Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Nallamala Nageswaraiah vs The State Of Ap on 28 March, 2022
Bench: Honble The Justice, M.Satyanarayana Murthy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
W.P.No.8594 of 2020
(Proceedings through physical mode)
Nallamalla Nageswaraiah
s/o Venkata Ramana
r/o V. Papireddygari Palli,
Rayachoti mandal
YSR Kadapa District .. Appellant/Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary -
Transport Department, Secretariat,
Amaravathi, Guntur District,
Andhra Pradesh and four others.
.. Respondents
Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. Venkateswarlu Kolla
Counsel for
1. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 - Government Pleader for Services-II
2. Respondent No.4 - Mr. N.A. Ramachandra Murthy,
Standing Counsel for APPSC
3. Respondent No.5 - Mr. J. Sudheer
ORDER
Dt. 28.03.2022
(Per M.Satyanarayana Murthy, J)
1) Initially this writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking the following relief:
"declaring that G.O.Ms.No.147 FINANCE HR I Plg Policy
DEPARTMENT date 6.8.2016 and AP Transport Subordinate
Service Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.529 Transport Roads And
Buildings (Ports) Department Dt 04.06.1999 are illegal
arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Rights of Persons
With Disabilities Act, 2016 and violative of provision of
Constitution of India and consequently set aside the
CJ & MSM,J
WP.No.8594 of 2020
Recruitment Notification No 11/2018 Dt 5.12.2018 issued by
R4 for Recruitment of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspectors in
Transport Department of the state and/or to declare that
action of R4 in not selecting the candidature of petitioner for
the post of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector as per the
recruitment notification mentioned supra and direct
respondents to select the petitioner as Assistant Motor Vehicle
Inspector as per the seniority got by him in the merit list."
2) Later, the prayer was amended by order of this Court in I.A.No.2 of
2021 dated 22.10.2021 by substituting the following (lines):
"declaring that G.O.Ms.No.147 Finance Hr I Plg Policy
Department date 6.8.2016 and AP Transport Subordinate
Service Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No 71 Transport Roads And
Buildings Serv-Iv Department Dt 19.2.2009 are illegal
arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of of Persons With
Disabilities Act 2016 and violative of provision of Constitution
of India and consequently set aside the Recruitment
Notification No 11/2018 Dt 5.12.2018 issued by R4 for
Recruitment of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspectors in Transport
Department of of the state and/or to declare that action of R4
in not selecting the candidature of petitioner for the post of
Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector as per the recruitment
notification mentioned supra and direct respondents to select
the petitioner as Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector as per the
seniority got by him in the merit list
3) During pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner also impleaded
Respondent No.5/Pagidadla Srinivasa Reddy as party Respondent
No.5 to the writ petition, as per order in I.A.No.1 of 2021 dated
01.07.2021, since he is an affected party having selected and
appointed as AMVI, in case the relief is granted.
4) The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner is a Post
Graduate in Mechanical Engineering from I.I.T Bombay belonging
to Backward Class Community, Yadava by caste. In response to
the General Recruitment Notification No.11/2018 dated
05.12.2018 (hereinafter referred as „Notification‟) issued by Andhra
Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC) for recruitment of 6
backlog and 17 fresh posts of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspectors
(AMVIs), the petitioner applied for the same. The above said posts
are Zonal Posts. The State of Andhra Pradesh is divided into four
CJ & MSM,J
WP.No.8594 of 2020
Zones and the petitioner is permanent resident of YSR Kadapa
District, which falls under Zone-IV. The petitioner competed for
one post of general category local candidates of Zone-IV, as there is
no post reserved for BC-D category. Further, as there is one post
each in Zones II to IV for general category non-locals, the petitioner
competed for those four posts out of the total notified posts. The
petitioner appeared for the examination held on 17.04.2019 and as
per the results declared by A.P.P.S.C, the petitioner secured
194.26 marks out of 300 and stood in the second position in the
total merit list for the entire state. Subsequently, certificate
verification was done and the petitioner was asked to attend to
medical test in K.G.H Visakhapatnam. Accordingly, the petitioner
appeared for medical test and A.P.P.S.C declared results, selecting
21 candidates. To the shock and surprise, the name of the
petitioner was not found among the selected candidates. Upon
verification, the petitioner came to know that he was declared
medically unfit on the ground that the petitioner had „flat foot to
the right leg‟.
5) The petitioner contends that, the Recruitment Notification is based
on G.O.Ms.No.147 (HR.I.Plg.Policy) Department dated 06.08.2016
and Andhra Pradesh Transport Subordinate Service Rules (for
short „the Rules‟) issued in G.O.Ms.No.529 Transport, Roads and
Buildings (Ports) Department dated 04.06.1999 and by then the
persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunity) Protection of Rights
and Full Participation Act, 1995 was in force governing the right of
physically disabled persons.
CJ & MSM,J
WP.No.8594 of 2020
6) It is contended that, subsequently the Central Government enacted
a new Act called as The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act,
2016 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟). Since it is central Act it is
binding on the State of Andhra Pradesh. The Act was enacted to
bring Indian law in tune with International Convention adopted by
United Nations on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities on
13-12-2006. The objects of the said Act, inter alia, are to ensure
that the persons with disabilities enjoy the right to equality, life
with dignity and respect for his integrity with others. No person
shall be discriminated on the ground of disability.
7) As per Section 2. (zc) of the Act, only 4 kinds of Physical
Disabilities are identified Viz., (a) disability, (b) Visual impairment
(c) underline Loco Hearing impairment and (d) Speech and
language disability. Though mental disability, intellectual disability
and sensory impairment are recognized as disabilities, they are not
relevant to decide for the case on hand. As per Section 2 (s) of the
Act, person with disability is defined as person with long term
physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairment which in
interaction with barriers, hinders his full and effective participation
in society equally with others.
8) Section 2(r) of the Act, person with bench mark disability is defined
as a person with not less than 40% of specified disability, where
specified disability has not been defined in measurable terms and
includes a person with disability where specified disability has
been defined in measurable terms, as certified by certifying
authority. As per Section 34 of the Act, reservation of 5% is
CJ & MSM,J
WP.No.8594 of 2020
provided for all jobs in all Government departments and
establishments for those suffering from bench mark disabilities.
