Madras High Court
Dr. K.Anbarasu vs The Secretary The Government on 10 January, 2023
Writ Appeal No.25 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.01.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
Writ Appeal No. 25 of 2023
and
CMP. No. 321 of 2023
Dr. K.Anbarasu ... Appellant
Versus
1. The Secretary the Government
Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries Department
Secreariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009.
2. The Director
Department of Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Services,
No.571, Anna Salai,
Nandanam, Chennai-600 035.
3. The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission ,
TNPSC Road, V.O.C. Nagar,
Park Town, Chennai-600 003. ... Respondents
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patents Act against the
order dated 12.07.2022 passed in W.P. No. 17542 of 2022 on the file of this
Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/7
Writ Appeal No.25 of 2023
For Appellant : Mr. C.Veera Raghavan
For Respondents : Mr. C.Kathiravan
Special Government Pleader (R1 & R2)
Mr. I.Abrar Md. Abdullah (R3)
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the court was delivered by R. MAHADEVAN, J.)
Aggrieved by the order dated 12.07.2022 passed by the learned Judge in
W.P. No.17542 of 2022, the writ petitioner has come up with this intra court
appeal.
2.Originally, the appellant / writ petitioner preferred the aforesaid writ
petition, seeking a direction to the respondents to consider his representation
dated 17.06.2022, wherein, he requested to revise the quota reserved under deaf
and dumb and convert it to the general quota as per the reservation system and to
appoint him in the post of veterinary Assistant Surgeon (VAS).
3.However, the learned Judge disposed of the aforesaid writ petition,
recording the submissions made by the learned Additional Government Pleader
appearing for the respondents herein, by the order impugned herein, the relevant
passage of which is extracted below for ready reference:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Appeal No.25 of 2023
"4. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the
1st and 2nd respondents submitted that there is no reservation quota
under deaf and dumb and convert it to the General Quota as per
the reservation system.
5. Inviting the attention of this Court, the learned Additional
Government Pleader appearing for the 1st and 2nd respondents
relied upon Section 34(2) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
Act, 2016, wherein it has been stated as follows:-
“34 (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.”
6. He further submitted that the said provision has given the
mode of filling up the vacancy and the candidates not suitable for
the said post, cannot be considered for the said post. After
exhausting all the categories under Section 34(2) of the Act and if
there is no eligible candidates are available, then petitioner's
request will be considered for appointment other than a person
with disability in accordance with Rules.
7. Therefore, in the light of the above submissions made by the
learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the 1st and
2nd respondents, this Court cannot pass such a direction to the
respondents to consider the petitioner's request without following
the said provisions under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
Act, 2016. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief
to the writ petitioner.”
The aforesaid order of the learned Judge is impugned in this appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Appeal No.25 of 2023
4.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that without considering
the fact that the representation of the petitioner is pending with the respondent
authorities and the appellant sought a mandamus only to the limited extent of
disposing of the said representation, the learned Judge has erred in passing the
order impugned herein, which is arbitrary and in violation of the principles of
natural justice. It is further submitted that the learned Judge, without giving any
finding on the merits of the case, has disposed of the writ petition, merely
recording the submissions made on the side of the respondents and hence, the
order passed by him is liable to be set aside. Ultimately, the learned counsel
submitted that the appellant would be satisfied, if a direction is issued to the
respondent authorities to dispose of the representation submitted by the
appellant, in the light of the material documents produced by him.
5. It is fairly submitted on the side of the respondents that the
representation of the appellant / writ petitioner will be considered and
appropriate orders be passed on merits and in accordance with law, within a time
frame to be stipulated by this court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Appeal No.25 of 2023
6.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
7.It is seen in the order impugned in this writ appeal that before the writ
court, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents
categorically submitted that after exhausting all the categories under section
34(2) of the Act and if there is no eligible candidates are available, then the
petitioner's request will be considered for appointment other than a person with
disability in accordance with Rules. While recording the same, the learned Judge,
instead of directing the respondent authorities to consider the representation of
the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, has erroneously dismissed the writ
petition. To that extent, the order of the learned Judge is liable to be interfered
with.
8.In view of the above and also taking note of the limited relief now
sought by the learned counsel for the appellant, which has been agreed by the
learned counsel appearing for the respondent authorities, this court modifies the
order of the learned Judge, which is impugned herein, by directing the
respondent authorities to consider the representation of the appellant / writ
petitioner, on merits and also in the light of the Tamil Nadu Government
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Appeal No.25 of 2023
Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 and pass appropriate orders, within a
period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.
9.Accordingly, this writ appeal is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[R.M.D., J.] [J.S.N.P., J.]
Internet : Yes 10.01.2023
Index : Yes / No
Maya
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Appeal No.25 of 2023
R.MAHADEVAN, J.
AND
J. SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.
Maya
To
1. The Secretary the Government
Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries Department
Secreariat, Fort St. George
Chennai-600 009.
2. The Director
Department of Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Services
No.571, Anna Salai
Nandanam, Chennai-600 035.
3. The Chairman
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission
TNPSC Road, V.O.C. Nagar
Park Town, Chennai-600 003.
Writ Appeal No. 25 of 2023
Dated : 10.01.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
