Judgment :- Petitioner seeks writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned list of candidates selected as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) by recruitment through Employment Exchange-2005-2006 dated 10.02.2006, published by the 1st and 2nd Respondents to make appointments for the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) following the reservation policy applicable to Backward Class, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and as per the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Service Regulations. 2. Brief facts which led to the filing of the writ petition are as follows: (i) To fill up 300 vacancies of Assistant Engineer/Electrical and 25 vacancies of Assistant Engineer/Mechanical. The Assistant Director, Professional and Executive Employment Office, Chennai was addressed to sponsor qualified candidates. The Executive Employment Office has sponsored about 6009 candidates as per existing guidelines. (ii) Petitioner is a physically handicapped person and has passed B.E. Degree-Electrical and Electronics Engineering and registered himself as a qualified engineer with the Employment exchange in the year 2002. Petitioner attended the interview on 12.09.2005 for the post of Assistant Engineer/ Electrical. On 10.02.2006 when result was published by 2nd Respondent-Board Petitioners name was not in the list of successful candidates. (iii) Grievance of the Petitioner is that without making any reservation to the physically handicapped candidates belonging to Backward class, Scheduled castes and Scheduled tribes results were announced and Rule of Reservation was not followed. The appointments made is vitiated due to non-compliance of mandatory provision by providing 3% reservation for physically handicapped. 3. Opposing the Petition the Respondents have filed counter. In the counter it is averred that the rule of reservation of 3% vacancies for physically handicapped candidates is not applicable for the post of Assistant Engineer as the said post term comes under Class II category. It is further averred that Petitioner has secured 68.62 marks as against 71.46 cut-off marks and the Petitioner has not reached the zone of selection and therefore Petitioner was not been selected. Having participated in the selection process the Petitioner cannot challenge the selection process. 4. The learned counsel for the Petitioner Mr. R. Sivaprakasam has contended that the action of Board in not making 3% reservation for physically handicapped persons was violative of the provisions of The Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights And Full Participation) Act, 1995. (for short Disabilities Act) and also instructions issued by the State Government. 4. The learned counsel for the Petitioner Mr. R. Sivaprakasam has contended that the action of Board in not making 3% reservation for physically handicapped persons was violative of the provisions of The Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights And Full Participation) Act, 1995. (for short Disabilities Act) and also instructions issued by the State Government. Drawing attention of Court to G.O.Ms.No.53 dated 11.04.2005, the learned counsel for Petitioner asserted that as per the said G.O, 3% ought to have been reserved for Group A and B categories. It was further argued that under Section 33 of the Disabilities Act it is mandatory to reserve 3% for physically handicapped persons and the entire selection process is vitiated due to violation of mandatory provisions of Disabilities Act. 5. Drawing attention of Court to B.P.(Ch.)No.6 dated 06.01.1993, and G.O.Ms.No.2093 (Social Welfare Department), dated 30.10.1987. Mr.M.Vaidyanathan, learned counsel appearing for TNEB has submitted that reservation of post for physically handicapped persons is not applicable to Class I and II employees. Learned counsel further argued that as per the policy of Government and regulations the selection process had taken place and having participated in the selection it is not open to the Petitioner to challenge the selection process. It was further submitted that Petitioner has secured only 68.62 marks and he was out of zone of selection. 6. The purpose of Disabilities Act is to provide the persons with disabilities by affording protection of rights and full participation. Chapter VI is relevant for the present case. In nut-shell, Section 33 provides that the Government shall identify the posts which can be reserved for persons with disabilities. It is mandatory for the Government to appoint "not less than three percent.....persons with disability...." Section 33 reads as follows: "33. Reservation of posts.-Every appropriate Government shall appoint in every establishment such percentage of vacancies not less that three percent. For persons or class of persons with disability of which one percent 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. 