9) It is further contended that G.O.Ms.No.147 and APTSS Rules, were
not amended by the State of Andhra Pradesh after enactment of
the Act. Flat feet/foot is not identified as any kind of physical
disability under the Act. But, as per Regulation No.11 of
G.O.Ms.No.147, candidates with „flat foot‟ are declared as unfit for
the post of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector. Similarly as per
Rule 10(b)(iii) of APTSS Rules also flat foot is provided as
disqualification for the post of AMVI. In the Recruitment
notification issued by R4 for the posts of AMVIS, it is provided that
physically handicapped persons are not eligible for the posts. It
also provided flat foot as disqualification, based on APTSS Rules.
10) It is further submitted that when flat feet/foot is not
recognised as physical disability under the Act, the
rules/provisions in GO.MS.No.147, the Rules and Recruitment
notification for the posts of AMVIs, providing flat feet/foot as
disqualification is illegal, not valid in law as they are against the
provisions of the Act governing the rights of persons with
disabilities. For argument sake if flat foot is taken as disability and
reservation should be provided for those suffering with such
disability as provided under Section 34 of the Act. If, reservation is
provided for disabled persons, the petitioner is entitled to be
selected in that quota, as such the petitioner is entitled to be
selected as AMVI, thereby, the recruitment notification to that
extent is invalid and liable to be set aside or modified.
CJ & MSM,J
WP.No.8594 of 2020
11) Respondent No.1 - Principal Secretary to Government,
Transport, Roads and Buildings Department filed counter affidavit,
denying material allegations while admitting the factum of
petitioner‟s appearance for the examination in pursuance of
Notification No.11/2018 dated 05.12.2018 for selection of 23
candidates for appointment for the post of Assistant Motor Vehicles
Inspector in Transport Department, marks received by the
petitioner and availability vacancies etc.
12) As per Rule 10 of Special Rules for the Andhra Pradesh
Transport Subordinate Service Rules, 2009 issued in
G.O.Ms.No.71 dated 19.02.2009, the following are the physical
requirements for appointment as Assistant Motor Vehicles
Inspector:
―A candidate for appointment by direct recruitment or by
transfer or by promotion to the post of Assistant Motor
Vehicle Inspector or Transport Constable shall satisfy the
following physical requirements:
(a) In respect of male candidates, the minimum height must
not be less than 165 cms in height and must not be less than
86.3 cms round the chest on full inspiration with a minimum
expansion of 5.00 cms;
(b) In case of women the height shall not be less than 157.5
cms and must not be less than 86.3 cms round the chest on
full inspiration with a minimum expansion of 5.00 cms:
(c) In case of male candidates belonging to the Scheduled
Castes, Scheduled Tribes communities and aboriginal tribes
the minimum height must not be less than 160 cms in height
and must not be less than 83.80 cms round the chest on full
inspiration with a minimum expansion of 5.00 cms.
(d) Must be certified to possess the visual standards
specified below without glasses:
(i) Right eye : Distance vision 6/6 Near Vision 0.5
(on Shellen's Chart)
(ii) Left eye : Distance vision 6/6 Near Vision 0.5
(on Shellen's Chart)
(iii) Each eye must have a full field of vision.
(iv) Color blindness, squint or any morbid conditions of the
eyes or lids of either eye, knock knees, pigeon chest,
flat foot, varicose veins, hammer toes, fractured
limbs and decayed teeth shall be deemed to be a dis-
qualification.‖
CJ & MSM,J
WP.No.8594 of 2020
13) Thus, Respondent No.1 fixed specific physical standards for
appointment of persons as Assistant Vehicle Inspectors. It is
contended that, G.O.Ms.No.529 Transport, Roads & Buildings
Department dated 04-06-1999 is superseded by G.O.Ms.No.71
Transport, Roads & Buildings (Ser.IV) Department dated
19-02-2009 which came into force with effect from 19.02.2009. It
is submitted that the petitioner quoted the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities Act, 2016 claiming reservation of 5% to the persons
with disability. The Government of Andhra Pradesh has also
provided reservation for physically disabled persons for
appointment for service in the State of Andhra Pradesh in many
categories of the posts to the extent and in the manner as
prescribed under Rule 22 of A.P. State and Subordinate Service
Rules, 1996. But, as per Rule 5 of the Special Rules issued in A.P.
State Transport Subordinate Service Rules, 2009, no appointment
shall be reserved for Physically Handicapped persons. Further, as
per Rule 10 of the said Special Rules, a candidate for appointment
by direct recruitment or by transfer or by promotion to the post of
Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector shall satisfy the physical
requirements as mentioned under the said Rules.
14) It is further submitted that under Rule 10(d)(iv) of Andhra
Pradesh Transport Subordinate Service Rules, 2009 issued in
G.O.Ms.No.71 Transport, Roads & Buildings (Ser.IV) Department
dated 19-02-2009 certain disqualifications for appointment to the
post of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector have been specified and
the same is extracted hereunder:
CJ & MSM,J
WP.No.8594 of 2020
(iv) Color blindness, squint or any morbid conditions of the eyes or
lids of either eye, knock knees, pigeon chest, flat foot, varicose
veins, hammer toes, fractured limbs and decayed teeth shall be
deemed to be a disqualification."
15) It is specifically contended that the petitioner herein is
having „flat foot‟ which is disqualification for appointment to the
post of AMVI and the petitioner herein is not a disabled person.
16) It is submitted that, Government have issued orders vide
G.O.Ms.No.4, TR&B (TRP.I) Department dated 22.03.2021
exempting reservation for the Persons with Disabilities in the posts
of Motor Vehicle Inspector (by Promotion), Assistant Motor Vehicle
Inspector (by Direct Recruitment and Promotion), Transport Head
Constable (by promotion) and Transport Constable (by Direct
Recruitment) in the Transport Department as it is a pre- condition
that the persons holding these uniformed positions must possess
driving license.
17) It is also submitted that apart from the merit in written
examination the selected candidate must possess the physical
standards specified under Rule 10 of the AP Transport
Subordinate Service Rues, 2009, notified vide G.O.Ms.No.71, TR&B
(Ser.IV) Dept., dated 19.02.2009. The condition "flat foot shall be
deemed to be a disqualification" is one of the disqualifications
under Rule 10(d)(iv) of said Rules. The disqualifications ordered
under Rule 10 of said Rules are not the disabilities defined under
Section 2(i) of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities,
Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. Therefore,
the petitioner is not entitled to claim the appointment either under
the Act and he is disqualified for appointment under Andhra
Pradesh State Transport Subordinate Service Rules and various
CJ & MSM,J
WP.No.8594 of 2020
G.Os referred above and thereby, not entitled to claim any relief,
since the notification is not in contravention to the Acts and the
provisions and requested to dismiss the writ petition.
