The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Government Order dated 01.08.2009 allowed the post reserved for physically handicapped to be filled by a candidate with other physical disabilities when no candidate belonging to physically handicapped (low vision) was available, and this principle influenced the court's decision in favor of the respondent.

JUDGMENT

S.R. Krishna Kumar, J. - This intra-Court appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 08.10.2021 passed in W.P. No. 2393/2019 by the learned Single Judge, whereby, the said petition filed by the respondent was allowed by quashing the impugned Notification bearing No. 4/2018 dated 14.12.2018 as well as Endorsement bearing No. 44205:2018 dated 27.12.2018 and thereby directing the appellant to consider the case of the respondent to the post of Process Server under the category 'GM-PH', if the respondent was otherwise eligible and appoint the respondent as a Process Server.

2. Heard the learned counsel for appellant and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.

3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the appeal and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order was contrary to Sections 33 and 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act; that the respondent was not eligible to seek appointment under Notification dated 30.10.2013 to the post of Process Server, since the same applied only to the persons who are visually impaired; that the Government Order dated 01.08.2009 relied upon by the learned Single Judge could not have been made the basis to uphold the claim of the respondent that there was no error committed by the appellant in rejecting the claim of the respondent, who was undisputedly hearing impaired and not visually impaired as required for his appointment and that the decision relied upon by the learned Single Judge was not applicable to the facts of the instant case. It is therefore contended that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is erroneous and contrary to law as well as the material on record and that the same deserves to be set aside.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent, in addition to supporting the impugned order submits that there is no merit in the appeal and that the same is liable to be dismissed.

5. A perusal of the material on record including the impugned order will clearly indicate that the learned Single Judge has correctly and properly considered and appreciated the entire material on record including the relevant statutory provisions, Notifications etc., and has recorded a finding that the Government Order dated 01.08.2009 which enables and entitles the respondent to seek appointment under the physically handicapped quota, in the event no candidate belonging to physically handicapped (low vision) was available and was in force as on 30.10.2013, on which date, the Notification was issued inviting applications for the post of a Process Server. The learned Single Judge has also held that the Circular dated 19.02.2018 relied upon by the appellant was only prospective in nature and the same cannot be applied retrospectively for the purpose of rejecting the claim of the respondent. While arriving at the aforesaid conclusion, the learned Single Judge is held as under:-

"2. The respondent, by notification dated 30.10.2013 invited applications from eligible candidates to fill up two posts of Process Server. Out of two posts, one post was reserved for category 2A and the other was reserved for General Merit (PH) (Vision Impairment). The qualification prescribed was SSLC. The petitioner applied for the post of Process Server claiming reservation under 2A category as well as physically challenged quota. The petitioner was called for interview under notice dated 27.09.2018 (Annexure-E). Annexure-F indicates the marks obtained by the petitioner in the interview i.e., 6.5 out of 10 marks. Under notification dated 26.10.2018 (Annexure-G) of the respondent, one post of Process Server was filled up which was meant for category 2A Rural. But one post meant for General Merit (Physically Handicapped) (for short GM-PH) (blind/low vision) was not filled up and in that regard, it is stated that a fresh notification would be issued. The petitioner named in additional l