1. Heard Sri K. Jyothi Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Services-III appearing for the respondents.

2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

"It is hereby prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order of direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents in respect of filling up of unfilled/carried forward vacancies of teacher posts from three previous recruitments i.e from DSC-2008, 2012 & 2014 earmarked to physically handicapped category by applying interchange of roaster points in respect of the petitioners herein who are eligible in DSC-2018 by changing the post of Disabled Backlog Physically Handicapped-VH (Women) in to Physically Handicapped-OH (General) as provided under Rule 22 of A.P. State Subordinate Service Rules, as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, violation of principles of natural justice and violation of Constitutional guarantees besides violation of G.O.Ms.No.23 WCD&SC Department dated 26.05.2011 and G.O.Ms.No.99 General Administration (Ser.D) Department, dated 04.03.2013."

3. The petitioner’s case is that the 2nd respondent-Commissioner of the School Education issued notification dated 26.10.2018 for Teachers Recruitment Test (TRT) inviting the applications to fill up the posts of School Assistants (SA), Language Pandits (LP), Physical Education Teachers (Pets), Music Teachers, Craft Teachers and Art & Drawing Teachers (in short, "DSC-2018" (TRT)).

4. Pursuant to the above notification, the petitioners applied for the posts of School Assistant and in the category of Physically Handicapped (PHC). The petitioners suffered Orthopedic Handicappedness (OH). They appeared in the examination of DSC-2018, in which the 1st petitioner-Tirupathi Pollai secured a State 25th rank (School Assistant- Non Language-Mathematics in Oriya medium), the 2nd petitioner-Majji Shonkore secured State 6th rank (School Assistant-Non Language- Social Studies in Oriya Medium) and the 3rd petitioner-Savara Janaki secured the State 3rd rank (School Assistant-Non Language-Physical Sciences in Oriya Medium). The vacancies notified included the carried forward vacancies from DSC Notification-2008, 2012 & 2014 to DSC-2018. Five (5) posts, in the Category of School Assistants (Maths) in Oriya Medium, four (4) posts in the category of School Assistant (Physical Science) in Oriya Medium and two (2) posts in the category of School Assistant (Social Studies) remained unfilled. The posts notified for PHC Visually Handicapped, Woman (VH.W) also remained unfilled even after DSC-2018 selections. In respect thereof, an information vide Lr.Rc.No.2096/C.2/B5/2016, dated 17.08.2019 by the 3rd respondent- District Educational Officer, Srikakulam was submitted to the 2nd respondent-Commissioner of the School Education. The petitioners made representations with request to interchange of three posts of PHC (VH-W) which remained unfilled with PHC (OH) to select the petitioners considering their merit/rank position though they could not be selected in their category of PHC (OH).

5. The District Educational Officer, Srikakulam-5th respondent vide proceedings in Rc.No.797/A1/2019, dated 25.05.2019 informed that interchange of roaster points PHC (VH) (W) was not feasible as there was no specific Government Order in that respect. Further, vide Lr.Rc.No.3755/A8/A1/2019, dated 06.09.2019, the 3rd respondent- District Educational Officer informed that action will be taken soon after receipt of specific order from the Government/CSE,AP, Amaravati. Later on, in response to one representation of the 3rd petitioner, the Director of School Education/3rd respondent informed vide proceedings Rc.No.ESE02-20021/110/2020-RECTMT-CSE, dated 15.10.2020, that such request was not feasible as the Government, vide Memo dated 16.09.2020 decided to go for limited recruitment to fill up 152 unfilled vacancies of DSC-2018 earmarked for PHC, by applying interchange of Roaster points, however, no such recruitment notification was issued.

6. The grievance the petitioners are raising, is that they be given appointment pursuant to their merit/rank in DSC-2018, to the posts notified for PHC-VH (Women) by interchange of those posts to PHC-OH (General).

