Common issues arise for consideration in these cases and they are heard together and by consent of parties they are being disposed of by this common judgment. W.P.(C)No.1838/08 is taken as the leading case.

2. The petitioner applied for the post of L.D. Typist in Various Departments pursuant to Ext.P2 notification issued by the Public Service Commission (for short “the Commission”) Apparently, the petitioner is a physically handicapped person because of his visual incapacity in one eye. Petitioner is otherwise qualified for the post as evidenced by Ext.P1 series certificated. It is the case of the petitioner that he did not claim any weightage on the premise that he is a physically handicapped person. He was included in Ext.P3 short list and he was asked to appear for the interview with the requisite certificated. He did so. According to him the certificates were verified as well. But then, he was told that he cannot be considered for appointment as L.D. Typist in view of G.O.(p) No. 20/98 dated 17.1998. Ext.P11 because of the visual incapacity in one eye. The petitioner submitted Ext.P5 representation along with the medical certificates issued by Dr. Lalitha Susan Thomas apparently certifying that the vision in his left eye does not disable him to carry out the duties in an office. The petitioner again reiterated his request under Ext.P6 along with which he enclosed the medical certificate issued by a Government Medical Officer certifying that he has normal vision in his left eye.

3. A list was published by the Commission. Petitioner was not included and hence this writ petition. seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent to include the name of the petitioner in the rank list for appointment to the post of L.D. Typist in Palakkad District in accordance with his performance in the test and to advise him for appointment in accordance with his ranking.

4. Almost similar facts are involved in the other two writ petitions. The only difference is that the Petitioners in those writ petitions apparently indicated that they are Physically Handicapped persons. It is not very clear that they had claimed any weightage on the premise that they are Physically Handicapped persons. At any rate the said issue does not loom large in the context of the issues which are agitated in these writ petitions.

5. A counter affidavit has been filed in W.P.(C) No.38243 and 32295 of 2007. The same counter affidavit has been adopted in W.P.(C)No.1838/08.

6. The stand taken by the Commission in not including the petitioners in the rank list for L.D. Typist is explained in paragraphs 6 to 8 in the counter affidavit, which are extracted below:

It is respectfully submitted that the petitioners were called for verifications of documents to prove their claims made in the application. Both the applicants have claimed as PH in their application hence they were called for assessing their suitability and the petitioners have produced medical certificates proving that they are having permanent visual disability of 40%. It may be noted that the Govt., as per GO(P)No.20/98/P & ARD dt. 14th July, 1998, had issued orders regarding the appointment of physically Handicapped persons in class III can IV categories in Public Services, where in the posts suitable for appointment of physically handicapped persons have been enlisted. As per the said list, the post of LD Typist is not included among those suitable for appointment of Blind/partially blind persons. A candidate is deemed to be not eligible if the percentage of visual impairment is 40% or more. As the petitioners are suffering from 40% visual disability as certified by the Medical Authority, they are not suitable for appointment to the post of LD Typist. Hence the petitioners were not considered for inclusion in the final Ranked list published on 5-12-2007 and their applications were rejected.

It is respectfully submitted that as the post of LD Typist is not included among suitable for appoint