JUDGMENT : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty) This Writ Appeal is filed aggrieved by the order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.24915 of 2018, dated 12.04.2023. 2. Heard Sri P.Venkatesh, learned counsel for appellant, learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare appearing for respondent nos.1, 2, 4 and 5, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration & Urban Development appearing for respondent no.3 and Sri Ram Gopal Rao, learned standing counsel for TSPSC appearing for respondent no.6. 3. The brief facts of the case in nutshell are that 6th respondent issued Notification No.9/2015 dated 29.08.2015 for the post of Assistant Engineers in various Engineering Subordinate Services, Municipal Assistant Engineer and Technical Officers in Public Health and Municipal Engineering Subordinate Service. The appellant responded to the same and participated in the selection process. The respondent-Commission has notified a total of 1058 vacancies including Assistant Engineers (Civil) and Assistant Engineers (Mechanical), out of which, 37 vacancies were notified under Physically Handicapped quota. It is averred that out of 37 vacancies reserved for PH candidates, 25 vacancies were earmarked for general and 12 vacancies were earmarked for women. Though notification was issued for 37 vacancies under PH quota, results were announced only for 16 vacancies and the case of the appellant was not considered on the ground of nonavailability of vacancy. 4. It is contended that appellant ought to have been considered for selection in the vacancies, which were left unfilled due to non-availability of eligible PH women candidates by interchanging women VH vacancies to General (VH) vacancies and also interchanging other PH vacancies if eligible candidates are not available in those categories in initial recruitment following G.O.Ms.No.6, Department for Women, Children, Disabled and Senior Citizens (Estt), dated 12.04.2016. Accordingly, the appellant submitted representation on 24.08.2016 requesting to consider his candidature in terms of G.O.Ms.No.6, dated 12.04.2016, however, 6th respondent vide Memo dated 02.04.2018 rejected the request of the appellant. Aggrieved by the impugned Memo, dated 02.04.2018, appellant approached this Court by filing W.P.No.24915 of 2018 and the learned single Judge was pleased to dismiss the said writ petition vide order dated 12.04.2023. Aggrieved by the order dated 12.04.2023 of the learned single Judge, the appellant filed the present Writ Appeal. 5. Aggrieved by the impugned Memo, dated 02.04.2018, appellant approached this Court by filing W.P.No.24915 of 2018 and the learned single Judge was pleased to dismiss the said writ petition vide order dated 12.04.2023. Aggrieved by the order dated 12.04.2023 of the learned single Judge, the appellant filed the present Writ Appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that order dated 12.04.2023 of the learned single Judge is ex facie illegal and vitiated by improper interpretation of the Government Orders viz., G.O.Ms.No.23, Department for Women, Children, Disabled & Senior Citizens (DW) Department dated 26.05.2011; G.O.Ms.No.99, General Administration (Services-D) Department, dated 04.03.2013; and G.O.Ms.No.6, dated 12.04.2016, as per which, 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 and that if a woman with blindness or low vision is not available in the initial recruitment year, the vacancy shall be filled up by male candidates with blindness or low vision. 6. He submitted that learned single Judge ought to have considered that appellant being a Mechanical Engineering graduate did not require ‘O’ level in Computer Course and that he belongs to Visually Handicapped (VH) category. He further submitted that learned single Judge ought to have considered that before issuance of the subject notification, the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules were amended vide G.O.Ms.No.99, dated 04.03.2013, wherein it was notified that if qualified disabled women candidates are not available for the posts reserved for women, qualified men candidates of the same category of disabled may be appointed and finally, prayed to set aside the impugned order, dated 12.04.2023, passed by the learned single Judge and allow the Writ Appeal. 7. Learned standing counsel appearing for respondent No.6 submitted that the G.O.Ms.No.6 dated 12.04.2016, relied upon by the appellant, was issued after issuance of notification dated 29.08.2015 and has no retrospective effect and therefore, the same is not applicable to the present case. 7. Learned standing counsel appearing for respondent No.6 submitted that the G.O.Ms.No.6 dated 12.04.2016, relied upon by the appellant, was issued after issuance of notification dated 29.08.2015 and has no retrospective effect and therefore, the same is not applicable to the present case. He further submitted that latest amendment to Rule-22 of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules was made on 22.07.2019 vide G.O.Ms.No.96, dated 22.07.2019 with prospective effect, whereas, the Commission issued notification in the year 2015 and therefore, Rule-22 has no application to the notification issued in the year 2015 since the resultant vacancies if any shall be carried forward to the future notification as per Rule 6 of TSPSC Rules of procedure and G.O.Ms.No.81 General Administration (Ser.A) Department, dated 22.02.1997. He finally prayed to dismiss the appeal. 8. Admittedly, the appellant responded to the notification No.9/2015, dated 29.08.2015 issued by the 6th respondent for the posts of Assistant Engineers in various departments under VH quota. In the said notification, 37 posts were earmarked under the category of physically handicapped quota, out of which, results were announced only for 16 posts and that apart from the above, 12 posts earmarked for women were also not filled up due to non-availability of the candidates. Further, the appellant was shortlisted for verification of certificates to the posts notified and it appears that appellant was also subjected to medical examination and he undergone medical examination where his disability was assessed and accepted. However, in the provisional list, his candidature for the post was not considered on the ground of non-availability of vacancies. 9. The main contention of the appellant is that though he was shortlisted for the post of Assistant Engineer under PH Quota, his case was not considered for appointment. The learned counsel for appellant has contended that amendments were made to Rule 22 of the A.P. State & Subordinate Rules vide G.O.Ms.No.99, dated 04.03.2013, as per which, the case of the appellant be considered for the post of Assistant Engineer. 