JUDGMENT :

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.

1. The interpretational purlieus of the words ‘recruitment year’ obtaining in Section 34 of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘PWD Act’ for short), has been thrown upon for consideration of this Court because, the petitioner, who has low vision, seeks appointment against the vacancy statutorily earmarked for persons like him, which was unfilled in the previous year on account of the fact that a person with benchmark disability was not available.

2. It is the petitioner’s specific contention that when 4% reservation cannot be achieved in a particular year - which he asserts to be a ‘calendar year’ solely because a person with a benchmark disability to one of the enumerated categories was not available, an attempt should have been made in the next ‘recruitment year’ to fill up the said vacancy with the specified category of person and if it is still unsuccessful, then it should have been filled up through interchange among the five categories enumerated in Section 34 (a) to (d).

3. However, the Kerala Agricultural University, which is the primary respondent in this case, takes the stand that Section 34(2) of