18) Respondent No.5 - Pagidala Srinivasa Reddy filed separate
counter affidavit while admitting issue of notification for AMVI,
Selection of Respondent No.5 as AMVI in the selection process, as
he is fully qualified in all respects, including medical examination
and physical standards. The petitioner is not a disqualified person,
but did not meet the physical standards prescribed therein and
various G.Os referred by Respondent No.1 and whereas,
Respondent No.5 fulfilled the physical requirements which are
statutory in nature. The allegation made against Respondent No.5
is not based on any material and thereby, the petitioner is not
entitled to claim any relief and requested to dismiss the writ
petition.
19) The petitioner filed additional affidavit and better affidavit,
after amending the prayer in the writ petition, specifically
contending that, during hearing, it was brought to the notice of the
petitioner that G.O.Ms.No.529 dated 04.06.1999 was superseded
by G.O.Ms.No.71 dated 19.02.2009 before the impugned
notification. But, due to oversight, the petitioner sought a
declaration that G.O.Ms.No.529 dated 04.06.1999 as illegal and
arbitrary. However, as there is no change to the G.Os regarding
disqualification, it is contended that G.O.Ms.No.71 dated
19.02.2009 is also illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions
of the Rights of Persons With Disabilities Act, 2016 and requested
to grant relief as sought above.
CJ & MSM,J
WP.No.8594 of 2020
20) During hearing, Mr. Venkateswarlu Kolla, learned counsel
for the petitioner would contend that, „flat-foot‟ is not a physical
disability as per the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the petitioner
would not fall within the meaning of „disabled person‟ to claim any
reservation. However, if the official respondents treat „flat foot‟ as
disability, the petitioner is entitled to claim reservation under
Section 34 of the Act. It is also contended that, prescribing „flat-
foot‟ as disqualification for appointment to the post of Assistant
Motor Vehicles Inspector by direct recruitment is totally in
contravention to the object of the Act and it is nothing but
discriminating the persons having flat-foot with the persons having
normal foot and therefore, such discrimination is illegal, arbitrary
and denial of appointment to this petitioner on the ground that
this petitioner is having „flat-foot‟ is nothing but an arbitrary
exercise of power by Respondent Nos.1 to 4. Moreover, „flat-foot‟
will not come in the way of discharging duties by the petitioner as
Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector, since it is not a disability.
However, prescribing such disqualification for appointment as
Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector is nothing but discriminating
the persons having flat-foot with persons having normal foot is in
violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and therefore,
General Recruitment Notification No.11/2018 dated 05.12.2018
and G.O.Ms.No.71 dated 19.02.2009 are illegal, arbitrary and
requested to issue a direction and consequential direction as
stated above.
21) Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the
judgment of the Madras High Court in R. Sharavanan vs The
CJ & MSM,J
WP.No.8594 of 2020
Transport Commissioner1. On the strength of the principle laid
down in the above judgment, learned counsel for the petitioner
vehemently contended that, the petitioner is similarly placed to the
person in the above judgment and requested to apply the same
principle and pass appropriate order as claimed by this petitioner.
22) Whereas, learned Government Pleader for Transport, Roads
and Buildings, would contend that, „flat-foot‟ is a disqualification
as per the Rules and it is not a disability, as defined under the Act,
thereby, the petitioner is not entitled to claim reservation in terms
of Section 34 of the Act, as „flat-foot‟ is not a disability. At the same
time, the petitioner is not eligible for being appointed as Assistant
Motor Vehicles Inspector, in view of the disqualification prescribed
under the Rules vide G.O.Ms.No.71 dated 19.02.2009.
23) Denial of appointment or selection of this petitioner for the
post of Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector on the ground that the
petitioner is having flat-foot to the right leg is not a discrimination
to attract violation under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Moreover, flat-foot is a hindrance to discharge the duties outside
the office and not sedentary post. Therefore, there is any amount of
justification in prescribing flat-foot as disqualification for
appointment as Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector by direct
recruitment. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to claim any relief
in the present writ petition, including declaration or direction by
way of writ of mandamus and requested to dismiss the writ
petition.
Writ Petition No.9812 of 2012 dated 05.07.2012
CJ & MSM,J
WP.No.8594 of 2020
24) Whereas, Mr. J. Sudheer, learned counsel for Respondent
No.5 submitted that, Respondent No.5 was selected based on
merit, possessing requisite physical standards prescribed under
the Rules and therefore, appointment of Respondent No.5 cannot
be set-aside since he was appointed after undergoing necessary
tests, prescribed under the Rules, including written examination
and medical tests and requested to dismiss the writ petition.
25) Considering rival contentions, perusing the material
available on record, the points that need to be answered by this
Court are as follows:
1) Whether flat-foot is a physical disability?. If so,
whether the petitioner being a disabled person is
entitled to claim reservation in terms of Section 34
of the Act?
2) Whether the 'flat-foot' is a hindrance to discharge
the duties as AMVI in transport department. If not,
failure to provide reservation under Section 34 of the
Act and whether denial of appointment to the
petitioner as AMVI is in violation of General
Recruitment Notification No.11/2018 dated
05.12.2018 and in violation of G.O.Ms.No.71 dated
19.02.2009?
P O I N T No.1 & 2:
26) As both points are interconnected, I find that it is expedient
to decide both the points by common discussion.
27) The first and foremost contention of the petitioner is that,
„flat foot‟ is not a physical disability and it would not come in the
way of the petitioner in discharging his duties. At the same time,
the petitioner is contending that, he is entitled to claim reservation
CJ & MSM,J
WP.No.8594 of 2020
if „flat foot‟ is treated as disability, in view of Section 34 of the Act.
Whereas, Respondent Nos.1 to 4 is contending that, „flat foot‟ is not
a disability, but deformity, thereby, the question of claiming
reservation does not arise.
