JUDGMENT :

JOYMALYA BAGCHI, J.

1. Order, dated 1.11.2018, passed in O.A. No. 1397 of 2015 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, (for short ‘the Tribunal’) directing the respondent to be considered for appointment to the post of Multi-Tasking Staff (for short ‘the MTS’) which was kept vacant by virtue of the interim order, dated 16.10.2015, for the purpose of giving effect to the statutory reservation upto 3% of the posts under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for short ‘the Act of 1995’) with a further direction to complete the entire process of appointment within the stipulated time is under challenge in the instant writ petition.

2. Factual matrix giving rise to the instant proceeding is to the effect that a notification was issued in December, 2012 by the petitioner-Union of India for recruitment of MTS in the Naval Armament Depot, Visakhapatnam. The respondent, who is a visually challenged person with 40% disability, responded to the said notification, participated in the written test and received a call letter for participation in the interview/physical endurance test. But the petitioners did not clear him in the physical endurance test as he was a visually challenged person. Under such circumstances, he approached the Tribunal seeking a declaration that the petitioners herein were required to provide for reservation to persons with disabilities in the aforesaid selection process and a direction for his appointment to the post of MTS by extending the rule of reservation under the Act of 1995. At the initial stage, the Tribunal, by order dated 16.10.2015, directed the petitioners to keep one post vacant, pending disposal of the O.A. Thereafter, upon hearing the parties, the Tribunal came to a finding that the petitioners had acted contrary to the Act of 1995 by not implementing the rule of reservation provided therein. Accordingly, a direction was given to the petitioners to consider the appointment of respondent to the post kept vacant by treating him as entitled to appointment under the persons with visual disability quota envisaged under Section 33 of the Act of 1995.

3. During hearing of the writ petition, the Union of India was called upon to furnish notification under the proviso to Section 33 exempting the post of MTS from the reservation provided under the Act of 1995.

4. Sri. Harinath N. learned Assistant Solicitor General, candidly admitted although an application for exemption has been made, no notification exempting the post of MTS from reservation in favour of persons with disabilities has been published. He, however, argues the case of the respondent could not have been considered under the reserved category as he had applied in the open category and participated in the selection process. It is also submitted once the respondent applied in the open category and participated in the selection process, he could not have challenged the selfsame notification and seek appointment by availing reservation under the Act of 1995.

5. Act of 1995 was promulgated in terms of the international commitments made by our country to ensure full participation and equality of people with disabilities in the society. The solemn pledge of equality of opportunity and dignity to all enshrined in our Preamble was sought to be extended to all individuals including those challenged with various disabilities by promulgation of the said legislation. The law provided for setting up of various authorities to lay down policies to extend equal opportunities to people with disabilities in the area of education, employment, affirmative action, social security as well as institutional assistance. Section 33 of the Act inter-alia provided that the appropriate Government shall in every establishment make appointment of not less than 3% of persons or classes of persons with disabilities of which 1% each shall be suffering from (i) blindness or low vision; (ii) hearing