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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 48878

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
Md. Shakeel Ahmed – Appellant
Versus
The District Medical and Health Officer – Respondent
WP 19470/2025



THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.19470 OF 2025

ORDER:

Heard Sri Poodattu Amarender, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for respondents and perused the material available on record.

2. The present writ petition is filed declaring the action of the respondents in not promoting the petitioner to the post of Junior Assistant, by implementing the Rule of Reservation in favour of disabled categories as provided under G.O.Ms.No.42, Department for Women, Children, Differently abled and Senior Citizens dated 19.10.2011.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a visually handicapped (blind) person with 100% disability and was initially appointed as Thoty on 08.10.2010, which is a class-IV post under the control of the 1st respondent. Subsequently, the petitioner was appointed as Office Sub- ordinate on 17.08.2013 and since then, working as Office Sub- Ordinate. It is further submitted that the petitioner had passed all the required departmental tests for promotion to the post of Junior Assistant and he belong to BC-E category and he is fully qualified for promotion to the post of Junior Assistant in the disabled quota, as a matter of policy, the Government is providing reservation in promotions to the differently abled persons.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that, G.O.Ms.No.42 dated 19.10.2011 is squarely applicable to the petitioner, but the respondents are not considering his case for promotion to the post of Junior Assistant by implementing reservation in promotions to the differently abled employees as provided in G.O.Ms.No.42 dated 19.10.2011.

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has submitted instructions and the relevant portion of the instructions is as under:

“As the matter stood thus, with regards to awarding promotion to the petitioner Sri Shakeel Ahmed presently working as the Office Sub ordinate at O/o District Medical & health Officer, Mahabubnagar, it is pertinent to submit that, in order to promote him from the feeder category of Class IV (Office Sub-Ordinate) to the post of Junior Assistant under the ambit of 3% reservation to the Visually Handicapped Person (General), as mentioned in the Government orders read in ref 2nd and 3rd the recruitment must reach to the 106th point, which is earmarked for Visually Handicapped Person (General). Further it is informed that, no vacancies were carried forwarded in respect of handicapped person from previous roster points in the category of Junior Assistant.”

6. Per Contra, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the relevant portion of the G.O.Ms.No.99, dated 04.03.2013, which reads as under:

“The 6th, 31st and 56th turns in each cycle of hundred (100) vacancies shall be or Cerebral Palsy allotted to the Blindness or Low Vision (Visually Handicapped), Hearing Impaired (Hearing Handicapped) and (Orthopaedically Handicapped) persons respectively as stated above and where qualified and suitable candidates are not available from among them, the turn allotted for them in the unit referred to above shall be carried forward to the succeeding recruitment year for being filled from the same category. If, in that year also, qualified candidates of the same category are not available, the same shall be notified for being filled up by interchanging from among the three categories. Only when there is no person with disability of any of the 3 categories available for the post, the vacancy shall be filled up by the employer by appointment of a person, other than a person with disability. Provided that if qualified women candidates are not available for the posts reserved for women, qualified men candidates of the same category of disabled may be appointed."

It is further submitted that the petitioner is a fit candidate for allotting him wherever there is a vacancy in terms of G.O.Ms.No.99 dated 04.03.2013 as re

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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top