28) In view of rival contentions, it is necessary to advert to the
provisions of the Act and its object. The Act is enacted with an
avowed object to give effect to the proclamation on the Full
Participation and Equality of the People with Disabilities in the
Asian and Pacific Region. The word „disability‟ is not defined in the
Act, but the term „person with disability‟ is defined under
Section 2(s) of the Act, which means a person with long term
physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairment which, in
interaction with barriers, hinders his full and effective participation
in society equally with others. Various types of disabilities are
enumerated in the Act itself, but the present case would not fall
within any of the disabilities defined under the Act. Therefore, „flat-
foot‟ is not a disability within the meaning of the Act, as admitted
by the petitioner himself. Therefore, the question of application of
the provisions of the Act to the petitioner‟s case does not arise to
provide reservation in terms of Section 34 of the Act.
29) At this stage, it is relevant to advert to second proviso to
Section 34 of the Act to answer the present issue. Section 34 of the
Act deals with „Reservation‟ and it is extracted as under:
Reservation:
(1) Every appropriate Government shall appoint in every
Government establishment, not less than four per cent. of the total
number of vacancies in the cadre strength in each group of posts
meant to be filled with persons with benchmark disabilities of
which, one per cent. each shall be reserved for persons with
benchmark disabilities under clauses (a), (b) and (c) and one per
CJ & MSM,J
WP.No.8594 of 2020
cent. for persons with benchmark disabilities under clauses (d) and
(e), namely:--
(a) blindness and low vision;
(b) deaf and hard of hearing;
(c) locomotor disability including cerebral palsy, leprosy cured,
dwarfism, acid attack victims and muscular dystrophy;
(d) autism, intellectual disability, specific learning disability and
mental illness;
(e) multiple disabilities from amongst persons under clauses (a) to
(d) including deaf-blindness in the posts identified for each
disabilities:
Provided that the reservation in promotion shall be in accordance
with such instructions as are issued by the appropriate
Government from time to time:
Provided further that the appropriate Government, in
consultation with the Chief Commissioner or the State
Commissioner, as the case may be, may, having regard to
the type of work carried out in any Government
establishment, by notification and subject to such
conditions, if any, as may be specified in such notifications
exempt any Government establishment from the provisions
of this section.
(2) Where in any recruitment year any vacancy cannot be filled up
due to non-availability of a suitable person with benchmark
disability or for any other sufficient reasons, such vacancy shall be
carried forward in the succeeding recruitment year and if in the
succeeding recruitment year also suitable person with benchmark
disability is not available, it may first be filled by interchange
among the five categories and only when there is no person with
disability available for the post in that year, the employer shall fill
up the vacancy by appointment of a person, other than a person
with disability:
Provided that if the nature of vacancies in an establishment is such
that a given category of person cannot be employed, the vacancies
may be interchanged among the five categories with the prior
approval of the appropriate Government.
(3) The appropriate Government may, by notification, provide for
such relaxation of upper age limit for employment of persons with
benchmark disability, as it thinks fit
30) Thus, as per second proviso to Section 34(1), the appropriate
Government, in consultation with the Chief Commissioner or the
State Commissioner, as the case may be, may, having regard to the
type of work carried out in any Government establishment, by
notification and subject to such conditions, if any, as may be
specified in such notifications exempt any Government
establishment from the provisions of this section. Therefore, the
CJ & MSM,J
WP.No.8594 of 2020
second proviso to Section 34(1) of the Act, permits to claim
exemption from the application of the provisions of the Act, i.e
reservation depending upon the nature of employment in a
particular department. In the instant case on hand, Respondent
No.1 Paragraph No.7 specifically pleaded that the State
Government issued orders vide G.O.Ms.No.4 TR&B (TRP.I)
Department dated 22.03.2021 exempting the reservation for
Persons with Disabilities in the posts of Motor Vehicle Inspector (by
promotion), Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector (by direct
Recruitment and Promotion), Transport Head Constable (by
promotion) and Transport Constable (by Direct Recruitment) in the
Transport Department as it is a pre-requisite condition that the
persons holding these uniformed positions must possess driving
license. Copy of G.O.Ms.No.4 dated 22.03.2021 is placed on
record. The State issued notification in exercise of power under
Section 34 of the Act, whereas, in the Transport Department the
application of reservation in appointment as AMVI (by direct
recruitment and promotion) is exempted. Therefore, in view of
second proviso to Section 34(1) of the Act, the transport
department is totally exempted from applying reservations for the
post of AMVI either by direct Recruitment or Promotion.
Consequently, question of the petitioner‟s appointment under
reserved category under Section 34 does not arise.
31) One of the major contentions of the petitioner before this
Court is that, person having „flat foot‟ is not eligible for being
appointed as AMVI, which is contrary to the provisions of the Act.
But, this contention is ex-facie without merit, in view of the
CJ & MSM,J
WP.No.8594 of 2020
exemption granted under second proviso to Section 34(1) of the
Act. Therefore, the contention of this petitioner that, the
notification is contrary to the provisions of the Act is without any
merit and the same is hereby rejected.
32) As discussed above, „flat foot‟ is not a disability as defined
under the Act and various disabilities prescribed under the Act
and Rules framed therein. But, „flat foot‟ though not a disability, it
will come in the way of this petitioner in discharging the duties,
since the post of AMVI is not a sedentary job and they are bound to
discharge different duties, as enumerated in Andhra Pradesh
Manual of Transport Department.
3.6 Powers and responsibilities of a Motor Vehicles Inspector or an
Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector: -
a. As Officer in the cadre of a Motor Vehicles Inspector or an
Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector may have to serve in any of the
following posts.
I. Motor Vehicles Inspector / Assistant Motor Vehicles
Inspector - Regular
II. Motor Vehicles Inspector / Assistant Motor Vehicles
Inspector - Check-post
III. Motor Vehicles Inspector / Assistant Motor Vehicles
Inspector - Enforcement
b. Powers and responsibilities of the Motor Vehicles Inspector /
Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector-Regular: -
1. The Motor Vehicle Inspector / Assistant Motor Vehicle
Inspector- Regular should,
2. Work under the direction, supervision, guidance and
control of the head of the District i.e., a JTC / a DTC / an
RTO.
3. Should always be in uniform while on duty. Attend to
enforcement work regularly. Shall adjust the enforcement
timings in such a way that it shall not effect regular work
causing inconvenience to public.
4. Attend office during office hours while not on tour or
attending meetings.
5. Exercise effective control over the staff working under
him. Exercise control over the allotted jurisdiction.
6. Maintain all prescribed registers in order and upto date.
7. Test all drivers for learners licensing.
8. Test all drivers on road for fresh Driving license.
9. Inspect all Motor Vehicles produced for various purposes
like registrations, alteration, fitness certificate etc.,
personally.
