Petitioner is working as Watcher in Chakangari Devaswom in Ambalapuzha Group under the first respondent-Travancore Devaswom Board. He is a physically handicapped person with hearing impairment and his disability is certified as 42%, in Ext.P2. Claiming appointment to the post of L.D Clerk/Sub group Officer under the 3% quota to be reserved for the physically handicapped under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), petitioner submitted representations Exts.P3, P4 and P5 before the respondents. Apart from that, he submitted another representation Ext.P6 before the Secretary to Social Justice Department. On receipt of the representations submitted by him, the Commissioner of Devaswom had called for a report from the Assistant Commissioner who forwarded Ext.P7 report furnishing the details of qualification, the particulars of service as well as percentage of disability of the petitioner. Seeing that the respondents were not taking any action for appointment in terms of the provisions contained in the Act, he filed this writ petition praying for a direction to the respondents to implement the provisions contained in the Act, 1995 for appointment by transfer to the post of L.D Clerk/Sub group Officer under the Devaswom Board and for consequential directions.

2. The respondent Board has filed a statement stating that the reservation for physically disabled persons under the 1995 Act is admissible only for appointment by direct recruitment and not for promotion and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get promotion only when his turn arises as per the rank assigned to him in the seniority list.

3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent.

4. Learned Standing Counsel opposed the prayers relying on the judgment of this Court reported in Sivadasan O. v. State of Kerala and Another [2015 (4) KHC 257)], in which it was held that reservation for physically handicapped envisaged in the 1995 Act is not applicable to promotion.

5. The objection raised by the respondent relying on the judgment of this Court is not sustainable in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the judgment in W.P.(C). No.22488/2009: CDJ 2016 Ker HC 813, this Court has also held that reservation is permissible for promotion also.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgments of Apex Court in Union of India and Others v. National Confederation for Development of Disabled and Another [2015 (13) SCC 643], in this judgment the issue which arose before the Apex Court was in respect of the promotion to the cadre of Indian Administrative Service from the State Civil Services or by selection from persons who are holding gazetted posts in connection with the affairs of the State. In that case the Union Public Service Commission contended that Section 33 of the PWD Act does not provide for reservation in the matter of promotion, among other contentions. The Apex Court after referring to its earlier judgment, in Union of India and Others v. National Confederation for Blind reported in [2010 (7) SCC 626] and Popat Bahiru Govardhane v. Land Acquisition Officer [2013 (10) SCC 772], where it was held that the percentage of reservation for persons with disabilities has to be computed on total number of vacancies in the cadre strength. In paragraph 10, it was held as follows:

In view of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, it is clear that reservation has to be computed with reference to the total number of vacancies in the cadre strength and, therefore, no distinction can be made between the posts to be filled in by direct recruitment and by promotion.

Total number of vacancies in the cadre strength would include the vacancies to be filled in by nomination and vacancies to be filled in by promotion.

7. Therefore it is held that no distinction can be made with respect t