SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(Ker) 713

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A.V. Ramakrishna Pillai, J.
E. Dineshan - Appellants
Vs.
State of Kerala and Ors. - Respondent
W.P.(C). No. 27234 of 2011
Decided On: 17.10.2014

Advocates Appeared:
For The Appellant : P.M. Pareeth
For The Respondents: Abdul Salam, G.P., P.C. Sasidharan, K.S. Anil, Babu Joseph Kuruvathazha, Koshy George, P.M.M. Najeeb Khan, SCs, K. John Mathai and E.K. Nandakum, SCs

The Act prevails over State acts or regulations, and reservation has to take effect from 1996. The reservation of handicapped persons is a mandatory obligation under the Act and must be implemented by the State.

Headnote:

reservation - handicapped persons - Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, Sections 32 and 33 - The court discussed the reservation of handicapped persons mandated by Sections 32 and 33 of the Act, the restriction imposed by Ext. P5, and the entitlement of handicapped persons to get backlog vacancies from 1996 in the post of Assistant Grade II/Clerk/Junior Clerk/LD Clerk/Cashier. The court highlighted the delay in the identification of posts, the restriction in Ext. P5, and the obligation of the State to implement Sections 33 and 36 of the Act. The court quashed Ext. P5 to the extent it restricts the benefit of 3% reservation of handicapped persons mandated under Section 33 of the Act from the date of Ext. P5 order i.e. 1.2.2010 and declared that handicapped persons defined under the Act are entitled to get the backlog vacancies from 1996 in the specified posts.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a physically challenged person, sought to quash Ext. P5 to the extent it restricts the benefits of 3% reservation of handicapped persons mandated by Sections 32 and 33 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 and for a declaration that physically handicapped persons are entitled to get the backlog vacancies from 1996 in specified posts.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the delay in the identification of posts cannot be a reason to postpone the reservation and that the restriction in Ext. P5 has to be quashed. The court also found that the reservation of handicapped persons is a mandatory obligation under the Act and must be implemented by the State.

Issues: The issues involved the restriction imposed by Ext. P5, the entitlement of handicapped persons to backlog vacancies, and the obligation of the State to implement Sections 33 and 36 of the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Act prevails over State acts or regulations, and reservation has to take effect from 1996. The court also emphasized that the reservation of handicapped persons is a mandatory obligation under the Act and must be implemented by the State.

Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, Ext. P5 was quashed to the extent it restricts the benefit of 3% reservation of handicapped persons mandated under Section 33 of the Act from the date of Ext. P5 order i.e. 1.2.2010, and it was declared that handicapped persons defined under the Act are entitled to get the backlog vacancies from 1996 in the specified posts.

JUDGMENT

A.V. Ramakrishna Pillai, J.

1. The petitioner, a physically challenged person with 40% locomotor (ortho) disability, has approached this Court for quashing Ext. P5 to the extent it restricts the benefits of 3% reservation of handicapped persons mandated by Sections 32 and 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short) with effect from the date of Ext. P5, i.e. from 1.2.2010 only and also for a declaration that the physically handicapped persons defined under the Act are entitled to get the back log vacancies from 1996 in the post of Assistant Grade II/Clerk/Junior Clerk/LD Clerk/Cashier filled up while making appointments to the public sector undertakings and Government Companies under the first respondent by reserving 3% to the physically challenged persons. There is a further prayer for a direction commanding respondents 4 to 7 to report all the existing vacancies in the aforesaid cadre so as to enable the third respondent to advise suitable candidates from Ext. P4 list. The petitioner alleges that despite clear mandate under Sections 32 and33 of the Act, because of the arbitrary restriction imposed by the first respondent, a large number of vacancies of Assistant Grade II/Clerk/Junior Clerk/LD Clerk/Cashier in Government owned companies and public sector undertakings earmarked for physically challenged persons under 3% quota were filled up by appointing the candidates of general and other reserved categories and consequently, the petitioner is denied appointment even though he is included in Ext. P4 ranked list. He alleges that the second respondent published Ext. P3 ranked list for appointment to the aforesaid posts and thereafter Ext. P4 addendum notification was issued publishing supplementary list of physically challenged persons in these categories. The petitioner is ranked No. 70 in Ext. P4 list in the 'ortho' category.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the third respondent has restricted the advise against the vacancies which occurred only from 1.2.2010 on the ground that by Ext. P5 Government order, the aforesaid posts were identified for 3% quota of handicapped persons with effect from the date of the said order. The petitioner alleges that Ext. P5 to the extent it restricts the benefit of 3% reservation to physically challenged persons for appointment to the aforesaid posts in Government owned companies etc. from the date of the order is illegal. It was pointed out that the Apex Court in Ext. P6 judgment has declared the law that the reservation has come into effect from the date of commencement of the Act. Hence, any delay in the identification of the post cannot be made as a tool to deny appointment to the handicapped persons in the vacancies which arose earlier. He further points out that Exts. P7 and P8 series show that a total number of 3106 vacancies were filled up without appointing any handicapped person from the earlier list dated 17.11.2005 and Ext. P3 list. Therefore, he points out that 93 vacancies have to be filled up by appointing 31 handicapped persons in each category. Therefore, the petitioner prays that respondents 4 to 7 which are major public sector undertakings/Corporations/Boards have to be directed to report all the existing vacancies in the aforesaid posts to the third respondent forthwith.

3. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents 2 and 3, they contended as follows:

The Commission invited applications for selection to the post of Assistant Grade II/Jr. Clerk etc. in various Government owned companies/Corporations/Boards vide notification published in the gazette dated 28.3.2007 as Category No. 115/2007. The ranked list for the post was brought into force with effect from 25.8.2009. Thereafter an addendum notification to the above ranked list was pub


































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top