P. R. Ramachandra Menon, J.

Whether the reservation envisaged under Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for short, the Act) with reference to the posts identified under Section 32 of the very same enactment would extend to the case of promotion as well, is the moot question raised in these original petitions. Since the point to be considered is only with regard to the legal position, as no factual controversy is involved, both these original petitions are heard together. For convenience of the reference, the factual position is referred to as in O.P.(KAT) No.154 of 2015.

2. The petitioner joined the service initially as an L.D. Typist in the Revenue Department on 29/05/1981. Later, he was promoted to the post of U.D. Typist after ten years, in 1991. There was a category change on 18/10/1995 as U.D. Clerk, when the petitioner was absorbed in the Rural Development Department, from the Revenue Department. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted as Head Clerk on 29/10/2003 and thereafter as Accounts Officer on 08/01/2010. It is stated that there was a reversion to the post of Head Clerk in December, 2012, but, the same was subject to challenge by approaching the KAT and it is stated that the petitioner is now occupying the chair of Accounts Officer.

3. The petitioner put up a claim for promotion to the post of Assistant Development Commissioner/Administrative Assistant in the Rural Development Department, by extending the benefit of reservation of 3% envisaged under Section 33 of the Act. The request was not acceded to. It made the petitioner to approach the Tribunal by filing O.A. No.2433 of 2014. Before the Tribunal, the contention of the petitioner was mainly that no distinction could be drawn between 'appointment', and 'promotion', while giving effect to the provisions of the Act. It was pointed out that the matter was considered by the Bombay High Court in National Confederation for Development of Disabled and another v. Union of India and Ors., wherein a positive direction was given to the Government to consider the case of the aspirants for promotion as well. Though the said verdict was challenged before the Apex Court by way of Civil Appeal No.9096 of 2013, interference was declined, observing that reservation had to be there in respect of all categories, i.e., Group A, B, C and E posts. Placing reliance on the said verdict, petitioner sought to extend the benefit of reservation with reference to promotion as well and sought for interference of the Tribunal. After hearing the matter, interference was declined, referring to the fate of similar original applications as in the case of O.A. (EKM) No.2 of 2015. Accordingly, the O.A. was dismissed holding that there was no provision of law so as to extend the benefit of reservation under Section 33 of the Act for promotion under any circumstance; which is under challenge before this Court.

4. Incidentally, it is to be noted that the verdict which is sought to be relied on, for passing the order in O.P.(KAT) No.154 of 2015 is the order dated 15/01/2015 in O.A. No.2 of 2015. The said verdict is under challenge in the other original petition; i.e. O.P.(KAT) No.156 of 2015. A contention is also raised to the effect that the Government itself has issued Annexure-A6 letter dated 05/03/2014 addressing all the Heads of Departments and others concerned, to identify the posts and compute the number of vacancies so as to accommodate the disabled persons in terms of the 'Act', which is cited as an instance to give effect to the provisions of the 'Act' in the matter of 'promotion' as well.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners places heavy reliance on the verdict of the Bombay High Court, which is cited as the law, by virtue of dismissal of the case preferred before the Ap