The judgment emphasizes the statutory provisions and government orders governing age relaxation, grace marks, and reservation for PwDs, and directs the respondents to work out backlog vacancies and provide reservation as per the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner, a resilient individual challenged by a locomotor disability rated at 40% by the Medical Board, is a member of a Scheduled Caste. Undeterred by the hurdles that destiny has unfurled in his path, he has demonstrated remarkable tenacity and academic prowess. After earning his Bachelor of Technology in Electrical and Electronics Engineering from Kerala University, he acquired a Master of Business Administration from the Institute of Management in Kerala. He has also secured LLM Degree from the Law Department at Karyavattom Campus, Thiruvananthapuram. He is presently practicing as an Advocate in the State.

2. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer to quash Ext.P1 notification dated 13.4.2023 issued by respondents 1 and 2, as per which applications were invited from qualified candidates for appointment as District and Sessions Judge in the Kerala State Higher Judicial Service by direct recruitment from the bar.

3. The contentions raised by the petitioner can be summarised as under:

a) While issuing Ext.P1 notification, the respondents omitted to mention the number of vacancies exclusively reserved for Persons with Disabilities (PwD).

b) The respondents failed to incorporate provisions for age relaxation as mandated under Section 34 (3) of Act 49 of 2016 for PwDs.

c) Exts.P4 issued by the Public Service Commission, and Ext.P5 issued by the Government, clearly provide that relaxation of ten years over and above the existing upper age limit is to be granted to PwDs to enable them to compete for the post to which they are considered suitable. No such relaxation has been granted to PwDs.

d) Reliance is placed on Exts.P8 and P9, and it is stated that 10 years of maximum age relaxation has been granted to disabled persons to the Higher Judiciary Posts in the State of Andhra Pradesh and Odissa. If that be the case, there is no justification in not granting age relaxation in the Kerala Higher Judicial Service.

e) The respondents, while issuing Ext.P1 notification, have not provided grace marks to PwDs. This also goes against Exhibit P5 and P6 Government Orders, which provide that PwDs are to be granted grace marks subject to a maximum of 10% marks.

f) Despite the enactment of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, and the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, respondents 1 and 2, for one reason or the other, till recently, have never reserved a post for persons with disability, which action cannot be countenanced, as it is clearly illegal.

g) Though the petitioner, on an earlier occasion, had filed W.P.(C) No. 29867 of 2019 challenging the failure on the part of the respondents to identify and reserve posts for PwDs for the appointment of District and Sessions Judge in Kerala Higher Judicial Service, the respondents have not provided provisions for reservation as mandated under Act 49 of 2016.

h) The petitioner had instituted W.P.(C) No. 22487/2021 challenging the non-reservation of vacancy and non-grant of age relaxation, but the said writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the notification was issued even prior to the identification of the posts.

i) In Ext.P1 notification, it has been stated that the candidates should qualify for the selection in terms of the Kerala State Higher Judicial Services Rules, 1961. The insistence of the respondents that disabled persons shall secure the very same mark for qualification as open-category candidates is clearly in violation of the provisions of the Act.

j) The Online Recruitment Portal for the post of District and Sessions Judge is not disabled-friendly and does not enable a disabled candidate like the petitioner who also falls into the Scheduled Caste category to input the details and get the benefit of the benevolent provisions provided to such candidates.

4. It is essentially on th