Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.
Sripada Sai Ram – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh and another – Respondents
Writ Petition Nos. 24475, 3758 & 22582 of 2021
Decided on : 21-10-2022
The impugned G.O.Ms.No.2, dated 05.01.2021 and the Notification dated 24.09.2021 suffer from no violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and Section 34 of the Act 2016.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who are physically handicapped persons, challenged the G.O.Ms.No.2, dated 05.01.2021 and the Notification dated 24.09.2021 issued by the Animal Husbandry Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, on the ground that they violate the equality clause inasmuch as certain class of physically handicapped i.e., O.H.category has been given undue advantage over other class of physically handicapped persons and thereby singling out the remaining physically handicapped classes or categories for hostile treatment which deprives them the equal opportunity and level playing field on par with orthopedically handicapped persons.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the impugned G.O.Ms.No.2, dated 05.01.2021 and the Notification dated 24.09.2021 were issued in exercise of the power conferred by the second proviso to Section 34 (1) of the Act 2016 which enables the Government to grant exemption, therefore, granting exemption vide Government Order dated 05.01.2021 in terms of the second proviso to Section 34 of the Act 2016 cannot be said to be in any way contrary to or inconsistent with Section 34 of the Act 2016.
Issues: Whether the impugned G.O.Ms.No.2, dated 05.01.2021 and the Notification dated 24.09.2021 suffer from violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and Section 34 of the Act 2016?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the impugned G.O.Ms.No.2, dated 05.01.2021 and the Notification dated 24.09.2021 are neither without jurisdiction nor suffer from any violation of Section 34 of the Act 2016 or Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Court observed that Section 34 of the Act 2016 itself provides for criteria for grant of exemption i.e., having regard to the type of work carried out in any Government establishment and therefore the Act 2016 itself provides for such classification based on “nature of work” which can be performed by the persons suffering from one kind of disability but cannot be performed effectively by the persons suffering from other kind of disability. Such a classification based on “nature of work” could not be argued to be not a reasonable classification.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed all the writ petitions filed by the petitioners, holding that the impugned G.O.Ms.No.2, dated 05.01.2021 and the Notification dated 24.09.2021 are neither without jurisdiction nor suffer from any violation of Section 34 of the Act 2016 or Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
1. Challenge to reservation notification excluding non-orthopedically handicapped benchmark disability categories from Veterinary Assistant Surgeon posts in Animal Husbandry Department under Act 2016. (Para 2000550030001 , 2000550030002 , 2000550030003 , 2000550030004 , 2000550030005 , 2000550030006 , 2000550030007 , 2000550030008 )
2. Petitioners contend exclusion of non-OH disability categories violates Section 34 of Act 2016 and Article 14; respondent argues exemption under second proviso based on nature of work is valid. (Para 2000550030010 , 2000550030011 , 2000550030012 , 2000550030013 , 2000550030014 , 2000550030015 , 2000550030016 , 2000550030017 , 2000550030018 , 2000550030066 , 2000550030067 , 2000550030068 , 2000550030069 , 2000550030071 , 2000550030072 , 2000550030073 , 2000550030074 )
3. All three writ petitions dismissed; impugned G.O. and notification held valid, no violation of Section 34 of Act 2016 or Article 14 of Constitution. (Para 2000550030099 )
Yes, the second proviso to Section 34(1) of the Act 2016 empowers the appropriate Government, in consultation with the State Commissioner, to exempt any Government establishment from reservation for certain categories of benchmark disabilities having regard to the type of work carried on in that establishment. (Para 2000550030033 , 2000550030035 , 2000550030042 , 2000550030067 , 2000550030096 )
Yes, the exemption granted by the inter-departmental committee, with the State Commissioner as Member-Convener, is valid and does not violate Article 14, as the classification based on nature of work is reasonable and the expert body's decision merits deference. (Para 2000550030051 , 2000550030053 , 2000550030057 , 2000550030060 , 2000550030061 , 2000550030096 , 2000550030099 )
Yes, Section 102(2) of the Act 2016 provides that anything done under the repealed Act 1995 is deemed to have been done under the corresponding provisions of the Act 2016; the second proviso to Section 34 is the corresponding provision to the proviso to Section 33. (Para 2000550030078 , 2000550030080 , 2000550030081 , 2000550030082 , 2000550030083 , 2000550030091 , 2000550030092 )
No, when valid exemption has been granted under the second proviso to Section 34(1) having regard to the nature of work, persons with benchmark disabilities other than the orthopedically handicapped category cannot claim reservation in such exempted posts. (Para 2000550030055 , 2000550030094 , 2000550030095 , 2000550030098 )
Yes, the inter-departmental committee validly accorded permission as it was properly constituted with the State Commissioner as Member-Convener and the exemption was granted having regard to the type of work carried out in the Animal Husbandry Department. (Para 2000550030051 , 2000550030053 , 2000550030057 , 2000550030060 , 2000550030061 )
JUDGMENT :
Heard Sri M. Pitchaiah, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri N. Aswartha Narayana, learned Government Pleader for Services-I, for the respondents in all the writ petitions.
