Promotion and employment placement for individuals with disabilities must align with prior seniority rules and established court judgments.

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is currently working as Lower Division Clerk in the Maramath wing of the respondent Board. The facts in the writ petition would indicate that, he entered service as Part Time Santhi on 30.03.2000. While working as a Santhi on 02.08.2000, he met with a train accident, which led to an amputation of his left leg below the knee, that left the petitioner with a 40% disability as was assessed by a Medical Board. Taking note of the accident suffered by the petitioner, and his consequent disability, the petitioner was granted a category change as Peon in the Devaswom wing with effect from 01.08.2001. During the said period, as per the Rules relating to promotion to the post of Lower Division Clerk/Sub Group Officer Grade II, there was a reservation of 22% of the posts of Lower Division Clerk/Sub Group Officer Grade II reserved for filling up through establishment employees and temple employees to the extent of 8% and 14% respectively. The petitioner being a temple employee staked his claim for promotion against the 14%

vacancies reserved for temple employees. By Ext.P2 order dated 02.04.2007 the respondent Board, with a view to effect promotions against the said quotas reserved for establishment employees and temple employees, directed the vacancy position to be ascertained. When despite the specific directions of the Board no steps were taken to ascertain the vacancy, the petitioner and others approached this Court through W.P(C).No.32588 of 2006, which was disposed by Ext.P3 judgment directing the respondent Board to ascertain the vacancy position. Pursuant to the directions in Ext.P3 judgment, the Devaswom Commissioner by Ext.P4 order dated 12.01.2009, found that, the petitioner as also the other persons, who approached this Court seeking promotion in the quota earmarked for temple employees, could be accommodated against vacancies that arose prior to 2007, the date on which the Rules were amended so as to provide for a common seniority list of establishment employees and temple employees for the purposes of promotion as Lower Division Clerk/Sub Group Officer Grade II. While others similarly placed as the petitioner were promoted as Lower Division Clerks, the petitioner was denied promotion stating that he was earlier promoted as Peon in the establishment. Aggrieved by Ext.P4 order of the Devaswom Commissioner to the extent it denied the petitioner promotion to the posts of Lower Division Clerk/Sub Group Officer Grade II, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Board and also approached this Court through W.P(C).No.4017 of 2009. In the appeal, the claim of the petitioner was rejected for the reason that the petitioner could not be considered for promotion since he had earlier been promoted as Peon. Ext.P5 is the order passed by the Board in the appeal preferred by the petitioner. On receipt of Ext.P5 order, the petitioner amended his writ petition to incorporate a challenge against the said order as well. The writ petition was subsequently disposed by Ext.P6 judgment dated 10.11.2014, where Ext.P5 order was quashed and the respondent Board was directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion to any of the vacancies that occurred prior to the amendment, in accordance with the unamended Rules, to the post of Lower Division Clerk/Sub Group Officer Grade II, with effect from the date on which his immediate junior was given promotion to the said category. Thereafter, and in purported compliance with the directions in Ext.P6 judgment, the Devaswom Commissioner proceeded to pass Ext.P7 order dated 07.04.2015 finding the petitioner entitled to the promotion. By Exts.P9 and P10 posting orders dated 29.04.2015 and 06.05.2015, however, the petitioner was posted as a Lower Division Clerk in the Maramath wing of the respondent Board. The said posting led the petitioner to prefer Ext.P11 representation before the Devaswom Commissioner pointing out that the posting of the petitioner as Lower Div