P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

1. Does the Public Service Commission (P.S.C.) have any power to assess the suitability of physically challenged candidates in respect of recruitment to the posts which have been identified by the Government in favour of such candidates/class, under Section 32 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the P.W.D. Act’ for short), read with the extent of reservation under Section 33 of the Act, is the basic point to be answered in this original petition. If any power is vested in this regard (presumably with reference to G.O.(P) No. 158/73/PD dated 29.5.1973), to what extent can it be exercised by the PSC, is the further point to be considered.

2. The original petition has been preferred by the PSC, challenging the order of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (KAT) dated 20.11.2014 in O.A. No. 1435 of 2012, whereby the O.A. filed by the respondent herein seeking for a specific direction to include him in Annexure A-18 rank list for the post of ‘Last Grade Servants’ in various departments in Thrissur District was allowed. The contention is that the Tribunal could not have given any such positive direction, as it is always open for the P.S.C. to assess ‘suitability’ of the candidates concerned. It is also contended that, though it is of course for the Government to identify the posts with reference to the mandate of the ‘Act’, such identification is only a general declaration as to the eligibility to apply by all concerned belonging to the class and that the ‘suitability’, in fact, has to be considered based on the qualification, experience etc. with reference to the relevant documents to be verified by the P.S.C.

3. The sequence of events reveals that Annexure A1 notification was issued by the P.S.C. for selection of candidates as mentioned above, way back on 31.12.2009. The respondent herein is a physically challenged person, having the disability certified to an extent of 75% as per Annexure A2. Pursuant to the application preferred by the respondent, he was called for a written test, which was conducted on 24.7.2010. It is stated that the respondent came out in flying colours, having obtained ‘73’ marks out of 100 and accordingly, he was included in the short list published on 24.1.2012. Subsequently, the P.S.C. called the respondent for a ‘suitability test’ scheduled on 9.5.2012. According to the respondent, he was asked some simple questions and personal details which were answered and thereafter, Annexure A18 rank list was published by the P.S.C. on 29.6.2012. Unfortunately, the respondent came to be excluded and hence the grievance.

4. In the Original Application filed by the respondent, the stand of the PSC was sought to be explained by filing a reply statement, a copy of which has been produced as Ext.P2. After hearing both the sides, the Tribunal rendered Ext.P3 verdict, holding that the course pursued by the P.S.C. was not correct or sustainable. Reliance was sought to be placed on a similar judgment passed by the KAT in O.A. No. 2440 of 2012 with regard to the selection of ‘U.P.S.A.’, wherein posts were identified in favour of ‘blind’ candidates as well, as ordered by the Government. The said O.A. was allowed by the K.A.T., which was upheld by this Court as per judgment dated 17.10.2014 in OP(KAT) 322 of 2014. It was accordingly, that the present O.A was allowed as per Ext.P3 verdict, which is under challenge in this original petition preferred by the P.S.C.

5. Heard both the sides in detail. During the course of hearing, the learned Standing Counsel for the P.S.C./petitioners submits that Ext.P3 order has been passed by the Tribunal without any regard to the order passed earlier under similar circumstances, particularly by way of the verdict dated 22.10.2013 in T.A. 6849/2012. Though the matter was sought to be challenged by filing OP (KAT) 4568 of 2013 by the aggrieved party, interference w