APHC010412332021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] MONDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION TRANSFERED FROM APAT NO: 1118/2021 Between: V.Lovasubrahmaneswari ...PETITIONER AND Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V MAHESWAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. V.VENKATA NAGA RAJU (SC FOR APPSC) The Court made the following: 2 W.P.(AT).No.1118 of 2021 ORDER: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “…to hold the action on the part of the 1st respondent in not selecting the applicant as Assistant Executive Engineer under visually handicapped category despite availability of vacancies on the ground the deformity percentage is 30% as against minimum 40% by rejecting the candidature of the applicant vide Memo No.410/RS-20/AEE/2016, dated 02.08.2017 and not subjecting the applicant for re-medical examination and relying upon the reports submitted by the Superintendent, Government Regional Eye Hospital, Visakhapatnam which was not communicated to the applicant as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to rules and consequently direct the respondents to select and appoint the applicant as Assistant Executive Engineer under visually handicapped category, if necessary by subjecting the applicant for re- medical examination and pass…” 02. The case of the petitioner is briefly as follows: The applicant participated in the selection process for the post of Assistant Executive Engineer notified in various engineering departments in the State of Andhra Pradesh pursuant to the notification No.06/2016 with hall ticket No.604101868 under visually handicapped category. The petitioner emerged as successful candidate in the main examination. The 1st respondent issued a memo of intimation dated 13.04.2017 calling upon the applicant for provisional verification of 3 W.P.(AT).No.1118 of 2021 original certificates on 26.04.2017. The applicant attended the verification as per the schedule. The applicant has limited vision in one eye since her berth. The percentage of disability in her right eye is more than 40%. The medical certificate issued by the Medical Board, Kakinada of East Godavari District dated 30.01.2009 certifies that she has 40% disability. The 1st respondent directed the applicant to subject herself to medical examination by sending her to the Medical Board of the Government Regional Eye Hospital, Visakhapatnam on 01.05.2017. Thereafter, without assessing the disability level, the doctors examined her randomly and submitted slip of diagnosis with Sl.No.17642 reporting that the applicant has 30% disability. Thus, the 1st respondent issued a memo dated 02.08.2017 rejecting the candidature of the applicant. Stating that the action of the 1st respondent as highly irrational and illegal, this writ petition was filed. 03. The learned Standing Counsel for APPSC placed on record written instructions of Secretary, APPSC. As per the instructions, the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in its order dated 20.12.2017 in O.A.No.2677 of 2017 filed by the petitioner has directed the respondents to refer the issue to a qualified eye specialist for furnishing the details as to whether the government certificate dated 01.05.2017 contains report about the field vision of the applicant or not. In compliance thereafter, the APPSC forwarded a letter to the Appellate Medical Board for clarification and thereafter received reply from the Medical Board that there was no necessity to make visual field examination in view of her ocular examination findings. The instructions further states that the selection list was published on 13.06.2017 and the unit list was communicated to the unit officer on 20.06.2017 and all the vacancies notified under VH category in local and non-local were 4 W.P.(AT).No.1118 of 2021 filled up with available eligible candidates and by using the interchanged process in terms of G.O.Ms.No.99, General Administration (Ser-D) Department, dated 04.03.2013, but the petitioner filed O.A. before the Tribunal on 15.09.2017. It is further stated in the instructions that after completion of the said notification, the commission further issued two more notifications i.e., notification Nos.09 of 2018 and 19 of 2022. Under these circumstances, it was prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 04. Sri S.Harinath Reddy, learned counsel representing the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted to pass appropriate order. 05. Since the petitioner could not establish that the percentage of the disability she has meets the requirement of 40% which is required to secure the post, the relief prayed by her cannot be granted. 06. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed with the observation that in future, if the petitioner applies for any post reserved for the visually impaired, it shall be based on fresh assessment and the previous medical test shall not be the eligibility criteria. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim orders granted earlier, if any, shall stand vacated. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI Date: 03.03.2025 NSM 5 W.P.(AT).No.1118 of 2021 16 HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION TRANSFERED FROM APAT NO: 1118/2021 Date: 03.03.2025 NSM