7. Sri K. Jyothi Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that as per Rule 22 of A.P. State Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 (for short "the Rules, 1996"), applied to G.O.ms.No.67 dated 26.10.2018, the reservation for physically handicapped category is in the ratio of 1:1:1 for the Blind, Deaf & Dumb and Ortho Physical Handicapped respectively. The roaster points were fixed to the different categories of handicapped persons and as per G.O.Ms.No.252 GA (Ser.D) Department dated 28.08.2004 the 6th, 31st and 56th points in cycle of 100 vacancies roaster are for visually handicapped, Hearing Handicapped and Orthopedically Handicapped respectively.

8. Sri K. Jyothi Prasad further submitted that Section 36 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (Central Act No.1 of 1996) provided that where in any recruitment, any vacancy under Section 33, could not be filled up due to non availability of a suitable person with benchmark disability, or for any other sufficient reason, such vacancy shall be carried forward in the succeeding recruitment year and if in the succeeding recruitment year also person with benchmark disability is not available, it may first be filled by interchanging among three categories and only when there is no person with such 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. The G.O.Ms.No.252, dated 28.08.2004 providing for the same has also been referred. He has placed reliance in the case of K. Nagi Reddy vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh by this court in (Writ Petition No.9013 of 2021 decided on 16.08.2021).

9. Learned Government Pleader for Services-III submitted that the notification No.768/TRC/1/2018 dated 26.10.2018 was issued to conduct teacher eligibility test (TET) for 527 posts of School Assistants wherein 15 posts were notified under School Assistants (PS/Maths/SS) Oriya medium in Srikakulam District. The selection was done to the School Assistant posts in the subjects of Maths and Social Studies Oriya Medium, for which 7, 6 and 2 posts respectively were notified out of which 1,5 and 2 posts respectively remained unfilled. He further submitted that as per G.O.Ms.No.23 (For Women, Children, Disabled & Senior Citizens (DW)) dated 26.05.2011 and G.O.Ms.No.99 General Administration (Services-D) Department dated 04.03.2013, in case of non availability of suitable person with disability or for any other sufficient reason, the vacancy was to be carried forward for being filled as per the prescribed procedure. He submitted that after the release of the guidelines for interchanging amongst three categories, only twice recruitment notifications were issued i.e TET-cum-TRT 2014 and TRT- 2018. Subsequently, the Government vide Memo dated 16.09.2020 accorded permission for limited recruitment by applying interchange of roaster points in terms of G.O.Ms.No.23 dated 26.05.2011 and G.O.Ms.No.99 dated 04.03.2013 aforesaid.

10. Learned Government Pleader for Services-III further submitted that as per the G.O.Ms.No.99 dated 04.03.2013, the 6th, 31st and 56th points in cycle of 100 vacancies are be allotted to the Blindness or Low Vision (Visually) Handicapped (VH), Hearing Impaired (HI) and Locomotors Disability or Cerebral Palsy. He further submitted that in limited recruitment-2021 PHC-VH (Women) roaster is interchanged and notified as PH-VH (Open) and hence, the request of the petitioners to appoint them as School Assistants on their respective posts against visually Handicapped-VH (Women) vacancies by interchange as PH-OH (General) is not feasible and the petition deserves dismissal.

11. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the parties and perused the material available on record.

12. The petitioners’ base their claim on merit/rank inDSC-2018, being Orthopedic handicapped (OH) by interchange of the category of VH (W) which remained unfilled due to non availability of VH(W) candidate.

13. The point for consideration, therefore, is as to whether based of DSC-2018, the petitioners have any legal right to claim appointment by interchanging the post notified for VH(W) as OH(G) category.

14. The notification No.768/TRC-1/2018 dated 26.10.2018 and the Government Memo No.ESE01-SEDN0CSE(RET)24/2020-EXAMS dated 16.09.2020 are not under challenge in the present writ petition. This Court therefore, is not to consider the legality or otherwise of the said notification and the Memo. The court shall consider only the right of the petitioners for interchange amongst the three categories as claimed by them in DSC 2018.