10. Test drive all Motor Vehicles produced for renewal of
F.C and then only decide to renew or otherwise.
CJ & MSM,J
WP.No.8594 of 2020
11. Inspect all accident vehicles on requisition.
12. Verify all referred stoppages and report in time.
13. Conduct route surveys entrusted to him.
14. Collect arrears of tax and compounding fees referred to
him.
15. Inspect Government and other Local body vehicles for
the purposes of repairs, condemnation or fixation of upset
price.
16. Procure vehicles for District administration for purposes
of election duty, for civil supplies or during natural
calamities.
17. Services of notices that are specifically entrusted.
18. Perform touring and make night halt outside head
quarters as per instructions from the Head of the
Department.
19. Attend to enforcement work regularly. Shall adjust the
enforcement timings in such a way that it shall not effect
regular work causing inconvenience to public.
20. Exercise reasonable control over the drivers and
vehicles in his jurisdiction.
21. Submit diaries on time explaining in detail the work
turned out.
22. Inspect all private during schools regularly to see that
driving is taught properly.
23. Surprise check the private pollution checking station on
issuance of PUC certificates.
c. Powers and responsibilities of the Motor Vehicles Inspector /
Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector - Check-post
1. The Motor Vehicle Inspector / Assistant Motor Vehicle
Inspector should work under the direction, supervision,
guidance and control of the head of the district i.e., a JTC /
a DTC / an RTO.
2. Shall always be in uniform while on duty.
3. Exercise effective control over the staff working under
him. The MVI shall direct, supervise, guide and control the
Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspectors and other staff working
in a check-post. The Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspectors
shall work under the Motor Vehicle Inspector and following
the directions given by him from time to time.
4. Maintain the upkeep of the check-post in a neat and
clean manner.
5. Shall attend the check-post duties as per duty chart on
time. Whenever, the Motor Vehicles Inspector / Assistant
Motor Vehicles Inspector goes on leave shall take the prior
permission of the concerned officer in writing in advance
wherever it is not possible to take permission in advance or
telegram to that effect shall be given.
6. Shall declare the personal cash in the prescribed register.
7. Shall keep the government cash in a cash chest under
lock and key.
8. Shall note the names of the officers on duty on display
board for the knowledge of vehicle owners / drivers.
9. Shall be on a constant move in and around the check-
post for proper supervision.
10. Shall stop and check each vehicle, which is suspected
of violating Motor Vehicles Act and Rules thereunder.
11. Shall record the number of vehicles passing trough the
check-post in the movement register.
12. Book cases of all vehicles found with violations.
13. Shall inspect records of vehicles for finding violations
relating to non-payment of taxes, vehicles without fitness,
permit etc.
CJ & MSM,J
WP.No.8594 of 2020
14. Shall inspect engine numbers and chassis number of
vehicles at random to find if any vehicles are plying with
forged numbers/ documents.
15. Shall maintain all registers as prescribed in the check-
post chapter of the departments manual.
16. Shall maintain the check-post in a disciplined and
orderly manner.
17. Shall be responsible for not allowing private persons to
loiter or work in the check-post premises.
d. Powers and responsibilities of the Motor Vehicle Inspector /
Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector-Enforcement: -
1. The Motor Vehicle Inspector/Assistant Motor Vehicle
Inspector enforcement should:
2. Work under the direction, supervision, guidance and
control of the head of the district i.e., a JTC / a DTC / an
RTO attend office to take instructions regarding the
enforcement work to be done by them.
3. Shall always be in uniform while on duty.
4. Attend to Enforcement work atleast 20 days in a month
and see that all types of cases are booked against all
classes of vehicles.
5. Inspect all referred accident vehicles.
6. Maintain all prescribed registers in order and up to date.
7. Verify all referred stoppages and report on time to time.
8. Collect arrears of tax and compounding fees referred to
him.
9. Procure vehicles for district administration as advised by
the Controlling Officer.
10. Execute all work entrusted to him by his Controlling
Officer.
33) When the petitioner has to discharge various duties, as
stated above, in the event of his selection as AMVI, the pre-
requisite is to obtain a driving license and move from various
places including route watch etc. But the person having „flat foot‟
will not have grip while walking or running with „flat foot‟, thereby,
it becomes hindrance to discharge his duties as AMVI. When the
post of AMVI is not sedentary job, „flat foot‟ of this petitioner
certainly will come in the way in discharging duties by this
petitioner. Consequently, it is difficult to discharge his duties with
„flat foot‟ as enumerated in Andhra Pradesh Manual of Transport
Department.
34) One of the major contentions of the petitioner is that,
exemption from providing reservation under Section 34 of the Act
CJ & MSM,J
WP.No.8594 of 2020
to the Transport Department in Andhra Pradesh is violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India. But, the respondents
contended that, it is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India, since the second proviso to Section 34(1) of the Act permits
any of the department of the State Government to exempt from
application of reservations to the department. It is not an arbitrary
exercise of power to exempt, since the Act itself permits to apply
exempting from reservations to benchmark disabled persons.
35) This Court can exercise its power under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, if such act infringes the statutory or
fundamental right of the petitioner. Article 14 of the Constitution
of India deals with equality before law, but, the Courts exercising
power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to set-aside
the arbitrary acts of the State, based on Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. In E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu2,
the Apex Court laid down certain guidelines to decide
arbitrariness. Ever since its inception, „arbitrariness‟ has been a
beleaguered doctrine. While some jurists have criticized the term
for its imprecise import and its likely adverse impact on the
„equality‟ analysis under article 14, others have been indifferent in
their response to this new development in that they believe that it
is not a new test at all but simply a reassertion of the reasonable
classification or nexus test. The view held by the latter group of
jurists finds support from the fact that the term „arbitrary‟ was not
a new addition to the lexicon on constitutional adjudication
concerning article 14. It was often used in reference to the first
1974 AIR 555
CJ & MSM,J
WP.No.8594 of 2020
limb of the reasonable classification test, namely, intelligible
differentia and it was emphatically held that in order to satisfy the
test of reasonable classification under article 14, the differentia
must not be „arbitrary, evasive, or artificial‟. Hence, it was unclear
as to whether the doctrine of arbitrariness was simply a gloss on
the reasonable classification test or vice-versa or was a standalone
test having its own substantive content.
