Three percent Reservation to be Equally Distributed

Perambaduru Murali Krishna and Ors vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors

Filed Under: Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, Rule 22 (2) of Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1996
Appellant: Perambaduru Murali Krishna and Ors.
Respondent: The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.
Citation: 2003 (1) ALD 597
Court: In the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad
Judges: B. Sudershan Reddy and Ghulam Mohammed

Facts

Perambaduru Murali and other people who filed this petition were visually handicapped and had applied for the post of Secondary Grade Teacher/School Assistant in response to an advertisement published in a newspaper. The advertisement also invited applications from physically handicapped persons in accordance with the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Services Rules in the Cuddapah district.

These rules provided 3% reservation for the physically handicapped individuals but did not provide 1:1:1 reservation in favor of visually handicapped, hearing handicapped and orthopaedically handicapped. The petitioners challenged the selection of teachers made in response to the notification issued on various grounds.

They also pointed out that the reservations made in the adjoining district of Kurnool for these posts were in accordance with the 1:1:1 ratio. Whereas the advertisement issued in the Cuddapah district had not abided by this rule when reserving seats for the disabled candidates.

Perambaduru and others filed a petition in the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad challenging the selection of teachers made in pursuance of the advertisement for which they had applied. The Tribunal Court did not agree with any of the contentions made by Perambaduru and the other candidates, and accordingly rejected the writ petitions.

Arguments made on behalf of Perambaduru Murali and others

Perambaduru's lawyer contended that the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Services Rules regarding the 3% reservation for physically handicapped persons without further categorization was in direct conflict with the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities Act and should therefore be considered void. It was further contended that the provisions of the Act should prevail over the rules made by the Government of Andhra Pradesh.

The lawyer also argued that there had been a large-scale fraud in the selection process and therefore the selections made were not valid. It was also stated that the appointments had been made on the basis of fake certificates issued by the authorities instead of merit among the physically handicapped persons.

Observations of the Court

The Court stated that the allegations made by the lawyer regarding the selection process being a large-scale fraud were baseless since nothing had been placed on record in relation to this allegation. The Court however, took up the issue of the authority of the State Government to make rules that contradict the provisions of the Act.

The Court examined this aspect in depth and also referred to relevant previous cases. On the basis of this, the Court opined that the rules and notification made by the Government of Andhra Pradesh were valid except to the extent of their inconsistency with the provisions of the Act. It was further stated that the manner in which the 3% reservations had been made for the physically handicapped was inconsistent with the provisions of the Act.

With respect to the petition however, the Court stated that Perambaduru and the other candidates who had filed the case had not challenged the rules and notification before their participation in the selection process. The Court stated that these candidates had appeared for the test and the interview in accordance with the rules.

Furthermore, it was stated that the selection had taken place a long time ago and subsequently the State Government had amended its rules in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

The Court pointed out that even if the selection had been made in accordance with the provisions of the Act, only one candidate from among those who filed the petition would have been selected. The Court referred to the list of marks obtained by these persons in order to support this claim.

It directed the Government of Andhra Pradesh to create a supernumerary post for the candidate, Perambaduru, who had not been selected because the provisions of the Act had not been followed. It held that he should be appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher. The petition was disposed of accordingly.

Sections Referred:

  • Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995

Cases Referred:

  • Maganbhai vs. Union of India, AIR 1969 SC 783
  • S Jagannath vs. Union of India, (1997)2 SCC 87
  • A G of Canada vs. A G of Ontario, AIR 1937 PC 82
  • Munro vs. Nat. Capital Comm, 57 DLR (2d) 753