Judgment :- (PRAYER: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus as stated therein.) P.D. Dinakaran, J. The petitioner seeks a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the fourth respondent in O.A.No.136 of 2005, dated 7.10.2005 and that of the first respondent in proceedings C.No.II/3/13/2002-CF, dated 4.1.2005, to quash the same and to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's name for promotion to the post of Inspector of Central Excise. 2. The brief facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are as under: The petitioner joined the services of the respondents as a Lower Division Clerk on 4.5.1990. Thereafter, he was promoted as Upper Division Clerk in the year 1995. Consequent to the re-designation of the post in the year 2002, he is holding the post of Tax Assistant. The petitioner, by virtue of his experience, made a representation to the respondents to consider him for promotion to the post of Inspector of Central Excise and Customs. However, the respondent did not consider the representation of the petitioner and he was informed that being a physically handicapped person, he would not be able to do the arduous job of Inspector of Central Excise and Customs. It is the further case of the petitioner that when persons who suffered serious disability and were refused promotion, they approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by way of O.A.No.884 of 2003, wherein directions were issued to the respondents to consider the handicapped persons to the post of Inspector of Central Excise and Customs. Thereafter, the respondents 1 to 3 called upon the petitioner to undergo endurance test of cycling and walking, and he was found to have performed the same successfully. By proceedings dated 27.12.2004 of the second respondent, the case of the petitioner was rejected as he does not have the prescribed height. Aggrieved by the proceedings of the second respondent dated 27.12.2004, the petitioner preferred an application before the Tribunal. By proceedings dated 27.12.2004 of the second respondent, the case of the petitioner was rejected as he does not have the prescribed height. Aggrieved by the proceedings of the second respondent dated 27.12.2004, the petitioner preferred an application before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, taking note of the fact that the respondents have implemented the order of the Tribunal in O.A.No.884 of ____ except in the case of the applicant, whose candidature was rejected on the ground of failure to possess the prescribed standard of height, held that there is no scope for relaxing the standards built into the Recruitment Rules, and rejected the application of the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Tribunal erred in rejecting the entitlement of the petitioner to the benefits conferred under Section 47(2) of the Act in the matter of promotion. The reason that was projected by the respondents and weighed by the Tribunal that the petitioner was not qualified, even though he passed the endurance test, is not justified as the petitioner claims promotion as a matter of right reserved for the persons with disability. Per contra, Mr.R.Santhanam, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents, supporting the conclusion of the Tribunal, reiterated the submissions made before the Tribunal. The point for consideration in this writ petition is whether the petitioner is entitled to promotion? One of the great world leaders, Nelson Mandela had said: "All countries today need to apply affirmative action to ensure that the women and the disabled are equal to all of us." The worldwide disability rights movement has initiated a new thinking among non-disabled persons that people with disabilities must also be provided with equal opportunities and equal treatment by society, a thinking that there is no pity or tragedy in a disability and that is a myth that being disabled is difficult. The Constitution of India does not specifically prescribe discrimination on the ground of "disability", but it does contain non-discriminatory provisions that guarantee equality and equal opportunities for all citizens as in Articles 14 and 16. The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 treats disability as a civil right rather than a health and welfare issue, and recognises the need to integrate persons with disabilities with the mainstream of society by some normative action. The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 treats disability as a civil right rather than a health and welfare issue, and recognises the need to integrate persons with disabilities with the mainstream of society by some normative action. In this context, it is apt to refer Section 47 of the Act, which reads as follows: "Section 47: Non-discrimination in Government employments.- (1) No establishment shall dispense with, or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his service: Provided that, if an employee, after acquiring disability is not suitable for the post he was holding, could be shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits. Provided further that if it is not possible to adjust the employee against any post, he may be kept on a supernumerary post until a suitable post is available or he attains the age of superannuation, whichever is earlier. (2) No promotion shall be denied to a person merely on the ground of his disability: Provided that the appropriate Government may, having regard to the type of work carried on in any establishment, by notification and subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in such notification, exempt any establishment from the provisions of this section." Section 47(1) of the Act, in clear terms, provides that there cannot be any discrimination in Government employments and no establishment shall dispense with or reduce in rank an employee whatsoever during his service. Section 47(2) of the Act is relevant for our purpose. It in crystal clear terms provides that no promotion shall be denied to a person merely on the ground of his disability.