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

2022 Supreme(Ker) 128

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
V.G. Arun, J.
Dileep Kumar M.P. Assistant Public Prosecutor Gr-II, Judicial First Class Magistrate – Petitioner
Versus
State of Kerala Rep.By Chief Secretary And Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) No. 12754 of 2018
Decided On : 22-02-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sri.B.Raghunathan, Sri.K.Jaladharan, Sri.V.M.Jacob, Sri.M.Salim, Sri.T.S.Subash, Advs.
For the Respondent: Sri. Premchand R. Nair, Government Pleader, Sri.Elvin Peter P.J., Standing Counsel, Advs.

Point of Law : Government is bound to act upon the recommendation without further delay, particularly in view of the fact that written examination as part of selection to the post of District Judge has already been conducted.

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 - Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - Section 33, 34 - Being a physically handicapped disabled person with 40% permanent orthopedic disability, petitioner claims entitlement to be considered for selection and appointment in accordance with mandatory reservation.

Finding of the Court:

Full Court having resolved to provide 4% reservation in appointment to post of District and Sessions Judge and decision having been communicated, Government is bound to act upon recommendation without further delay, particularly in view of fact that written examination as part of selection to post of District Judge has already been conducted.

Result: Writ petition disposed of

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner is an applicant for appointment to the post of District and Sessions Judge in the Kerala State Higher Judicial service. Being a physically handicapped (disabled person with 40% permanent orthopedic disability, the petitioner claims entitlement to be considered for selection and appointment in accordance with the mandatory reservation under Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that the post of District and Sessions Judge is so far not yet identified for reservation as envisaged under Section 33 of the Act. The petitioner therefore submitted series of representations, failed to evoke any positive response.

2. When the matter was taken up for consideration on an earlier occasion, it was submitted that the Full Court of the High Court had, in its meeting held on 19.02.2020, resolved to provide 4% reservation to the post of District Judge and the decision had been communicated to the Government. The learned Government Pleader had submitted on instructions that the Government had not received any such communication from the High Court.

3. On this Court’s direction, the communication dated 02.03.2020 has been produced as Ext.R4(a). The Full Court having resolved to provide 4% reservation in appointment to the post of District and Sessions Judge and the decision having been communicated under Ext.R4(a) dated 02.03.2020, the Government is bound to act upon the recommendation without further delay, particularly in view of the fact that written examination as part of selection to the post of District Judge has already been conducted.

Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the third respondent to consider the decision of the Full Court communicated under Ext.R4(a) and to take a decision thereon, following the prescribed procedure and in accordance with law within an outer limit of one month of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

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