Balakrishnan Nair, J.

Whether the writ petitioner, who is a physically challenged person, appointed under Rule 9(a)(i) of Part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules (for short K.S. & S.S.R) on 4.8.1998, on being sponsored by the Employment Exchange and who joined duty on 5.8.1998, in the post of Pump Operator under the Kerala Water Authority on daily wage basis, is entitled to re-appointment in service, is the point that arises for decision in this Writ Appeal.

2. The physically challenged are our less fortunate brothers. The fate has been cruel to them. Most of us, who are fortunate not to have physically challenged children, cannot fathom the depth of their pain and anguish, caused by their disability. It is the duty of the society to ensure that they are extended equal opportunities in all walks of life. Our Parliament has enacted the Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, Providing special protection to physically challenged persons, to enable them to gain equal opportunities in various fields, including the employment market where cut throat competition prevails and survival of the fittest is the rule. This legislation was framed, as evident from the preamble of the Act, to give effect to the Beijing Proclamation on the Full Participation and Equality of the People with Disabilities in the Asian and pacific Region. In a meeting to launch the Asian and Pacific Decade of the Disabled Persons, 1993-2002 held by the Economic and Social Commission for Asian and Pacific Region at Beijing from 1-12-1992 to 5-12-1992, a proclamation was adopted on the Full Participation and Equality of the People with Disabilities in the Asian and Pacific Region. India is a signatory to the said Proclamation. The Proclamation is on the following lines:

(i) to spell out the responsibility of the State towards the Prevention of disabilities, Protection of rights, Provision of medical care, education, training, employment and rehabilitation of persons with disabilities;

(ii) to create barrier-free environment for persons with disabilities;

(iii) to remove any discrimination against persons with disabilities in the sharing of development benefits, vis-à-vis non-disabled persons;

(iv) to counteract any situation of the abuse and the exploitation of persons with disabilities;.

(v) to lay down a strategy for comprehensive development of programmers and services and equalization of opportunities for persons with disabilities; and

(vi) to make special provision for the integration of persons with disabilities into the social mainstream.”

To give effect to this proclamation, the above Act was enacted. Our Apex Court has noticed the above genesis of the Act in Union of India V. Sanjay Kumar Jain ((2004)6 SCC 708). We feel that the claim of the petitioner has to be adjudicated, keeping in mind the concern of the society, reflected in the above proclamation, for the welfare of physically challenged persons.

3. The facts of the case, as stated by the 1st respondent writ petitioner are the following: The writ petitioner suffers 40% physical disability, owing to defective eye-sight. The same is certified by the medical Board, as evident from Ext. P1 certificate. On being sponsored by the District Employment Exchange, Pathanamthitta, he was appointed as Pump Operator in the Kerala Water Authority at Pathanamthitta, by the 2nd appellant executive Engineer, by Ext. P2 order dated 4.8.1998. The said order reads as follows:

“Sri.D. Surendran advised by the Dist. Employment Exchange, Pathanamthitta as per the letter cited 2nd provisionally appointed as pump operator on Rs.70/- per day subject to Rule 9(a)(i) of K.S. & S.S. Rules, 1958.

The candidate will have to report for duty before the Asst. Exe. Engineer, PH Sub Division, K.W. Authority, Pathanamthitta, within 15 days from the date of this order. If (he) fails to report for duty within the specified time limit, this order will be trea