ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATHI
Joymalya Bagchi, K.Suresh Reddy, JJ.
K. Lazar Babu - Appellant
Versus
Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 24390 of 2014
Decided On : 26-07-2021
RESERVATION FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES - EXEMPTION FROM RESERVATION - PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES (EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES, PROTECTION OF RIGHTS AND FULL PARTICIPATION) ACT, 1995 - SECTION 33 - RULE 5(A) OF THE A.P. TRANSPORT SUBORDINATE SERVICE RULES - VALIDITY - APPOINTMENT TO THE POST OF ASSISTANT MOTOR VEHICLE INSPECTOR (AMVI) - ELIGIBILITY OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an orthopedically challenged person, applied for the post of AMVI in 2008. He possessed a driving license and was qualified in all respects. However, he was not appointed as Rule 5(a) of the A.P. Transport Subordinate Service Rules exempted physically challenged persons from appointment to the said post.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that Rule 5(a) of the A.P. Transport Subordinate Service Rules, which exempted physically challenged persons from appointment to the post of AMVI, was ultra vires to the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (the Act of 1995). The court also held that the subsequent notification, dated 22.03.2021, promulgated under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (the Act of 2016) was prospective in nature and did not affect the selection process to which the petitioner participated.
Issues: 1. Whether Rule 5(a) of the A.P. Transport Subordinate Service Rules, which exempted physically challenged persons from appointment to the post of AMVI, was ultra vires to the Act of 1995? 2. Whether the subsequent notification, dated 22.03.2021, promulgated under the Act of 2016 was applicable to the petitioner?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the exemption from the statutory rule of reservation could not have been issued in the manner as provided under Rule 5(a) of the Rules. Proviso to Section 33 of the Act of 1995 mandates that, the appropriate Government, upon considering the type of work carried on in any department or establishment, may issue notification subject to such conditions exempting such type of work/post from the provision of such Section. 2. The court held that the subsequent notification, dated 22.03.2021, promulgated under the Act of 2016 was prospective in nature and did not affect the selection process to which the petitioner participated.
Final Decision: The court allowed the Writ Petition and set-aside the order of the Tribunal in O.A. No.1480 of 2012, dated 23.01.2014. The court directed the respondents to appoint the petitioner to the post of AMVI in any available or future vacancies, in accordance with law, by applying the rule of reservation under Section 33 of the Act of 1995, within eight (8) weeks from the date of communication of this order.
JUDGMENT
(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Joymalya Bagchi)
1. The petitioner, who is an orthopedically challenged person, being partially affected with polio had overcome his adversities and sought appointment to the post of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector (for short, ‘AMVI’) in A.P. Transport Subordinate Service, pursuant to the Notification No.45/2008, dated 30.12.2008, issued by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC). Petitioner was qualified in all respects for the said post and, in fact, also possessed a driving license issued by the competent authority. However, as the respondents had exempted rule of reservation under Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for short, ‘the Act of 1995’) with regard to the said post, the petitioner was not given a call letter. In fact, Rule 5(a) of the A.P. Transport Subordinate Service Rules (for short, ‘the Rules’), prescribed no appointment shall be made for the post of AMVI in direct recruitment for Physically Handicapped Persons. Under such circumstances, petitioner approached the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in O.A. No.1480 of 2012, assailing the aforesaid Rule exempting reservation, praying for a direction upon the respondents to provide reservation to persons with disabilities under the Physically Handicapped especially Orthopedically handicapped persons to the post of AMVI, permit him to participate in the selection process, and appoint him to the said post with all consequential benefits. The matter was contested on behalf of the respondents, who contended before the Tribunal that the petitioner having participated in the selection process was estopped from challenging the process itself. It was further pleaded that in view of the very nature of duties of the AMVI, the post was exempted from the reserved categories under the Act of 1995. The Tribunal, having accepted the contentions of the respondents, dismissed the said Application. Hence, the petitioner is presently before this Court.
2. Sri J.Sudheer, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the reservations under the Act of 1995 were promulgated to give effect to international commitments and in furtherance of the constitutional mandate of extending the doctrine of equality and fraternity amongst all persons including persons with disabilities. It is further submitted no notification was issued by the appropriate Government exempting the nature of work i.e., the post of AMVI from the reservation under the proviso to Section 33 of the Act of 1995. Hence, the Tribunal erred in law in not setting-aside Rule 5(a) of the Rules, which is ultra vires to the Act of 2016 and in not directing the petitioner to be considered for appointment to the post of AMVI by applying the reservation as envisaged under the Act of 1995.
3. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, we called upon the State to clarify whether the impugned notification was issued in terms of the proviso to Section 33 of the Act of 1995. Additional documents have been filed before us wherefrom it appears that on 22.03.2021 a notification bearing G.O.Ms.No.4, purportedly new Act i.e., Act of 2016 was issued, which reads as follows:
Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector (by Direct Recruitment and Promotion), Transport Head Con
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.