ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

1. The main issue raised in these cases pertains to the rights of the physically handicapped persons, who are entitled to the benefit of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short), to be considered against the posts which are identified and reserved under the said Act and notified by the PSC for appointment. Therefore, these cases were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

2. We shall first refer to the facts in OP (KAT) Nos. 32 and 322 of 2014 which arise from the proceedings in OA No. 2440 of 2012 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal.

3. In terms of the provisions contained under the Act, Government of Kerala issued GO (P) No. 20 of 1998 P&ARD dated 14th of July, 1998, reserving 3% of posts for physically handicapped persons. Appendix to the Government Order contains the scheme for direct recruitment of physically handicapped persons in public service, and in Annexure A1 thereof, H.S.A. (Languages and Social Studies) is one among the posts in the subordinate service that are identified under Section 32 of the Act. In Annexure II, where the posts suitable for appointment of different categories of the physically handicapped are identified, H.S.A. (Languages and Social Studies) is included under the categories blind and partially blind. Subsequently, on 22nd November, 2011, the Government of Kerala issued GO (P) No. 57 of 2011 SWD reviewing the list of the identified posts and also included in the list, the posts of L.P.S.A./U.P.S.A. also as suitable for the appointment of the blind and low vision category.

4. In the meanwhile, by Annexure A1 notification, the PSC invited applications for the post of U.P.S.A. (Malayalam). In response to the said notification, the 1st respondent herein applied for the post of U.P.S.A. (Malayalam) in Kollam District specifying that his application was for one of the posts in the 3% reservation provided for physically handicapped persons. Along with the application, he also produced Annexure A6, Standing Disability Assessment Board Certificate certifying that he is an ophthalmic handicapped having 90% disability. In the written test which was conducted, he appeared with the help of a scribe provided by the PSC, and on being successful, he was also shortlisted. Subsequently, he was called for a suitability assessment when the Board assessed him unsuitable. Finally, when Annexure A11 ranked list was published on 8/10/2012, he was not included in the ranked list, though four other persons who are also ophthalmically handicapped, were included in the list.

5. Aggrieved by his non inclusion in the ranked list, the 1st respondent filed a representation to which Annexure A12 reply was given by the PSC informing him that the interview board had disqualified you in the interview held on 18/5/2012 for the reasons that you cannot walk without assistance or read and write. It was in these circumstances, the 1st respondent filed OA No. 2440 of 2012 before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal.

6. The PSC filed a reply statement dated 24th of January, 2013 where, in para 4, they justified the disqualification of the 1st respondent thus:-

"4. The petitioner, Shri Bejoy M.S who is 90% blind attended the interview, but was disqualified by the interview board for the reasons mentioned below –

(1) Unable to move without help.

(2) Can't read.

(3) Can't write."

(Emphasis supplied)

7. Considering the statement thus filed, the Tribunal passed Ext.P4 order dated 24/7/2013, which is extracted below for reference.

"Annexure A2 order dated 14.7.1998 permits appointment of fully blind persons in the post of Primary Teacher. Annexure - A12 would indicate the reasons why the applicant has been excluded from the rank list. He has been disqualified for three reasons, namely, (1) he cannot move without the help of others (2) he is not able to read (3) he is