10. It is apt to extract the relevant paragraph of the G.O.Ms.No.99, dated 04.03.2013. The learned counsel for appellant has contended that amendments were made to Rule 22 of the A.P. State & Subordinate Rules vide G.O.Ms.No.99, dated 04.03.2013, as per which, the case of the appellant be considered for the post of Assistant Engineer. 10. It is apt to extract the relevant paragraph of the G.O.Ms.No.99, dated 04.03.2013. “The 6th, 31st and 56th turns in each cycle of hundred (100) vacancies shall be allotted to the Blindness or Low Vision (Visually Handicapped), Hearing Impaired (Hearing Handicapped) and Locomotor Disability or Cerebral Palsy (Orthopedically 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 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 vacancy shall be filled up by the employer 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 men candidates of the same category of disabled may be appointed." 11. As per the above G.O., the question of interchanging the PH vacancies does not arise in the initial recruitment since the unfilled vacancies will be carried forward to the succeeding recruitment year and in that succeeding recruitment year also, if qualified candidates of the same category are not available, then the same will be again notified in the next notification to be filled up by interchanging from among the categories and only thereafter, qualified men candidates of same category of disabled may be appointed if the qualified women candidates are not available for the posts reserved for women. In the present case, the notification was issued in the year 2015. The said notification was issued for initial recruitment and if the vacancies earmarked for PH categories are unfilled, the same shall be carried forward to the succeeding year. In the present case, the notification was issued in the year 2015. The said notification was issued for initial recruitment and if the vacancies earmarked for PH categories are unfilled, the same shall be carried forward to the succeeding year. Therefore, consideration of appellant for selection in the available unfilled women VH vacancies due to non-availability of eligible women candidates does not arise since the unfilled vacancies of the initial recruitment will be carried forward to the succeeding year. Thus, the amendments to Rule 22 of the A.P.State & Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 made vide G.O.Ms.No.99, dated 04.03.2013 are not applicable to the case on hand. 12. It is also apt to extract the relevant amendment to illustration 1 for para 6 (iv) of G.O.Ms.No.23, dated 26.05.2011 made in G.O.Ms.No.6, dated 12.04.2016, which reads as under: “Amendment In the said G.O., illustration 1 for para 6 (iv) shall be substituted, with the following namely:- (a) In the case of 6th roster point fixed for Blindness or Low Vision (Women), if Woman candidate with Blidness or Low Vision is not available in the initial recruitment year, the vacancy shall be filled up by the male candidates with Blidness or Low Vision without carrying the vacancy forward to the next year. If women or male candidates with Blidness or Low vision are not available in the initial recruitment year, the vacancy shall be carried forward to the succeeding recruitment year for being filled up firstly by women with blindness or low vision. (b) If women with blindness or low vision in that succeeding recruitment year are also not available, the vacancy shall be filled up by the male candidates with blindness or low vision. If women or male candidates with blindness or low vision are not available in such succeeding recruitment year also, the post may first be notified for Hearing Impaired candidate (being next category in the roster and if no such candidates come forward it may be notified for Locomotor Disability or cerebral palsy (being the next category in the roster).” 13. From the above, it has to be construed that the said amendment to para 6(iv) shall be deemed to have come into force with effect from 12.04.2016. From the above, it has to be construed that the said amendment to para 6(iv) shall be deemed to have come into force with effect from 12.04.2016. The above amendments to the A.P. State & Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 came into force with prospective effect w.e.f. 12.04.2016, which is much later to the notification No.9/2015 and therefore, the question of interchanging the vacancies does not arise. 14. In The Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board and another vs. Narimetla Vamshi and others, Civil Appeal No.4735/2022, dated 23.11.2022, relied upon by the learned counsel for petitioner, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: “…. As to the consequences of the large number of vacancies which have remained on these different accounts, the details of which have been set out herein above, again lend support to this conclusion that a large part of the process is not frustrated by not filling up of the vacancies. Public employment is an important source of employability for young people in the country, where we are facing problems of adequacy of jobs; an interpretation of the kind sought to be propounded by the appellants would go against the very ethos of providing public employment to persons eligible and meritorious, by construction of a rule in a manner leaving a large number of vacancies unfilled. This would not be an appropriate interpretation.” 15. From the factual matrix of the case and G.Os., referred to above, it is clear that G.O.Ms.No.6 dated 12.04.2016 has come into force w.e.f. 12.04.2016 prospectively and whereas the notification was issued on 29.08.2015, which is prior to the amendment and therefore, the amendments to Rule 22 will not apply to the case of the appellant. 16. In view of the above discussion, and amendments to Rule 22 of the Rules, 1996, and the legal position, this Court is of the considered view that the learned single Judge was justified in dismissing the W.P.No.24915 of 2018 dated 12.04.2023. 17. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the learned single Judge was justified in dismissing the W.P.No.24915 of 2018 and the same is liable to be set aside. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 12.04.2023 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.24915 of 2018. 18. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 12.04.2023 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.24915 of 2018. 18. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.