15. From the pleadings of the parties as also the submissions advanced it is undisputed that the unfilled vacancies in question in DSC-2018 are posts of PHC(VH) (W), against which claim is made. Out of those three (3) posts, two (2) are unfilled vacancies of DSC-2008 and one (1) is of DSC-2003. In this respect, the details furnished as per the chart submitted by the petitioner’s vide Memo dated 05.09.2021 is being reproduced as under to which there is no dispute.

16. Therefore, with respect to the unfilled post of DSC-2003 PHC (VH) (W), DSC-2018 is atleast the 5th recruitment year, the previous being 2008,2012 and 2014 DSC(S). With respect to two post of the same category which remained unfilled in DSC-2008, the DSC-2018 is the 4th recruitment year. The petitioner has stated in Memo filed on 18.08.2021 that from 2003 till 2018 there were altogether 6 DSC(S).

17. The legal provisions which is applicable is Section 36 of the Central Act 1 1996 read with the Government Orders upon which both the sides placed reliance while advancing their respective submissions.

18. It is relevant to reproduce Section 36 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (Central Act No.1 of 1996), which reads as under:-

"36. Vacancies not filled up to be carried forward.—

Where in any recruitment year any vacancy under section 33 cannot be filled up due to non-availability of a suitable person with disability or, for any other sufficient reason, such vacancy shall be carried forward in the succeeding recruitment year and if in the succeeding recruitment year also suitable person with disability is not available, it may first be filled by interchange among the three 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 three categories with the prior approval of the appropriate Government."

19. Section 33 of the Central Act No.1 of 1996 reads as follows:

"33. 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 this section."

20. A bare reading of Section 36 of the Central Act No.1 of 1996 shows that where in any recruitment year vacancies under Section 33 cannot be filled up due to non availability of a suitable person with disability or for any other sufficient reason, such vacancy shall be carried forward in the succeeding recruitment year and if in the succeeding recruitment year, also suitable person with disability is not available, it may first be filled up by interchanging among three categories and only when there is no person with disability, available for the posts in that year, the employer shall fill up the vacancies by appointment of a person, other than a person with disability.

21. The G.O.Ms.No.23 dated 26.05.2011 upon which reliance is placed is also reproduced as under:

“GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH A B S T R A C T

Dept. for Women, Children, Disabled and Senior Citizens – Reservation of Posts in favour of Persons with Disabilities and Interchange among the 3 categories of Disabled Persons in accordance with PWD Act, 1995 & Order of APAT in OA No.9612 of 2009 dated 11-08-2010 – Revised - Orders – Issued.

============================================ ================

DEPT. FOR WOMEN, CHILDREN, DISABLED & SENIOR CITIZENS (DW)

G.O.Ms.No.23

Dated: 26-05-2011

Read the following:-

1) G.O.Ms.No.115,WDCW & ( (WH.Desk) Deptt.Dt.30-7-1991.

2) GO. Ms .No. 18, WD, CW & L Dept, dt:01-03-1994.

3)G.O.Ms.No.72 WD&CW (WH.Desk) Deptt.Dated 5-8-1997

4)G.O.Ms.No.112,WD&CW (WH) Deptt.dt.6-12-1997.

5) G.O.Ms.No.385, G.A.(Ser.D)Deptt.dt.18-11-2000.

6) G.O.Ms.No.52, WDCW & DW (DW) Deptt,dt.25-10-2002

7) G.O.Ms.No.41, WDCW&DW (DW) Deptt.dt.27-11-2003

8) G.O.Ms.No.252, G.A.(Ser.) Deptt.dt.28-8-2004.

9) Orders of A.P.A.T., Hyd dated 11-8-2010 in O.A.No.9612/09

10) From the Commissioner, Disabled Welfare, Hyderabad, Letter.No.C1/3490/2010, dt.20-11-2010.

***
O R D E R:-

Orders were issued in the reference 1st read above, fixing 3% reservation in favour of Handicapped persons in the ratio of 1:1:1 for the Blind, Deaf/ Dumb and Orthopaedically Handicapped respectively. In the reference 3rd read above, orders were issued fixing roster points to the different categories of handicapped including women.

