(SHOW CAUSE NOTICE BEFOREADMISSION) HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD . FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND SIXTEEN I THE SRI RAMESH RANGANATHAN THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND. .. THE SRI JUSTICE A.SHANKAR NARAYANA WP 231033 of 2016 Between: - . Arepalli Naga Babu S/o. Arepalli Srinivasa Rao, Aged 23 years, 000: Advocate, R/o. 8-2-293I82, DBN 43, Durga Bawani Colony, Vinayak Nagar, Hyderabad - 500 033, Telangana State. ..PETITIONER AND 1 Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad, for the State of Andhra Pradesh and for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad. Rep., by its Registrar (Recruitment). 2 State of Andhra Pradesh, Law (LA - SC.F) Department, Rep., by its Secretary, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 3 State of Telangana, Law (LA - SC.F) Department, Rep., by its secretary, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. . WHEREAS the Petitioners above named through their Advocate SRI.K.VIVEK REDDY presented this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed here in the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Direction or Order, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, a. Declare Rule 7 of the Andhra Pradesh State JUdicial Service Rules, 2007 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and ultra vires the provisions of Persons with Disabilities (Equal, Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, and b. Consequently declare the Notification No. dated 16.08.2016 by the Respondent No.1 for appointment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) as ultra vires. 0. Direct Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to provide effective opportunity to the Petitioner to participate in the selection process including provision of scribe/writer and extension of time limit. - d. To keep one post vacant'of Civil Judge (Junior Division); AND WHEREAS the High Court upon perusing the petition and affidavit filed herein and upon hearing the arguments of REDDY Advocate for the Petitioners, and directed issue of notice to the Respondents herein returnable in 0 weeks to show cause as to 'why this writ petition should not be admitted in the circumstances set out in the petition and the affidavit filed in Writ Petition; You viz 1. The Registrar (Recruitment), High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad, for the State of Andhra Pradesh and for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad. 2. The Secretary, Law (LA - SC.F) Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, secretariat Buildings;,Hyderabad. - 3. The Secretary," State of Telangana, Law (LA SC.F) Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. are directed to show cause on or before 12.12.2016 to which date the case stands posted as to why in the circumstances set out in the petition and the affidavit filed therewith (copy enclosed) this writ petition should not be admitted. W.P.M.P.NO.38406 OF 2016 Petition under?ection 151 of C.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in W.P. the High Court may be pleased to permit the Petitioner to write the exam, viva voce and participate in the selection process for the posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division) issued vide Notification by the Respondent No.1, pending disposal of the WP. No. 31033 'of ?52016 on the file of the High Court THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING ORDER: Notice before admission, returnable in 4 (four) weeks. Sri K.Vivek Reddy, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, is permitted to take out notice on the respondents by registered post with acknowledgement due and to file proof-of service within four weeks. The petitioner, a practicing advocate of the. High Court passed his BA, Honoursr?cotirse from National Law University of Odisha securing first is visually challenged and suffers from blindness. He invoked-?the jurisdiction of this Court challenging the validity of Rule 7 of the Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service Rules, 2007, on the ground that it does not provide reservation in favour of the visually challenged and is, therefore, ultra vires the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (?the 1995 Act" for short). Sri K.Vivek Reddy, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would draw our attention to Amt-endra :Kumar. v..!Registrar General, Delhi High Court (Judgment in No.1819 of 2014, dated 23.05.2014), to submit that 3% reservation for persons with disability was directed to be provided by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the Delhi Judicial Service Examination, 2014; and, pursuant thereto, a notification was issued by the Delhi High Court for the Delhi Judicial Service Examination, 2015 providing reservation in favour of the visually handicapped (blind). Learned Counsel would further submit that, against the Division Bench judgment of the Madras High Court in V.Surendra Mohan v. State of Tamil Nadu (Order in of 2015 and to 3 of 2015, dated 05.06.2015) rejecting the claim for reservation in judicial service in favour of the blind, the matter was carried in appeal to the Supreme Court and, by order in of 201.5 dated 10.07.2015, the Supreme Court, while ordering notice, had directed that one post be kept vacant. Learned Counsel would submit that the Rajasthan High Court has also issued a notification providing reservation in favour of the blind. The question whether reservation should be provided in Judicial Services for the blind, and whether Rule 7 should be declared ultra wires the 1995 Act can only be examined after a counter-affidavit is filed by the respondents. There does not, however, appear to be any prohibition in the Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service Rules, 2007, prohibiting visually challenged candidates from participating in the selection process for appointment to posts in the AP. State Judicial Service. While the petitioner?s claim for being provided reservation necessitates further examination, he cannot be denied participation in the selection process under the open category merely on account of his handicap (blindness). We consider it apprOpriate, therefore, to direct the first reSpondent to receive the petitioner?s application, and permit him to appear for the screening test scheduled to be held on 27.11.2016 in the Hyderabad centre. In order to ensure that other candidates, who are appearing in the examination are not disturbed, the petitioner shall be permitted to appear in the examination in a separate room, and'be provided the assistance of a scribe. Guideline No.11 of the Official Memorandum of the Government of India, dated 26.02.2013, reads as under: The word ?extra time or additional time? that is being currently used should be changed to ?compensatory time? and the same should not be less than 20 minutes per hour of examination for persons who are making use of scribe/reader/lab assistant. All the candidates with disability not availing the facility of scribe may be allowed additional time of minimum of one hour for examination of 3 hours duration which could further be increased on case to case basis.? In terms of the aforesaid guideline No.Xl, the petitioner shall be given extra time or additional time of 20 minutes for each hour of the examination to answer the. paper. List the Writ Petition ?for admission? on 12.12.2016. K.SAILESHI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR For ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 1. The High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad, for the State of Andhra'Pradesh and for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad. 2. The Secretary, Law (LA - SC.F) Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 3. The Secretary, State of Telangana, Law (LA - SC.F) Department, ndhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, to 3 by along with a copy of petition and affidavit) . One CC to SRI.K.VIVEK REDDY, Advocate (OPUC) 5. Two 003 to GP FOR LAW (AR), HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, HYD. (OUTFOR LAW (T.G.), HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, HYD. (OUT). 7. Two Spare copies. SRL .p 6., . NOLLOEHIG 9 L03 NOISSIINCIV 380538 HOLLON N0 80d? .LIEIM 3H1. lSl'I ?8 POVH .LHFIOO HDIH