggering reaction in walking or losing grip while walking or running does not arise, even if he is called upon the Court or before the Medical Board.
53) In Inder Setia vs. Union of India & Others9 the petitioner sought quashing of the order declaring him unfit for recruitment/selection to the Flying Branch of the Indian Air Force with a direction to the respondents to select him for the Flying Branch. Here too, the petitioner had been rejected by the medical board on ground of having sub-standard vision and myopia beyond permissible limits in addition to VPCS. The petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Appellate Medical Board which also rejected him for enrolment to the Flying Branch but was declared fit for Technical Branch. In the present case, the petitioner is not on the same footing, but did not prefer an appeal before the Appellate Medical Board for examination to find fit for any other sedentary post, as AMVI consists of three categories, as referred in Paragraph No.31.
54) The law declared by various Courts is apparently distinguishable and it must be remembered that the ratio of any decision must be understood in the background of the facts of that case. What is of the essence in a decision is its ratio and not every observation found therein nor what logically follows from the various observations made in it. It must be remembered that a 9 [WP(C) No. 9080/2011] dated 07.02.2012 CJ & MSM,J WP.No.8594 of 2020 30 decision is only an authority for what it actually decides. It is well settled that a little difference in facts or additional facts may make a lot of difference in the precedential value of a decision. The ratio of one case cannot be mechanically applied to another case without having regard to the fact situation and circumstances in two cases. The Supreme Court in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd and Anr. vs. N.R. Vairamani and Another10 had held that a decision cannot be relied on without considering the factual situation. In the judgment the Supreme Court had observed:-
―Court should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. Observations of Courts are neither to be read as Euclid's theorems nor as provisions of the statute and that too taken out of their context. These observations must be read in the context in which they appear to have been stated. Judgments of Courts are not to be construed as statutes. To interpret words, phrases and provisions of a statute, it may become necessary for judges to embark into lengthy discussions but the discussion is meant to explain and not to define. Judges interpret statutes, they do not interpret judgments. They interpret words of statutes; their words are not to be interpreted as statutes.‖
55) By applying the principle laid down in the above judgments, it is difficult to accept the contention that this petitioner is entitled to claim relief in the present writ petition as a matter of right and the facts in the judgment referred above are totally different from the present facts of the case. The petitioner also placed reliance on the judgment of Madras High Court in R. Sharavanan vs. The Transport Commissioner11. A similar question came up regarding appointment of petitioner therein to the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade-II in the vacancy meant and reserved for physically disabled persons. But, after selection process is 10 AIR 2004 SC 778 11 W.P.No.9812 of 2012 dated 05.07.2012 CJ & MSM,J WP.No.8594 of 2020 31 completed, the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission denied appointment to the petitioner therein, as the petitioner was having „flat foot‟. The petitioner claimed appointment to the vacancy reserved for 3% posts of Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade-II to the physically challenged persons, as provided in the notification. The petitioner gained driving experience in 1994 itself and he was performing the duties of Driving Instructor, but, denial of appointment as Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade-II on the ground of deformity. But the learned single Judge of High Court of Madras went on discussing about various provisions with reference to the Rules framed under the Act and issued a direction.
56) The learned single Judge of Madras High Court also referred to judgments of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Mahesh Gupta vs. Yashwant Kumar Ahirwar12, Government of India vs. Ravi Prakash Gupta13, Syed Bashir-ud-din vs. Nazir Ahmed Shah14 and finally issued a direction to the respondents therein to issue appointment order to the petitioner therein after getting clarification from the Secretary, Transport Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, within a period of four weeks from the date of pronouncement of judgment.
57) In view of the principle laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd and Anr. vs. N.R. Vairamani and Another (referred above), this Court has to decide about the application of the principle. However, the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner is only a 12 (2007) 8 SCC 621 13 (2010) 7 SCC 626 14 (2010) 3 SCC 603 CJ & MSM,J WP.No.8594 of 2020 32 judgment of learned single Judge of Madras High Court, thereby, it is not a binding precedent. However, the facts in the above judgment are distinguishable, as the Transport Department was exempted from providing reservations, in view of second proviso to Section 34(1) of the Act, in the State of Andhra Pradesh. But, the Madras High Court in R. Sharavanan vs. The Transport Commissioner (referred above), the Notification impugned therein provides 3% reservations to disabled persons. But, in the Notification impugned in the present writ petition, no such reservation is provided. On the other hand, „flat foot‟ is a disqualification for being appointed as AMVI. Therefore, the principle laid down in the above judgment cannot be applied to the present facts of the case, in view of the fact situation referred above. Hence, we find no merit in the contention of this petitioner and the Recruitment Notification No 11/2018 Dated 5.12.2018, G.O.Ms.No.71 dated 19.02.2009 and G.O.Ms.No.147 dated 06.08.2016 cannot be declared as illegal, arbitrary and ultra vires to the Act, as it is defeating the rule of reservation provided under Section 34 of the Act, and such Act is arbitrary.
58) In view of our foregoing discussion, we find no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
59) In the result, writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
60) Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed.
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY,J SP