Muralee Krishna, J.

1. The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.8821 of 2024 filed this writ appeal under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenging the judgment dated 05.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in that writ petition.

2. The appellant filed W.P.(C)No.8821 of 2024 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:

                  “(I) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction, directing the respondents 1 to 5 to promote the petitioner to the post of Assistant, from among low paid employees, considering his lateral reservation for promotion to persons with bench mark disability and 4% quota for by transfer appointment to low paid employees to the post of Assistants in Kannur University in the existing or ensuing vacancy, in tune with the Rights of Persons with disabilities Act, 2016.

                  (II) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ order or direction, directing the respondents to identify and notify all posts in the University to be filled with persons with bench mark disability in the 4% quota as envisaged under Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and to fill in those vacancies within a stipulated period.

                  (III) Issue appropriate writ or order or direction to respondents to consider and pass orders on Exhibit P7 representation given by the Petitioner, by promoting the Petitioner, to the post of Assistant Under the Scheme of by transfer appointment to low paid employees, considering his eligibility for promotion under Section 34 of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.”

3. The appellant is a person suffering from a benchmark disability of above 40% included in Clause (c) (locomotor disability) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, (‘the Disabilities Act’ for short). He was appointed as an Office Attendant in Kannur University on 19.01.2010. He is working as a Library Assistant in the said university at present. According to the appellant, he is eligible for lateral reservation in promotion to the post set apart for persons with disabilities. He is entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant in the 4% quota by transfer appointment in the cadre strength of Assistants in the Kannur University from among low-paid employees. The appellant submitted Ext.P7 representation dated 20.12.2023 to the 4th respondent to consider him for by transfer appointment and promotion to the post of Assistant. Since the said representation was not considered, the appellant filed W.P.(C)No.8821 of 2024 with the above prayers.

4. After the filing of the writ petition, along with I.A.No.2 of 2024, the appellant has produced Ext.P9 interim order dated 02.04.2024, passed by this Court in W.P.(C)No.39733 of 2023, whereby one vacancy of Assistant Registrar was ordered to be kept vacant until further orders in Kannur University.

5. The 1st respondent filed a counter affidavit dated 09.01.2025 in the writ petition opposing the reliefs sought by the appellant and producing therewith Exts.R1(a) to R1(g) documents. Similarly, the learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent filed a statement dated 04.07.2024 in the writ petition. The appellant thereafter filed a reply affidavit dated 20.07.2024, producing therewith Exts.P9 to P10(b) documents. After hearing both sides and on appreciation of the materials on record, the learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment dated 05.02.2025 dismissed the writ petition. Being aggrieved, the appellant is now before this Court with the instant writ appeal.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Senior Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel for the Kannur University.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant is entitled to be considered for the 4% reservation provided to persons suffering from benchmark disabilities as per the Disabilities Act. The learned Single Judge went wrong in holding that there is no promotion to the post of Assistant in Kannur University. In the case of low-paid employees, the post of Assistant is a promotion post, and in the case of direct recruitment, it is an entry cadre. The learned counsel relied on the judgments of this Court in W.P.(C)No.7802 of 2016, dated 10.01.2017 [2017:KER:1399], in WP.(C) No.31201 of 2013 dated 30.01.2014 [2014:KER:5147] and the judgment W.P.(C)No.22488 of 2009, dated 09.09.2016 [2016: KER:40225], to claim that he is entitled to be considered for the 4% reservation in promotion provided to the persons suffering from benchmark disabilities under the Disabilities Act.

8. On the other hand, the learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that the post of Assistant in Kannur University is a direct recruitment post and 96% of the posts were filled by direct recruitment and 4% of the posts are filled by transfer. The appellant can seek reservation in the 4% posts to be filled by transfer on the basis of the benchmark disabilities suffered by him. But, he cannot claim dual benefits of benchmark disability in the by transfer appointment as well as promotion, since there is no method of filling up the post of Assistant in Kannur University by promotion.

9. The learned Standing Counsel for the Kannur University submitted that for the 4% posts to be filled by transfer, nine persons were already appointed. The appellant has not passed the departmental test to be considered for by transfer appointment. The appellant will be considered for appointment as Assistant, by transfer on acquiring the basic qualification, subject to seniority. There is no denial of promotion to the appellant.

10. From the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent as well as from the statement filed by the 4th respondent, it can be gathered that in the cadre of Assistants in the Kannur University, the appointment is made by direct recruitment and by transfer. The number of sanctioned posts of Assistants in Kannur University is 239. Out of this, appointments against 96%, i.e., 230 posts, are done by direct recruitment through the Kerala Public Service Commission and the remaining appointments, against 4%, i.e., 9 posts, are done through by transfer from among the low-paid employees of the University based on seniority and qualification. The appellant has no claim that he will come within the aforesaid 4% appointed through by transfer from among the low-paid employees of the University based on seniority and qualification. His claim is that he has to be considered for the 4% reservation for persons with benchmark disabilities to be provided in promotion under the provisions of the Disabilities Act. But as noted above, the cadre of Assistants in the Kannur University is filled by direct recruitment and by transfer at the ratio 96:4. Appellant has no case that the reservation for persons suffering from benchmark disabilities is not provided to the by transfer appointees. His claim is that over and above the said reservation, taking by transfer as a promotion, again reservation as provided under Section 34 of the Disabilities Act has to be given to the by transfer appointees. This claim of the appellant will in effect is a claim for double reservation. Therefore, as rightly found by the learned Single Judge, reservation in promotion to be granted to the employees who are persons with benchmark disabilities is not applicable in the case of appointment to the post of Assistant in Kannur University. In the judgments of this Court in W.P.(C)No.7802 of 2016 and W.P.(C)No.22488 of 2009, relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant, the issue considered was non granting of reservation to the persons suffering from benchmark disabilities in promotion and by transfer. But in the instant case, as noted above, the facts are different. In W.P.(C)No.31201 of 2013 no finding has been arrived at by this Court on the claim of the petitioners therein. In such circumstances, it is only to be held that the facts of W.P.(C)No.7802 of 2016, W.P.(C)No.31201 of 2013 and W.P.(C)No.22488 of 2009 are not applicable to the facts of the instant case.

11. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and the submissions made at the Bar, we find no illegality or impropriety in the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge, which warrants interference by exercising appellate jurisdiction.

                  In the result, the writ appeal stands dismissed.