The proviso to Rule 22 (2)(e) of the A.P. State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1996, carves out an exception to the general rule, allowing for the appointment of a qualified male candidate with the same disability if no qualified women candidates are available.

JUDGMENT

This Writ Petition is filed for the following relief:

“…..to issue any writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings of the 4th respondent in Rc.No.ESE02/141/2019-TET- CSE, dated 06.03.2021 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to para 17 of the notification issued by the Commissioner inviting applications for the posts, Rule 20 of the TET cum TRT Rules, 2019 issued by the Government read with the Proviso to Rule-22(2)(e) of A.P. State and Subordinate Rules, 1996, procedure for carry forward, interchange process of vacancies under section 34 (2) of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and also the order of this Hon’ble Court in W.P.No.23491/2020, dated 19.02.2021 and consequently direct the 4th respondent to appoint the petitioner for the above said post and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

2. This Court has heard Sri Raja Reddy Koneti, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-III, who has filed his counter affidavit on behalf of the 2nd respondent, the main answering respondent.

FACTUAL BACKDROP:-

3. The petitioner before this Court is a physically challenged person, with a serious visual disability. He has applied for a job with the respondent. As he was not selected he has filed the present Writ Petition questioning the respondent’s interpretation of the rule in question, by which his case was negatived.

4. It is a fact that both the Union Government and the State Government have encouraged and are trying to encourage the persons with disabilities by ensuring that adequate representation is there in employment among other things. By virtue of the periodic amendments in public employment for people with disability the present reservation in the jobs for the disabled stands at 4%. In the case on hand the Notification dated 15.02.2019 also provides for similar reservations in line with the earlier GOs, which was issued on the subject. The petitioner has applied for and tried to get selection, but as he was not given an appointment in the applicable roster point, according to him, he has filed W.P.No.23491 of 2020, wherein the learned Single Judge interpreted the Rule 22 (2)(e) of A.P. State and Subordinate Rules, 1996 and directed the respondents therein (present 2nd respondent included) to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment for a particular roster. The petitioner made a representation based on the orders passed by the Court. However, by proceedings dated 06.03.2021, the candidature of the petitioner was rejected once again. In the said proceedings, it was mentioned by the respondents as the petitioner is a male and the applicable roster point is reserved for women it does not permit them to fill up the post. The respondents urged that the roster has to be carried forward and only after completion of three recruitments the case of others can be considered, if qualified women candidates are not available.

5. The other admitted facts are G.O.Ms.No.23 issued on 26.05.2011 initially provided for three points in a roster of 100 points. These are at 6th, 31st and 56th. These were allotted to visually handicapped, hearing handicapped etc., as stipulated in the G.O. This was later amended by GO.Ms.No.4, dated 09.02.2019 and roster point 82 was fixed for candidates with autism, intellectual disabilities etc. The modifications etc., are not in doubt. Therefore, they are not being reproduced at length.

PETITIONERS CASE:-

6. As per the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Raja Reddy Koneti the G.O.Ms.No.23 which provided for the initial reservation is as follows:

“Where in any recruitment year, any vacancy cannot be filled up due to non availability of a suitable person with disability or, for any other sufficient reason as specified above, such vacancy shall be carried forward to the succeeding recruitment year for being filled from the