2. Based on the orders issued in the G.O.7th read above, General Administration (Ser.D) Department had issued orders fixing the roster points and amended the State and Subordinate Service Rules accordingly in the reference 8th read above.

3. According to rule 22 (2) (e) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service rules, 1996 as amended in G.O.Ms.No.252, G.A.(Ser.D) Department dated 28-8-2004, the 6th,31st and 56th points in each cycle of 100 vacancies shall be allotted to the Visually Handicapped, Hearing Handicapped and Orthopaedically Handicapped persons respectively as stated above and where qualified and suitable candidates are not available from among them, the turn allotted for them in the unit referred to above shall be carried forward for three succeeding recruitment years. In the third succeeding recruitment year, if disabled candidates from any category are not available for appointment in the turn allotted, the vacancy shall be filled by next group of disabled in rotation by effecting interchange and the reservation shall cease thereafter.

4. Section 36 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation Act, 1995 (Central Act No.1 of 1996) provides that where in any recruitment year any vacancy under Section 33, cannot be filled up due to non availability of a suitable person with disability or, for any other sufficient reason, such vacancy shall be carried forward in the succeeding recruitment year and if in the succeeding recruitment year also person with disability is not available, it may first be filled by interchanging among three 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 three categories with the prior approval of the appropriate Government.

5. The Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in its order in O.A.No.9612/2009, dated 11-08-2010 while allowing the said O.A. in part quashing the rule issued under G.O.ms.No.252, G.A.(Ser.D) Deptt.dt.28-08-2004 to the extent of prescribing the period of three years.

6. Government after careful examination of the matter and in consonance with the provisions of Section 36 of the PWD Act, 1995 (Central Act No.1 of 1996) and the aforesaid orders of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and in supercession of the orders issued in the references 1st to 7th read above, issue the following comprehensive orders:- i) 3% of vacancies in case of Direct Recruitment for persons or class of persons with disability of which one per cent, each shall be reserved for persons suffering from:- a) blindness or low vision; b) hearing impairment; c) locomotor disability or cerebral palsy, Provided that the 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 notifications, exempt any establishment from the provisions of this reservation, as per the procedure prescribed at para ( 7) of this Order. ii) Definitions of disabilities: Definitions of categories of disabilities for the purpose of reservations in posts shall be as stipulated in PWD Act. 3 iii) The reservation among the 3 categories of Persons with Disabilities i.e. Blindness or Low vision, Hearing Impairment and Locomotor Disability or Cerebral Palsy in three cycles and reservation for women among them shall be as follows:- 1 to 100 6 31 56 (Blindness or Low Vision) (Hearing Impaired) (Locomotor Disability or Cerebral Palsy) (Women) (Open) (Open) 101-200 106 131 156 (Blindness or Low Vision) (Hearing Impaired) (Locomotor Disability or Cerebral Palsy) (Open) (Women) (Open) 201-300 206 231 256 (Blindness or Low Vision) (Hearing Impaired) (Locomotor Disability or Cerebral Palsy) (Open) (Open) (Women) iv) Where in any recruitment year, any vacancy cannot be filled up due to non availability of a suitable person with disability or, for any other sufficient reason as specified above, such vacancy shall be carried forward to the succeeding recruitment year for being filled from the same category. If in that year also qualified candidates of the same category are not available, the same shall be notified for being filled up by interchanging from among the three categories. Only when there is no person with disability of any of the 3 categories available for the post, the employer shall fill up the vacancy by appointment of a person, other than a person with disability. Provided that if qualified women candidates are not available for the posts reserved for women, qualified male candidates of the same category of disabled may be appointed. Illustration 1 for Para 6 (iv):- a) In the case of 6th roster point fixed for Blindness or Low Vision (Woman), if woman candidate with Blindness or Low Vision is not available in the initial recruitment year, the vacancy may be carried forward to the succeeding recruitment year for being filled up by woman with Blindness or Low Vision; b) If woman candidate with Blindness or Low Vision in that succeeding recruitment year also is not available, the same shall be notified inviting applications from male candidate also with Blindness or Low Vision. If male candidate with Blindness or Low Vision is also not available, the post may first be notified for Hearing impaired candidate (being next category in the roster) and if no such candidate comes forward it may be notified for locomotor disability or cerebral palsy (being the next category in the roster); 4 c) Only when there is no person with disability of any of the 3 categories available for the post, the employer shall fill up the vacancy by appointment of a person other than a person with disability. d) For the other roster points reserved for women for remaining two categories of disabilities i.e. roster points 131, 256 the same procedure explained at (a) to (c) above shall be followed. Illustration 2 :- a) Similarly in the case of 31st roster point fixed for Hearing Impaired, if candidate with Hearing Impairment is not available in the initial recruitment year, the vacancy may be carried forward to the succeeding recruitment year for being filled up by a candidate who is Hearing Impaired. b) If candidate with Hearing Impairment in that succeeding recruitment year also is not available, the same shall be notified for being filled up by interchanging from among the remaining 2 (two) categories first by candidate with Locomotor Disability or Cerebral Palsy and then by Blindness or Low Vision ( being next roster points) c) Only when there is no person with disability of any of the 3 categories available for post shall the employer fill up the vacancy by appointment of a person, other than a person with disability. d) For the other roster points reserved for three categories of persons with disabilities other than women i.e. roster points 56, 106,156,206 and 231 the same procedure explained above at (a) to (c) shall be followed.

