1. Present writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India requesting this Court to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order passed on 12.12.2013 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, in case bearing T.A.No.470/2013 and consequently, to dismiss the said case T.A.No.470/2013.

2. Respondent was applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench. Respondent No.1-Yaswanth G.V. appeared for the Civil Service Examination (CSE) 2009, under the category "Physically Handicapped" (Visually impaired) and secured 107th rank. Hence, his name was recommended as a successful candidate by the Union Public Service Commission in VI sub-category of Physically handicapped category for services allocation on the basis of CSE2009. As per Rules 21 and 27 of Civil Service Examination, Yaswanth G.V., was asked to undergo a medical examination to testify his claim. The Central Standing Medical Board (CSMB) at New Delhi, conducted the examination and gave a finding certifying that he had 30% visual disability.

3. According to the statutory notification issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment Notification vide No.16-18/97 NI.I dated 01.06.2001, a person having vision between 40% and 75% would be categorized as person with low vision and those persons with vision impairment exceeding 76% would fall in the category of "persons with blindness". The same is clarified in the letter of Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities bearing No.Identification/Emp./CCD 2008 dated 05.08.2008. Therefore, it is contended that respondent No.1 Yashwanth cannot be considered as a person with low vision.

4. However, the respondent No.1 was given an opportunity to appeal against the findings of the Central Standing Medical Board (CSMB) Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi. Accordingly, medical examination was conducted by a Special Medical Board at Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi. Even as per the findings of the Medical Board at RML Hospital, the respondent No.1 has 30% visual disability and hence, according to the petitioner herein, respondent No.1 is not visually handicapped person in terms of the letter dated 05.08.2008 at Annexure 'A'.

5. Later on respondent No.1 gave a representation on 08.04.2011 stating that he has 30% visual disability and 15% locomotor disability and on the basis of the same, he put forth a claim being a person with multiple disabilities (Visual and Locomotor) so as to treat him as a person belonging to physically handicapped category. This fact of first respondent having 15% locomotor disability had been confirmed by the Medical Disability Board attached to Lady Curzon Hospital, Bangalore. This was done on an appeal made by the first respondent to the Director General of Health Services.

6. What is contended before this Court is that respondent No.1 has visual disability and the same is less than 40% and he cannot make any claim including 15% locomotor disability. According to him, the said 15% locomotor disability cannot be clubbed with the 30% visual disability. He cannot claim reservation on the basis of multiple disabilities, as per Section 33 of PWD Act, 1995, i.e., Act 1 of 1996.

7. Respondent No.2 the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment has opined that the first respondent cannot claim any benefit on the basis of multiple disabilities since visual disability is only 30%. On the basis of the opinion of the second respondent, it was held that respondent No.1 was not entitled to claim reservation on the ground that he is a physically handicapped person. According to the petitioner herein, there is no provision for reservation in employment for person with multiple disabilities with 40% and above where the percentage of disability in view of category mentioned above is less than 40% for availing of benefits including that of reservation in public employment. Hence, it is contended that the c