7. 7. Laying emphasis upon Section 33, the learned counsel for the Petitioner has contended that the provisions of disabilities being a welfare legislation and the mandate of the legislature cannot be subverted. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance upon (2005) 1 PDD (CC) 243 Dalbir Singh Bagga vs. State of Punjab and Ors; (2005) 1 PDD (CC)83 The Secretary Educational Department, Government of Tamil Nadu and ors vs. Master J. Rajkumar (Minor) Rep. by his father and Natural Guardian D.joseph; (2005) 1 PDD (CC) 209 Shruti Kalra vs. University of Delhi and ors; (2005) 1 PDD (CC) 231 Perambaduru Murali Krishna and Ors vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and ors; (2005) 1 PDD (CC) 241 R. Manoj Kumar vs. The University of Hyderabad rep by its Registrar, Hyderabad; (2005) 1 PDD (CC) 268 National Federation of Blind vs. Union Public Service Commission and ors. All the decisions lay emphasis that the Act is a welfare legislation and the provisions are to be construed in such a manner so as to promote basic object of the statute. 8. In (2005) 1 PDD (CC)243 Dalbir Singh Bagga vs. State of Punjab and Ors held thus: "... 15. The Act is a piece of welfare legislation. The basic object of the Statute is to help the handicapped. The Act is intended to secure the object which runs through the Constitution and is embodied in Article 14. The Constitution guarantees equality to all. The physically handicapped members of the society suffer from a disability. In order to make the guarantee of equality a reality, certain beneficial provisions have been made in the Act. These provisions are meant to carry out the constitutional mandate of removing inequalities and ensuring equality. The object of the Act is to remove the handicap, at least to an extent, so that the less fortunate can compete with others in the matter of recruitment to public services. This object needs to be promoted. The provisions have to be liberally construed so as to effectuate the real intent of the Parliament. An interpretation which does not promote the basic object of the Stature has to be avoided." .9. In the present case, stand of Respondents is that no reservation need be made in Class I and Class II employees. The provisions have to be liberally construed so as to effectuate the real intent of the Parliament. An interpretation which does not promote the basic object of the Stature has to be avoided." .9. In the present case, stand of Respondents is that no reservation need be made in Class I and Class II employees. According to Respondents in G.O.Ms.No.2093(Social Welfare Department), dated 30.10.1987 in respect of Executive post under A and B categories, no reservation need be made to physically handicapped persons. Para 3 of the said G.O. Reads as under: ."3. The Government after careful examination direct that the reservation of 3% vacancies for physically handicapped persons should be made applicable to the Executive posts in respect of C & D categories and that the individuals selected for C & D categories of posts should be asked to produce a certificate of physical fitness from the Medical Board to the effect that their handicaps will not affect the performance of the job to which he/she has been selected, before appointment. In respect of executive posts under A&B categories no reservation need be made to physically handicapped persons." .10. According to the Respondent/Board based on the said Government Order, TNEB .has passed permanent B.P.(Ch.)No.6 dated 06.01.1993, that reservation of vacancies provided for physically handicapped persons need not be made in respect of recruitment to the post in Class I and Class II service and for recruitment by transfer/promotion. 11. The provisions of the Disabilities Act are self effective. Provisions of the Act does not need any administrative order or instruction. In (2005) 1 PDD (CC) 241, R. Manoj Kumar vs. The University of Hyderabad Rep by its Registrar, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that: "Section 33 of the Act mandates that not less than 3% of vacancies shall be reserved in every establishment for persons with disability. This mandate does not require for its effectuation any administrative instructions or orders of the academic or executive Council. It is a self-effectuating legislative mandate. The decision of the academic or executive council of the University is required only for pragmatic facilitation of this mandate. The mandate of the legislature cannot be subverted by the leisurely approach of the respondent-university to order its affairs to in consonance with the mandate of legislation. It is a self-effectuating legislative mandate. The decision of the academic or executive council of the University is required only for pragmatic facilitation of this mandate. The mandate of the legislature cannot be subverted by the leisurely approach of the respondent-university to order its affairs to in consonance with the mandate of legislation. While so it may not be appropriate to refer to the earlier G.O.Ms.No.2093 (Social Welfare Department), dated 30.10.1987 and consequential proceeding permanent B.P. (Ch.) No.6 dated 06.01.1993. 