JUDGMENT

The petitioner is a person suffering from Locomotor disability assessed as 70%. He has approached this Court, being aggrieved by the refusal on the part of the 3rd respondent in advising the petitioner towards the post of Computer Programmer cum Operator against the 4% quota earmarked for persons with disabilities as provided under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (Act 49 of 2016).

2. Short facts are as under:

a. The petitioner responded to Ext.P2 selection notification dated 15.11.2013 issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission (PSC) for selection to the post of Computer Programmer-cum-Operator in the Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing and Marketing) Corporation Ltd. [“The Corporation” for the sake of brevity]. After due process of selection, despite the fact that the petitioner is shown as a person with disability in Ext.P3 Short-list, when Ext.P5 ranked list was issued, he was shown as Rank No.56. No weightage was given to him nor was he considered for entitlement in terms of the benevolent provisions of Act 49 of 2016. In the said circumstances, he approached this Court and filed W.P.(C) No. 22650/2019. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Government passed Ext.P9 order identifying the post of Computer Programmer cum Operator as suitable for reservation under Act 49 of 2016. Taking note of the above aspect, this Court, by Ext.P10 judgment, ordered as under:

2. One post has been identified and reported to the PSC. However, there was a direction of this court dated 6/12/2019 that the respondents should not make any advice for appointment against one vacancy of computer programmer cum operator, in the general category. This order was extended from time to time. Evidently, one vacancy is now kept apart for the petitioner. The 4th respondent shall report this vacancy to the PSC. Hence, there will be a direction to the second respondent-PSC to forthwith issue advice memo as against one post now set apart for the petitioner. According to the petitioner, total number of four vacancies are available to the PwD candidates. Without making any observation on that, petitioner shall be placed in appropriate place in accordance with law.

b) The PSC took up the matter in appeal. It was contended that going by the stipulations, the claim of the petitioner, who is suffering from a locomotor disability, could be considered only in sub-category III after exhausting the claims of sub-category I (visually impaired candidates) and sub-category II (hearing impaired candidates).

(c) The Division Bench by Ext.P11 judgment declared that the effect of the Government Order dated 27.9.2021 identifying the post of Computer Programmer cum Operator would relate back to the commencement of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Act 49 of 2016 and therefore, for the purpose of filling the backlog vacancies, there is no necessity for a Special Recruitment and the pending ranked list could be utilized appropriately as against the vacancies reported. The Division Bench proceeded to observe as under:

14. In view of the indisputable legal position, we have already declared that the effect of the present Government Orders in identifying the suitability of the posts is that the same would relate back to the commencement of the Act. It has also been held by the decisions of this Court as in Kerala Public Service Commission & Anr. v. E.Dineshan & Ors. [ 2016 (2) KHC 910 ] that for the purpose of backlog vacancies, there is no necessity for a special recruitment and the pending ranked list could be utilized appropriately as against the vacancies reported. Hence, it is ordered that the competent authority of the PSC will take immediate steps to prepare a special rank list of physically disabled candidates from amongst the candidates considered for the selection process covered by Ext.P-2 selection notification and Ext.P-5 ranked list, and if any of the turns of p