T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.

1. The Registry has noted a defect regarding the maintainability of the Writ Petition. A clarification was sought whether the matter is to be dealt with by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal. Since learned counsel for the petitioner requested to send the matter to the Bench, the matter came up for consideration and accordingly it was heard.

2. The Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner who has been included in the rank list, Ext.P3, published by the Public Service Commission for appointment to the post of H.S.A. (Maths). He is claiming appointment in the reservation quota for disabled (Orthopaedically Physically Handicapped–loco-motor disability). The challenge is against Ext.P4 order passed by the Government directing the Public Service Commission to advise physically handicapped candidates against serial Nos.33, 66 and 99 in a cycle of 100 vacancies. Various reliefs have been accordingly sought.

3. Shri Benoy Thomas, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not a person included in any service and he is an outsider and therefore the remedy of the petitioner is only to approach this Court. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and others etc. v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and others (AIR 1999 SC 114 = 1998 (2) KLT SN 42 (C.No. 51) SC). It is submitted that in the light of Sections 19 and 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act (for short'the Act'), only a person aggrieved by any order, can approach the Tribunal. Learned counsel therefore submits that the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court in Tomy Philip v. The Chief General Manager, Telecommunication (2001 (2) KLT 490) may not be the correct one, as the decision of the Apex Court in Dr. Duryodhan Sahu's case (supra) will prevail.

4. In fact, a learned Single Judge of this Court in the order in W.P. (C) unnumbered of 2011 dated 23.12.2011, in a similar matter, has held the view by interpreting Section 15 of the Act, that as the said Writ Petition is one relating to recruitment and matters concerning recruitment to the State service, it will have to be filed before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal. Section 15(l)(a) of the Act reads as follows:

"15. Jurisdiction, powers and authority of State Administrative Tribunals.- (1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the Administrative Tribunal for a State shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, all the jurisdiction. powers and authority exercisable immediately before that day by all courts (except the Supreme Court) in relation to-

(a) recruitment, and matters concerning recruitment, to any civil service of the State or to any civil post under the State."

But the learned counsel tried to impress upon, while putting the arguments, that the decision of the Apex Court and its significance have not been considered in any of the decisions. The decision of the Apex Court in Dr. Duryodhan Sahu's case (supra) is a case where a public interest litigation was filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar. Para 8 of the judgment shows that applications were filed by the office bearers of certain organisations seeking to quash a Government Order creating a post and challenging the appointment of the beneficiary of the said order. It is in that context the issue was examined. After referring to various decisions and the scope of Section 19(1) of the Act, the Apex Court in para 18 laid down the principle thus:

"The definition of service matters found in Section 3 (q) shows that in relation to a person the expression means all service matters relating to the conditions of his service. The significance of the word 'his' cannot be ignored. Section 3 (b) defines the word 'application' as an application made under Section 19. The latter Section refers to 'person aggrieved'. In order to bring a matter before the Tribunal, an application has to be made and the same can be made only by a person aggrieved by any order pertai