2. In W.P.No.3758 of 2021 the petitioners are challenging G.O.Ms.No.2, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development & Fisheries (AH.I) Department, dated 05.01.2021, issued by the 1st respondent-the State of Andhra Pradesh being violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 (in short “the Act 2016”).
3. The 1st petitioner – Metta Jyotsna is a physically handicapped person, suffering from low vision to the extent of 40% as certified by the Medical Board of Rajiv Gandhi Institute Medical Sciences, Srikakulam on 25.03.2014 covered under the benchmark disability within the meaning of the Act 2016. The 1st petitioner is a Graduate in Bachelor of Veterinary Sciences (in short “B.V.Sc”) and Animal Husbandry (A.H) and she studied in N.T.R.Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry College, Gannavaram, Krishna District during the academic year 2013-18.
4. The 2nd petitioner – Maddirala Avula Reddy is Graduate in B.V.Sc. and A.H. and studied the same during the academic years 2013-18 in the same N.T.R.Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry College, Gannavaram and he is visually handicapped (V.H)i.e., low vision to the extent of 40% as certified by the Medical Board of Rajiv Gandhi Institute of Medical Science, Ongole.
5. W.P.No.22582 of 2021 has been filed by the same petitioners as in W.P.No.3758 of 2021 and W.P.No.24475 of 2021 has been filed by Sripada Sai Ram challenging the Notification in Roc.No.917/BII/B2/2021, dated 24.09.2021, issued by the 2nd respondent-the Director of Animal Husbandry, Labbipet, Vijayawada, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh, by which, applications are invited from eligible candidates for recruitment of differently abled Orthopedically Handicapped (O.H) for 12 posts of Veterinary Assistant Surgeons under backlog vacancy of Class-A category (6) in Andhra Pradesh Animal Husbandry Department.
6. The petitioner in W.P.No.24475 of 2021 is a Graduate in B.V.Sc and A.H and studied during the academic year 2015-16 in the college of Veterinary Science, Tirupathi, which is affiliated to Sri Venkateswara Veterinary University, Tirupathi and passed in the year 2021. This petitioner is a physically handicapped person suffering from low vision (VH), as certified by the Medical Board of Government District Head Quarters Hospital, Eluru, West Godavari District on 06.12.2012, i.e., 40% of low vision.
7. Thus, in W.P.No.3758 of 2021 there is challenge to G.O.Ms.No.2, dated 05.01.2021 and in W.P.No.22582 of 2021 and W.P.No.24475 of 2021 there is challenge to the notification dated 24.09.2021.
8. The G.O.Ms.No.2, dated 05.01.2021 and the Notification dated 24.09.2021 have been challenged mainly on the common ground that it violates the equality clause inasmuch as certain class of physically handicapped i.e., O.H.category has been given undue advantage over other class of physically handicapped persons and thereby singling out the remaining physically handicapped classes or categories for hostile treatment which deprives them the equal opportunity and level playing field on par with orthopedically handicapped persons. The challenge is on the ground of discrimination being made contrary to Sections 3, 4, 20, 21 and 34 of the Act 2016 and being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
9. The grounds of challenge being common, with the consent of the parties’ counsels all the three writ petitions are being decided by the common judgment.
10. Sri M. Pitchaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that Section 34 of the Act 2016 provides that every appropriate Government shall appoint in every Government establishment not less than 4% of the total number of vacancies in the cadre strength in each group of the posts meant to be filled with persons with benchmar
AI
University of Kerala would not be justified in granting approval to the appointments granted by the 5th respondent when those appointments were clearly in violation to the provisions of law.
Eligibility for appointment in reserved categories depends on the specific nature of disability as defined by law, not merely on the candidate's performance.
The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 mandates reservation for persons with multiple disabilities, including those with locomotor disability and visual disability, and the employer is obl....
Disability – 3% reservation is to be in an establishment and not in all cadres of an establishment irrespective of nature of job.
Reservation under the Persons with Disabilities Act is constitutionally mandated and cannot be denied due to post identification lapses; violations warrant legal remedy.
Persons with benchmark disabilities entitled to 4% reservation in promotion to identified posts irrespective of mode, notionally from 30.06.2016 subject to eligibility via review committee; supernume....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the benefit of reservation under the Act, 2016 could not be extended as the relevant rule basis upon which the advertisement was published was....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
