JUDGMENT :

UJJAL BHUYAN, J.

Heard Mr. K.Rama Subba Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. M.V.Rama Rao, learned Special Government Pleader for Services representing the respondents.

2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 02.12.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing writ petition No.32524 of 2021 filed by the appellant as the writ petitioner.

2.1 Appellant had filed the related writ petition seeking the following reliefs:

To issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ (i) declare that the Notification issued by the 2nd respondent vide R.C.No.41/Rect./Admn-2/2021, dated 04/07/2021 in so far as prescribing the cut-off marks for PWDs and OCs at 40%, OBCs at 35% and SC and STs at 30% as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and (ii) declare that the PWD candidates are eligible for cutoff marks on par with SC and ST candidates and (iii) consequently direct the respondents to evaluate Paper-II of the Writ Petitioner and consider him for further selection to the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor as per his eligibility and (vi) pass such order or other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.

3. By the order under appeal, learned Single Judge took the view that appellant knew about the minimum qualifying marks of 40 % as open category candidate to which he belonged; with no minimum marks being prescribed for persons with disabilities. Having participated in the written examination, it is not open to the appellant to turn around and contend that relaxation should be given to him in respect of minimum qualifying marks as a person with disabilities. Observing that at the best appellant can submit a representation before the respondents seeking relaxation of minimum qualifying marks under the quota for persons with disabilities, learned Single Judge however held that no such direction as has been sought for can be granted by the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed as having no merit.

4. Appellant is an orthopaedically challenged person having right lower limb impairment since birth due to post polio paralysis. Disability suffered by the appellant is to the extent of 57%.

5. Appellant obtained L.L.B. degree from University College of Law, Kakatiya University, Warangal in the year 2010. He got himself enrolled with the Bar Council on 30.09.2010 and since then he has been practising law as an advocate in Ranga Reddy District.

6. Second respondent issued notification dated 04.07.2021 calling for applications through online mode for direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor (Category-7) in Telangana State Prosecution Service. Number of notified vacancies were 151 which were divided amongst multi-zone-I and II with 68 and 83 vacancies respectively. As per category-wise break up of vacancies, a total of two posts were reserved for orthopaedically handicapped between the two zones. It was notified that the selection procedure would be through a written examination comprising of two papers. Paper-I for 100 marks would be of objective type, whereas Paper-II comprising of 100 marks would be of descriptive type. Note (iv) of clause 12 of the notification mentioned the minimum marks to be secured by a candidate in order to qualify in the written examination:- open category (OC) – 40%; backward class (BC) – 35%; scheduled caste (SC) - 30% and scheduled tribe (ST) – 30%.

7. It was further mentioned that only those candidates who qualify in Paper-I i.e., objective type would be eligible for evaluation of their Paper-II i.e., descriptive type.

8. Appellant belongs to OC category but is also covered by the quota for persons with disability particularly for the two posts reserved for orthopedically handicapped.

9. Appellant submitted application for the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor in terms of