36) The recent decision of a division bench of the Supreme Court
in Rajbala v. State of Haryana3 has rejuvenated the debate on the
content and scope of the doctrine of arbitrariness propounded by a
constitution bench of the Apex Court in E.P. Royappa v. State of
Tamil Nadu case (referred supra).
37) The later decisions of the Supreme Court sought to give
some content to the doctrine by equating it with the concept of
„unreasonableness‟ but it was still unclear whether this
unreasonableness pertained to the „distributive aspect‟ of article 14
or could be a basis for constitutional scrutiny even in the absence
of some comparative unreasonableness.
38) In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India4, His Lordship Justice
Bhagwati speaking for Five Judge Bench, applied the test of
equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and
acknowledged that Royappa did nothing more than explore and
bring to light the „vital and dynamic aspect‟ of equality that had till
then been lying „latent and submerged in the few simple but
pregnant words of article 14‟. Thus Article 14 essentially embodied
a guarantee against „arbitrariness‟ and therefore, the test of
(2016) 2 SCC 445
(1978) 1 SCC 248
CJ & MSM,J
WP.No.8594 of 2020
„reasonable classification‟ was itself informed by the doctrine of
„arbitrariness‟. In this sense, „arbitrariness‟ was not a new test at
all but in fact the principle underlying the evolution of doctrinal
tools and judicial standards for determination of the negation of
the right to equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. The same was considered in Ajay Hasia v.
Khalid Mujib Sehravardi5 and held as follows:
"It must therefore now be taken to be well settled that what Article 14
strikes at is arbitrariness because any action that is arbitrary, must
necessarily involve negation of equality. The doctrine of classification
which is evolved by the courts is not para-phrase of Article 14 nor is it the
objective and end of that Article. It is merely a judicial formula for
determining whether the legislative or executive action in question is
arbitrary and therefore constituting denial of equality. . . .Wherever
therefore there is arbitrariness in State action whether it be of the
legislature or of the executive or of "authority" under Article 12, Article 14
immediately springs into action and strikes down such State action. In
fact, the concept of reasonableness and non- arbitrariness pervades the
entire constitutional scheme and is a golden thread which runs through
the whole of the fabric of the Constitution."
39) As discussed above, the Transport Department is exempted
from application of reservation under second proviso to
Section 34(1) of the Act. When the Act permits such exemption, the
Act of the respondents in not applying the reservation cannot be
declared as an arbitrary act, since the official respondents acted
totally in consonance with the provisions of the Act.
40) Apart from the exemption granted to the Transport
Department under Section 34(1) to apply reservations to various
employees enumerated above, as pleaded in Paragraph No.7 of the
counter affidavit, the State Government by exercising its power
under Article 309 of the Constitution of India framed Special Rules
known as Andhra Pradesh Transport Subordinate Service Rules,
2009 issued in G.O.Ms.No.71 dated 19.02.2009. The
(1981) 1 SCC 722
CJ & MSM,J
WP.No.8594 of 2020
G.O prescribes certain qualifications and physical standards for
being appointed as Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector, Transport
Head Constables and Transport Constables and they are as
follows:
Sl.No Category Method of appointment
(1) (2) (3)
1 Assistant Motor (i) By Direct Recruitment (OR)
Vehicles Inspector (ii) By promotion from the category of
Transport Head Constables of Transport
Departm4nt.
(iii) If no qualified and eligible Transport Head
Constables are available for appointment by
method (ii) by promotion of qualified and
eligible candidates from the Category (3) of
this service of respective units.
(iv) By appointment by transfer from the
category of Senior Assistants of Transport
Department.
(v) If no qualified and eligible Senior Assistants
are available for appointment by method (iv)
by transfer of eligible candidates from the
category of Junior Assistants (APMS) of
Transport Department from the respective
units.
2 Transport Head By promotion from the category of Transport
Constables Constables
3 Transport By Direct Recruitment
Constables
41) The Additional Transport Commissioner is the appointing
authority to AMVI. Qualifications and physical requirements are
also prescribed in Andhra Pradesh Transport Subordinate Service
Rules, 2009. But, the qualifications and other requirements are
not in dispute, except physical requirements. Rule 10 deals with
physical requirements (standards) and they are as follows:
A candidate for appointment by direct recruitment or by transfer or
by promotion to the post of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector or
Transport Constable shall satisfy the following physical
requirements:
(a) In respect of male candidates, the minimum height must not be
less than 165 cms in height and must not be less than 86.3 cms
round the chest on full inspiration with a minimum expansion of
5.00 cms;
CJ & MSM,J
WP.No.8594 of 2020
(b) In case of women the height shall not be less than 157.5 cms
and must not be less than 86.3 cms round the chest on full
inspiration with a minimum expansion of 5.00 cms:
(c) In case of male candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes communities and aboriginal tribes the minimum
height must not be less than 160 cms in height and must not be
less than 83.80 cms round the chest on full inspiration with a
minimum expansion of 5.00 cms.
(d) Must be certified to possess the visual standards specified
below without glasses:
(i) Right eye : Distance vision 6/6 Near Vision 0.5 (on
Shellen's Chart)
(ii) Left eye : Distance vision 6/6 Near Vision 0.5 (on
Shellen's Chart)
(iii) Each eye must have a full field of vision.
(iv) Color blindness, squint or any morbid conditions of the
eyes or lids of either eye, knock knees, pigeon chest,
flat foot, varicose veins, hammer toes, fractured limbs
and decayed teeth shall be deemed to be a dis-
qualification.
42) In view of the prescription of physical standards for being
appointed as AMVI by direct recruitment, the petitioner has to
satisfy the physical standards. But, here, the petitioner is having
„flat foot‟ to right leg which is not permitted under Rule 10(d)(iv) of
the Andhra Pradesh Transport Subordinate Service Rules, 2009
issued vide G.O.Ms.No.71 dated 19.02.2009. When the petitioner
is disqualified from being appointed as AMVI, he is estopped to
contend that the Rules are ultra-vires to the Constitution, having
participated in the process of selection, the conditions have to be
fulfilled by the petitioner for appointment as AMVI, as prescribed
in the notification. Though the petitioner has appeared in the
written examination and acquired qualification to meet the
physical standards prescribed under the Rules and participated in
the process of medical examination, but when he was found
ineligible on account of „flat foot‟ to right leg, he resorted to this
present litigation without any basis.
