Vacancies for differently-abled individuals can be carried forward to subsequent recruitment years if no suitable candidates are found. Non-differently-abled candidates may only be considered in later recruitment.

For the Appellant : Mr.S.Udaya Kumar For the Respondents : Mr.J.C.Durairaj Additional Government Pleader for R1 and R3 Mr.R.Neelakandan Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.R.Siddharth Standing Counsel for R2 JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was made by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.)

This intra-Court appeal has been directed against the order passed by the Writ Court dated 03.11.2025 made in W.P.No.31396 of 2023.

2. The appellant was the writ petitioner, who participated in the selection process undertaken by the second respondent, namely the Teachers Recruitment Board, In short, hereinafter referred as “TRB”., for appointment to the post of P.G. Assistant (Geography). The appellant/writ petitioner was qualified to hold the post, therefore, he participated in the selection process and since he belongs to the Backward Class Community, he could compete either in the open competition (General) or Backward Class (General).

3. Insofar as the distribution of vacancies for the subject 'Geography' as per the notification is concerned, two posts are reserved for Backward Class Community, one post is reserved for Backward Class – Differently-Abled under Category 4 and one post for Backward Class (Women).

4. Insofar as the Backward Class (Women) is concerned, since the appellant/writ petitioner is a male, he cannot participate. Insofar as Backward Class (General) is concerned, for the two posts reserved, he could compete. In respect of Backward Class (General), for two posts reserved under the subject 'Geography', due to the cut-off marks, he was not able to reach the zone of consideration, therefore, at that juncture, the grievance of the appellant/writ petitioner appears to be that, the one post reserved for Backward Class – Differently-Abled under Category 4, which has not been filled up, could be filled up by a nondifferently-abled person like the appellant/writ petitioner, belonging to the same Community and that has not been done, is his further grievance.

5. In this context, the learned Writ Court, having considered the factual matrix and also Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016², has concluded that, since the one vacancy earmarked for Backward Class – Differently-Abled under Category 4 is a current vacancy, if there are no suitable candidates available in Category 4 of the Differently-Abled persons in the current year, the same could be carried forward to the next recruitment year and accordingly, the same since has been carried forward, the induction

2 For brevity, hereinafter referred as “the Act of 2016”.

of the appellant/writ petition, who secured 80 marks out of 149 marks, whereas the cut-off marks for Backward Class Community was 81 marks, cannot be included, being a nondifferently-abled candidate. That was the reason, the learned Judge rejected the writ petition and dismissed the same through the order impugned. 6. Mr.S.Udaya Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/writ petitioner has raised a point that, once a suitable candidate is not available under the same communal category, which is reserved further for differently-abled persons, the same could be filled up by non-differently abled persons belonging to the same communal category. As the appellant/writ petitioner secured 80 marks, that is next in command, whereas, the selected candidate secured 81 marks, naturally, the appellant/writ petitioner has to be selected under the said one vacancy earmarked for Backward Class Differently-Abled Persons under Category 4, which, they have failed to do so, hence, it has to be interfered with, is his contention.

7. We have heard Mr.R.Neelakandan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent TRB, who would submit that, as per Section 3