12. Infact to effectuate the provisions of Disabilities Act Government of Tamil Nadu have identified 117 posts which are the most suitable posts for the disabled in the A and B groups of post. Referring to Go.Ms.No.2093, Director of Rehabilitation of the Disabled requested the Government to issue notification by ordering the reservation of A and B posts for the benefit of disabled persons. The Director recommended for the constitution of expert committee to identify the post which are suitable for disabled persons under A and B groups. The Government have identified 117 types of posts for the disabled in the A and B groups of the posts G.O.Ms.No.53 dated 11.01.(2005) Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme (SW.4) Department passed approving the list of 117 posts identified under A and B categories for reservation of 3% vacancies to the disabled persons in direct recruitment. The relevant clauses of the said G.O reads as under: ".... 6. Based on the announcement made by the Honble Chief Minister the Government approve the list of 117 posts identified under Group A and B categories under the purview of Teachers Recruitment Board and the TNPSC for the persons with disabilities. The Government also direct that 3% of the vacancies in direct recruitment for the identified posts of A and B groups, where the rule of reservation is applicable for the SCs/STs, B.Cs and other communities, shall be reserved for the disabled persons. If only one post is available for recruitment in these categories, the usual procedure for recruitment will be followed. In so far as Executive posts are concerned the individual shall produce a certificate of physical fitness from the Medical Board to the effect that their handicap will not affect the performance of the job to which he/she has been selected before appointment. 7. In so far as Executive posts are concerned the individual shall produce a certificate of physical fitness from the Medical Board to the effect that their handicap will not affect the performance of the job to which he/she has been selected before appointment. 7. The list of the 117 categories of posts identified as most suitable for the different categories of the disabled persons in A and B groups in Direct Recruitment is given in the Annexure to this order." 13. It is relevant to note though various categories of A and B groups are identified. Assistant Engineers/Electrical of TNEB have not been identified and approved to provide reservation of 3% of vacancies. As per Permanent B.P. (Ch.) no.6 reservation of vacancies provided for physically handicapped persons need not be made in respect of recruitment of post in Class I and II services. In G.O.Ms.No.53 whereby the Government have identified 227 posts under A and B groups, TNEB has not been included. While so, it cannot be contended that the selection process is vitiated due to violation of provisions of Disabilities Act or the Government orders. 14. It is pertinent to note that the Petitioner has not challenged the selection process even before its commencement on the ground that no reservation was made for the persons with disability. Having been unsuccessful in the selection process, it is not open to the Petitioner to challenge the selection. It is not as if, TNEB has not selected the physically handicapped candidates. In para 17 of the counter it is averred in the selection of the posts of Assistant Engineers, 14 physically handicapped candidates were selected on merits (Oc-1;BC-7;MBC/DC-3;SC/ST-3) and they have been referred to Director of Medical and Rural Health Services for constitution of Medical Board to assess their suitability or otherwise to the post of Assistant Engineer. Though not stated in explicit terms in the selection list, there had been fair justice to the disabled persons by appointing as many as 14 candidates. 15. The main point to be noted is that the Petitioner has secured only 68.62% marks as against the cut off the B.C(men) B.E., EEE branch 746. When the Petitioner has not reached the zone of selection quite natural the Petitioner was not selected. 15. The main point to be noted is that the Petitioner has secured only 68.62% marks as against the cut off the B.C(men) B.E., EEE branch 746. When the Petitioner has not reached the zone of selection quite natural the Petitioner was not selected. Having not reached the zone of selection and having been unsuccessful the Petitioner cannot challenge the selection process on the premise that the mandatory provisions of the Disabilities Act was not followed. 16. In the result the writ petition is dismissed. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.