CJ & MSM,J
WP.No.8594 of 2020
43) Yet, G.O.Ms.No.147 (HR.I.Plg.Policy) Department dated
06.08.2016 was issued by Andhra Pradesh Public Service
Commission issuing regulations relating to physical Medical
Examination of candidates appearing for recruitment to certain
posts. Various physical standards are prescribed for appointment
as AMVI. Serial No.8 in the table deals with „Minimum Physical
Standards‟ for being appointed as AMVI, the same is extracted
hereunder:
Height Chest girth Expansion
fully expanded
/Weight for
Female
Candidates
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Assistant Motor Vehicle 165 cms (M) 86.3 cms 5 cms
Inspector 157.5 cms (W) 82.30 cms (W)
160 Cms 83.80 cms
(ST/SC & (ST/SC &
Aboriginal Aboriginal
Tribes) Tribes)
152.5 Cm 79.80 cms (SC-
(W/SC/ST) (W)/ST-(W)
44) Thus, not only the Andhra Pradesh Transport Subordinate
Service Rules, but also the Regulations prescribed by the Andhra
Pradesh Public Service Commission for appointment as AMVI by
direct recruitment, „flat foot‟ is not a disqualification. However, the
petitioner challenged G.O.Ms.No.147 (HR.I.Plg.Policy) Department
dated 06.08.2016 and G.O.Ms.No.71 dated 19.02.2009 in the
present writ petition on the ground that the Rules are contrary to
the Act, as the Rules does not provide reservation to the disabled
persons. But, as discussed above, „flat foot‟ is not a disability and
the person having „flat foot‟ is not entitled to claim reservation
under Section 34 of the Act and that the second proviso to
Section 34(1) of the Act permits a particular department to claim
exemption and notify the same. Accordingly, the Transport
CJ & MSM,J
WP.No.8594 of 2020
Department obtained exemption from providing reservation, as
enumerated under Section 34(1) of the Act and therefore, the Rules
and Notification cannot be held to be contrary to the provisions of
the Act.
45) One of the major contentions of the petitioner is that, the Act
is contrary to Articles 14 & 15 of the Constitution of India. But,
this contention cannot be accepted, in view of the above
discussions.
46) To decide about reservation of Posts, every appropriate
Government shall appoint in every establishment such percentage
of vacancies not less than three per cent for persons or class of
persons with disability of which one per cent each shall be
reserved for persons suffering from (i) blindness or low vision;
(ii) hearing impairment; iii) locomotor disability or cerebral palsy,
in the posts identified for each disability; provided that the
appropriate Government may, having regard to the type of work
carried on in any department or establishment, by notification
subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in such
notification, exempt any establishment from the provisions of the
Act.
47) The exemption was obtained by the second respondent.
However, it should be understood that the question of fitness
involves the future as well as the present and that one of the main
objects of medical examination is to secure continuous effective
service and in the case of candidates for permanent appointment
to prevent early pension payment, in case of premature death. It is
at the same time to be noted that the question is one of the
CJ & MSM,J
WP.No.8594 of 2020
likelihood of continuous effective service and that rejection of a
candidate need not be advised on account of the presence of a
defect which in only a small proportion of cases is found to
interfere with continuous effective service.
48) We find that there is a contradiction between G.O.Ms.No.147
(HR.I.Plg.Policy) Department dated 06.08.2016 and G.O.Ms.No.71
dated 19.02.2009, though the Act permits such reservation. At the
same time, the same provision permits to claim exemption
depending upon the nature of duties to be discharged by AMVI, as
extracted above. The Act provides, inter alia, laying down the
disabilities and the extent to which they can be permitted to join
services. However, the very fact services have been excluded from
this Act is clear that while respecting the rights of the disabled
persons, the framers of the Act did not wish to impose any
efficiency burden with the organization. In a landmark decision
namely in the case of Government of India vs. Ravi Prakash
Gupta6, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, inter alia, directed that the
law should be implemented and the fact of appointment to the IAS
during the period from 1995-2006 had been totally excluded. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court had directed that all the vacancies for
these years should be calculated and filled up.
49) In view of the principle laid down in the above judgment, the
Act has to be given effect, in view of the proclamation on the Full
Participation and Equality of the People with Disabilities in the
Asian and Pacific Region. Though the State being significant to the
Convention on the Rights of persons with Disabilities and Optional
2010 (7) SCC 626
CJ & MSM,J
WP.No.8594 of 2020
Protocol with the municipal laws of the country, is not under
obligation to implement the same, as the Act itself provides an
exemption. However, we have noted that the service to be
discharged by the petitioner is not a sedentary job and enumerated
the duties in the above paragraphs. Those jobs particularly
Transport Department involve a strenuous schedule where persons
are required to put in long hours on work and in times of crisis for
days together. For instances when accidents or other emergency
takes place, officers may be required to put in duties continuously
for days together and spending for long hours supervising the
work. AMVI is not sedentary service and the requirements have
already been laid down in G.O.Ms.No.147 (HR.I.Plg.Policy)
Department dated 06.08.2016 and G.O.Ms.No.71 dated
19.02.2009. The mode of examination of candidate by Medical
Board is prescribed under G.O.Ms.No.147 (HR.I.Plg.Policy)
Department dated 06.08.2016. Where the requirements of the jobs
have been specifically provided, these requirements have to be
respected unless and otherwise not within the ambit of Section 34
of the Disability Act.
50) In K. Gangadhar vs. A.P. State Road Transport
Corporation7, the appellant was denied employment on the
ground that he was cosmetically unacceptable to the public on
account of suffering with excessive Vitiligo. The High Court of
Andhra Pradesh held that the appellant could not be denied
appointment solely on the ground of Vitiligo but did not proceed to
2007 ( 1 ) ALD 14
CJ & MSM,J
WP.No.8594 of 2020
appoint him straightaway and directed the respondents to verify
that whether he satisfies the physical condition otherwise.
51) Coming to the issue of the practice being discriminatory and
other persons having been appointed despite the disability, the
petitioner filed additional affidavit and contended that, the person
who secures less marks or who is less meritorious i.e. Respondent
No.5 was appointed to the post of AMVI. The denial of appointment
to the petitioner is not on account of any other reason, but on
account of failure to satisfy the physical standards prescribed
under the Rules referred in G.O.Ms.No.71 dated 19.02.2009 and
G.O.Ms.No.147 dated 06.08.2016.