7. When any department considers that it is not possible to provide reservation for any category of Persons with Disabilities or that the extent of reservation needs to be reduced or that the extent of disability needs to be specified, keeping in view the nature of duties to be performed by the employees in that particular department, the department may seek partial or full exemption from such reservation. Such exemption shall however be decided by the following Inter Departmental Committee:-

1) Secretary to Government, Department for Women, Children, Disabled and Senior Citizens : Chairman/ Chairperson

2) Commissioner, Department for the Welfare for Disabled and Senior Citizens : Convener

3) Secretary to Government, General Administration (Services) Department: Member

4) Director, Medical and Health Deptt. : Member

5) Secretary to Govt., or his nominee of the department concerned who sought exemption : Member.

8. These orders shall come into force with retrospective effect from 28-08-2004 i.e. issue of G.O.Ms.No.252, G.A.(Ser.D) Department, dated 28-08-2004. However, this amendment shall not have the effect of nullifying a benefit which has been granted or availed of under the Old Rules.

9. The General Administration (Ser.D) Department shall issue necessary amendments to the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 accordingly.

10. All the Departments of Secretariat, Heads of Departments and all officers concerned are requested to implement the above orders.

11. This order is available on the Internet and can be accessed at the address http://aponline.gov.in/apgos.

(BY ORDER AND IN THE NAME OF THE GOVERNOR OF ANDHRA PRADESH)

M.CHAYA RATAN,

SPL.CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT.”

22. Para 6(iv) of G.O.Ms.No.23 dated 26.05.2011, is also clear that where in any recruitment year, any vacancy cannot be filled up due to non availability of a suitable person with disability or, for any other sufficient reason as specified above, such vacancy shall be carried forward to the succeeding recruitment year for being filled from the same category. If in that year also qualified candidates of the same category are not available, the same shall be notified for being filled up by interchanging from among the three categories. Only when there is no person with disability of any of the 3 categories available for the post, the employer shall fill up the vacancy by appointment of a person, other than a person with disability. Provided that if qualified women candidates are not available for the posts reserved for women, qualified male candidates of the same category of disabled may be appointed.

23. In K. Nagi Reddy (supra), this court analyzed Rule 6(4) of G.O.Ms.No.23 dated 26.05.2011 and held as under:

"Against this backdrop for the purpose of analysis if the rule on which the respondents rely upon namely - Rule 6 (iv) of G.O.Ms.No.23, dated 26.05.2011, is split up into its component parts it is as follows:

"1) Where in any recruitment year, any vacancy cannot be filled up due to non availability of a suitable person with disability or, for any other sufficient reason as specified above;

(2) Such vacancy shall be carried forward to the succeeding recruitment year for being filled from the same category;

(3) If in that year also qualified candidates of the same category are not available, the same shall be notified for being filled up by interchanging from among the three categories;

(4) Only when there is no person with disability of any of the 3 categories available for the post, the employer shall fill up the vacancy by appointment of a person, other than a person with disability.

