SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH * * * *

WRIT PETITION Nos. 24475, 3758 & 22582 of 2021 W.P.No.24475 of 2021 Between:

Sripada Sai Ram .....PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary, Department of Animal Hysbandry and Fisheries, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District and another .....RESPONDENTS W.P.No.3758 of 2021 Between:

Metta Jyotsna and another .....PETITIONERS AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary, Department of Animal Hysbandry and Fisheries, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District and another .....RESPONDENTS W.P.No.22582 of 2021 Between:

Metta Jyotsna and another .....PETITIONERS AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary, Department of Animal Hysbandry and Fisheries, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District and another .....RESPONDENTS DATE OF COMMON JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 21.10.2022 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers Yes/No may be allowed to see the Judgments?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes/No marked to Law Reporters/Journals

3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the Yes/No fair copy of the Judgment?

_______________________

RAVI NATH TILHARI, J * THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI + WRIT PETITION Nos. 24475, 3758 & 22582 of 2021 % 21.10.2022 # W.P.No.24475 of 2021 Between:

Sripada Sai Ram .....PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary, Department of Animal Hysbandry and Fisheries, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District and another .....RESPONDENTS # W.P.No.3758 of 2021 Between:

Metta Jyotsna and another .....PETITIONERS AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary, Department of Animal Hysbandry and Fisheries, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District and another .....RESPONDENTS # W.P.No.22582 of 2021 Between:

Metta Jyotsna and another .....PETITIONERS AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary, Department of Animal Hysbandry and Fisheries, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District and another .....RESPONDENTS ! Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri M. Pitchaiah ^ Counsel for the respondents: Sri N. Aswartha Narayana, Govt. Pleader for Services – I < Gist :

> Head Note:

? Cases Referred: 1. (1978) 4 SCC 16

2. 2003 (1) ALT 127

3. 2021 SCC Online AP 511

4. (2021) 9 SCC 208 5. (1992) 1 SCC 335 6. (2018) 9 SCC 766

7. (2019) 14 SCC 794

8. (2002) 3 SCC 481 9. AIR 1961 SC 838 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI WRIT PETITION Nos. 24475, 3758 & 22582 of 2021

COMMON JUDGMENT:

Heard Sri M. Pitchaiah, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri N.

Aswartha Narayana, learned Government Pleader for Services-I, for the respondents in all the writ petitions.

2. In W.P.No.3758 of 2021 the petitioners are challenging G.O.Ms.No.2, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development & Fisheries (AH.I) Department, dated 05.01.2021, issued by the 1st respondent-the State of Andhra Pradesh being violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 (in short >the Act 2016?).

3. The 1st petitioner – Metta Jyotsna is a physically handicapped person, suffering from low vision to the extent of 40% as certified by the Medical Board of Rajiv Gandhi Institute Medical Sciences, Srikakulam on 25.03.2014 covered under the benchmark disability within the meaning of the Act 2016. The 1st petitioner is a Graduate in Bachelor of Veterinary Sciences ( in short >B.V.Sc?) and Animal Husbandry (A.H) and she studied in N.T.R.Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry College, Gannavaram, Krishna District during the academic year 2013-18.

4. The 2nd petitioner – Maddirala Avula Reddy is Graduate in B.V.Sc. and A.H. and studied the same during the academic years 2013-18 in the same N.T.R.Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry College, Gannavaram and he is visually handicapped (V.H)i.e., low vision to the extent of 40% as certified by the Medical Board of Rajiv Gandhi Institute of Medical Science, Ongole.

5. W.P.No.22582 of 2021 has been filed by the same petitioners as in W.P.No.3758 of 2021 and W.P.No.24475 of 2021 has been filed by Sripada Sai Ram challenging the Notification in Roc.No.917/BII/B2/2021, dated 24.09.2021, issued by the 2nd respondent-the Director of Animal Husbandry, Labbipet, Vijayawada, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh, by which, applications are invited from eligible candidates for recruitment of differently abled Orthopedically Handicapped (O.H) for 12 posts of Veterinary Assistant Surgeons under backlog vacancy of Class-A category (6) in Andhra Pradesh Animal Husbandry Department.

6. The petitioner in W.P.No.24475 of 2021 is a Graduate in B.V.Sc and A.H and studied during the academic year 2015-16 in the college of Veterinary Science, Tirupathi, which is affiliated to Sri Venkateswara Veterinary University, Tirupathi and passed in the year 2021. This petitioner is a physically handicapped person suffering from low vision (VH), as certified by the Medical Board of Government District Head Quarters Hospital, Eluru, West Godavari District on 06.12.2012, i.e., 40% of low vision.

7. Thus, in W.P.No.3758 of 2021 there is challenge to G.O.Ms.No.2, dated 05.01.2021 and in W.P.No.22582 of 2021 and W.P.No.24475 of 2021 there is challenge to the notification dated 24.09.2021.

8. The G.O.Ms.No.2, dated 05.01.2021 and the Notification dated

24.09.2021 have been challenged mainly on the common ground that it violates the equality clause inasmuch as certain class of physically handicapped i.e., O.H.category has been given undue advantage over other class of physically handicapped persons and thereby singling out the remaining physically handicapped classes or categories for hostile treatment which deprives them the equal opportunity and level playing field on par with orthopedically handicapped persons. The challenge is on the ground of discrimination being made contrary to Sections 3, 4, 20, 21 and 34 of the Act 2016 and being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

9. The grounds of challenge being common, with the consent of the parties? counsels all the three writ petitions are being decided by the common judgment.

10. Sri M. Pitchaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that

blindness and low vision.

11. Sri M. Pitchaiah further submitted that the second proviso to Section

34 of the Act 2016 makes it clear that the appropriate Government, in consultation with the Chief Commissioner, appointed under Section 79 of the Act, for the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top