52) In the case of Syed Bashir-ud-din Qadri vs. Nazir Ahmed
Shah & Others8, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the
golden rule. Here, the issue was simple that the services of the
respondent, who was a school teacher, were terminated on due
scrutiny by an Expert Committee on the ground that he was not
able to discharge the functions of a teacher as he was suffering
from cerebral palsy. The Hon'ble Court was of the opinion that the
respondent suffering from slight speech disability, which was apt
to worsen on account of nervousness when asked to appear before
the Expert Body or the Court to answer. It was the intimidating
atmosphere of the Court that probably triggered a reaction in the
respondent on account of which he was unable to respond to the
questions put to him. The respondent otherwise in a position to
discharge his duties as a teacher and the students had become
accustomed to the same. However, the facts of the above case are
2010 (3) SCC 603
CJ & MSM,J
WP.No.8594 of 2020
different from the facts of the present case, for the reason that,
cerebral palsy is not only physical condition, but also mental
condition, whereas, „flat foot‟ is only a physical condition of a
person and question of triggering reaction in walking or losing grip
while walking or running does not arise, even if he is called upon
the Court or before the Medical Board.
53) In Inder Setia vs. Union of India & Others9 the petitioner
sought quashing of the order declaring him unfit for
recruitment/selection to the Flying Branch of the Indian Air Force
with a direction to the respondents to select him for the Flying
Branch. Here too, the petitioner had been rejected by the medical
board on ground of having sub-standard vision and myopia beyond
permissible limits in addition to VPCS. The petitioner had preferred
an appeal before the Appellate Medical Board which also rejected
him for enrolment to the Flying Branch but was declared fit for
Technical Branch. In the present case, the petitioner is not on the
same footing, but did not prefer an appeal before the Appellate
Medical Board for examination to find fit for any other sedentary
post, as AMVI consists of three categories, as referred in Paragraph
No.31.
54) The law declared by various Courts is apparently
distinguishable and it must be remembered that the ratio of any
decision must be understood in the background of the facts of that
case. What is of the essence in a decision is its ratio and not every
observation found therein nor what logically follows from the
various observations made in it. It must be remembered that a
[WP(C) No. 9080/2011] dated 07.02.2012
CJ & MSM,J
WP.No.8594 of 2020
decision is only an authority for what it actually decides. It is well
settled that a little difference in facts or additional facts may make
a lot of difference in the precedential value of a decision. The ratio
of one case cannot be mechanically applied to another case
without having regard to the fact situation and circumstances in
two cases. The Supreme Court in Bharat Petroleum Corporation
Ltd and Anr. vs. N.R. Vairamani and Another10 had held that a
decision cannot be relied on without considering the factual
situation. In the judgment the Supreme Court had observed:-
―Court should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as
to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the
decision on which reliance is placed. Observations of Courts are
neither to be read as Euclid's theorems nor as provisions of the
statute and that too taken out of their context. These observations
must be read in the context in which they appear to have been
stated. Judgments of Courts are not to be construed as statutes. To
interpret words, phrases and provisions of a statute, it may
become necessary for judges to embark into lengthy discussions
but the discussion is meant to explain and not to define. Judges
interpret statutes, they do not interpret judgments. They interpret
words of statutes; their words are not to be interpreted as
statutes.‖
55) By applying the principle laid down in the above judgments,
it is difficult to accept the contention that this petitioner is entitled
to claim relief in the present writ petition as a matter of right and
the facts in the judgment referred above are totally different from
the present facts of the case. The petitioner also placed reliance on
the judgment of Madras High Court in R. Sharavanan vs. The
Transport Commissioner11. A similar question came up regarding
appointment of petitioner therein to the post of Motor Vehicle
Inspector Grade-II in the vacancy meant and reserved for
physically disabled persons. But, after selection process is
10 AIR 2004 SC 778
CJ & MSM,J
WP.No.8594 of 2020
completed, the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission denied
appointment to the petitioner therein, as the petitioner was having
„flat foot‟. The petitioner claimed appointment to the vacancy
reserved for 3% posts of Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade-II to the
physically challenged persons, as provided in the notification. The
petitioner gained driving experience in 1994 itself and he was
performing the duties of Driving Instructor, but, denial of
appointment as Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade-II on the ground of
deformity. But the learned single Judge of High Court of Madras
went on discussing about various provisions with reference to the
Rules framed under the Act and issued a direction.
56) The learned single Judge of Madras High Court also referred
to judgments of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Mahesh Gupta vs.
Yashwant Kumar Ahirwar12, Government of India vs. Ravi
Prakash Gupta13, Syed Bashir-ud-din vs. Nazir Ahmed Shah14
and finally issued a direction to the respondents therein to issue
appointment order to the petitioner therein after getting
clarification from the Secretary, Transport Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu, within a period of four weeks from the
date of pronouncement of judgment.
57) In view of the principle laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court
in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd and Anr. vs. N.R.
Vairamani and Another (referred above), this Court has to decide
about the application of the principle. However, the judgment
relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner is only a
(2007) 8 SCC 621
(2010) 7 SCC 626
(2010) 3 SCC 603
CJ & MSM,J
WP.No.8594 of 2020
judgment of learned single Judge of Madras High Court, thereby, it
is not a binding precedent. However, the facts in the above
judgment are distinguishable, as the Transport Department was
exempted from providing reservations, in view of second proviso to
Section 34(1) of the Act, in the State of Andhra Pradesh. But, the
Madras High Court in R. Sharavanan vs. The Transport
Commissioner (referred above), the Notification impugned therein
provides 3% reservations to disabled persons. But, in the
Notification impugned in the present writ petition, no such
reservation is provided. On the other hand, „flat foot‟ is a
disqualification for being appointed as AMVI. Therefore, the
principle laid down in the above judgment cannot be applied to the
present facts of the case, in view of the fact situation referred
above. Hence, we find no merit in the contention of this petitioner
and the Recruitment Notification No 11/2018 Dated 5.12.2018,
G.O.Ms.No.71 dated 19.02.2009 and G.O.Ms.No.147 dated
06.08.2016 cannot be declared as illegal, arbitrary and ultra vires
to the Act, as it is defeating the rule of reservation provided under
Section 34 of the Act, and such Act is arbitrary.
58) In view of our foregoing discussion, we find no merit in the
contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the writ
petition is liable to be dismissed.
59) In the result, writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
60) Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any,
shall stand closed.
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY,J
SP