(5) Provided that if qualified women candidates are not available for the posts reserved for women, qualified male candidates of the same category of disabled may be appointed."

If this rule is broken up into its parts and interpreted, it is clear that it deals with a "suitable person" with disability and does not discriminate on the ground of sex of the candidate. If a vacancy cannot be filled up in the first year it shall be carried forward to the succeeding recruitment year. If in that year also qualified candidates are not available with the benchmark disability the same shall be notified by filling up / and by interchanging amongst people with blindness, hearing 10 impairment, locomotor disability etc. Only when there is no person with any of these defined disabilities available the employer can fill up the post with any other person without a disability. This is the plain language interpretation of this rule.

However, the Proviso to this section clearly states that if qualified women are not available for the post reserved for women, a qualified male candidate with the same category of the disablement can be appointed. The proviso is reproduced here once again –

"Provided that if qualified women candidates are not available for the posts reserved for women, qualified male candidates of the same category of disabled may be appointed."

As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner the Proviso carves out an exception to the operation of the general rule. It is important to note that the rule does not provide for or mention about the "sex" of the challenged candidates. It does not mention - male or female. In the roster points the State has fixed the quota for men /women. The proviso however makes it very clear that if a qualified women candidate is not available for the post reserved for a woman, a qualified male candidate with the same disability can be appointed. The effect of the proviso is thus to carve out an exception to the general rule."

24. In view of the clear provisions of law, against the unfilled vacancy of 2003 DSC or/and 2008DSC, for PHC V.H(W), the petitioners cannot legally rest their claim based on their rank in DSC-2018 because previous to 2018 DSC, there were 2008, 2012, 2014 DSC(S). Section 36 read with Section 33 of theand the G.O.Ms.No.23 dated 26.05.2011 permits carry forward and interchange only for limited years of recruitment. The DSC-2018 is clearly beyond that limited year of recruitment.

25. In K. Nagi Reddy (supra), it was held that in view of the proviso if qualified women are not available for the post reserved for women with disability, the qualified male candidate with the same category of the disablement can be appointed. On this aspect, the present case is distinguishable as the petitioners do not suffer from the same disability. There is no question of applying the proviso in their case. Their claim is for inter changing the category.

26. It is settled in law that the writ of Mandamus cannot be issued directing the authorities to act contrary to law. In State of Utter Pradesh and others vs. Harish Chandra and others (1996) 9 SCC 309, [LQ/SC/1996/796] the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that "under the Constitution a Mandamus can be issued by the court when the applicant establishes that he has a legal right to the performance of legal duty by the party against whom the mandamus is sought and the said right was subsisting on the date of the petition. The duty that may be enjoined by mandamus may be one imposed by the Constitution or a Statute or by Rules or orders having the force of law. But no mandamus can be issued to direct the Government to refrain from enforcing the provisions of law or to do something which is contrary to law." In State of West Bengal and others vs. Subhas Kumar Chatterjee and others (2010) 11 SCC 694, [LQ/SC/2010/850] the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that "Neither the Government can act contrary to the rules nor the court can direct the Government to act contrary to the rules. No Mandamus lies for issuing directions to a Government to refrain from enforcing a provision of law. No court can issue Mandamus directing the authorities to act in contravention of the rules as it would amount to compelling the authorities to violate law. Such directions may result in destruction of rule of law."

27. This Court is of the considered view that any direction as claimed in the writ petition would be contrary to Section 36 of the Central Act 1 of 1996.

28. Consequently, the petitioners based on their rank in 2018 DSC cannot have any right to claim appointment by interchanging the category of PH-VH (Women) to PH-OH(General).

29. The writ petition lacks merits and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

30. Consequently, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall also stand closed.