The appointment of disabled candidates must follow the reservation policies, and candidates must be sponsored by the Employment Exchange to claim such rights.

JUDGMENT

This Writ Petition is submitted by the petitioner, who is a disabled person having 40% locomotor disability as evidenced by Ext.P3 disability certificate issued by the Department of Health Sciences.

2. The grievances of the petitioner is against the denial of appointment of the petitioner as Lab Assistant in the 1^st respondent school by providing the eligible reservation entitled to him as contemplated under the provisions of the Right of Persons With Disabilities Act , 2016 (in short ‘RPWD Act, 2016). The case of the petitioner is as follows:

The 1^st respondent invited applications from qualified hands for filling up of the post of Lab Assistant. In pursuance to the same, the petitioner submitted an application. The notification was issued for filling up of the vacancies from general merit. As the Manager of the 1^st respondent had taken a decision to appoint the 4^th respondent, without providing any reservation as contemplated under the RPWD Act, 2016, the petitioner submitted a complaint before the 1^st respondent as evidenced by Ext.P4. A WP(C) No. 26430/2022 4 similar complaint was submitted before the 2^nd respondent as well, which is produced as Ext.P6. According to the petitioner, the 1^st respondent should not have filled up the vacancy that arose in the post of Lab Assistant without fulfilling the obligation to make necessary appointments by following the reservation contemplated under the RPWD Act, 2016. The Government Orders dated 18.11.2018 and 08.11.2021, which are produced as Exts.P8 and P9, were also relied on by the petitioner. As the complaints submitted by the petitioner before the 1^st and 2^nd respondents did not evoke any response, the petitioner approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 1^st respondent to appoint the petitioner as Lab Assistant in Mar Augustine Higher Secondary School, Thuravoor P.O., (via)Angamaly, in the reserved category under the Right of Persons With Disabilities Act , 2016;

(ii) Issue a direction to the 2^nd respondent not to approve any appointment in the Mar Augustine Higher Secondary School, Thuravoor P.O. (via)Angamaly, before appointing the petitioner in the reserved category for disabled persons;

(iii) Petitioner also prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dispense with the translation of the documents produced in the Vernacular Language And (iv) Grant such other reliefs this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case including cost of this proceedings.

3. The 1^st respondent filed a detailed counter affidavit wherein the averments made in the Writ Petition were denied. According to the 1^st respondent, the selection process conducted was to fill up the vacancy of Lab Assistant under the general quota. In the said selection process, 18 persons, including the petitioner were participated, and after conducting the interview at the office of the 1^st respondent, a rank list was prepared wherein, the 4^th respondent was the 1^st rank holder. On the basis of the same, the 1^st respondent appointed the 4^th respondent as Lab Assistant with effect from 31.05.2020 onwards. The right of the petitioner to claim reservation for the post of Lab Assistant in which the 4^th respondent was appointed was also objected to by the 1^st respondent in view of the fact that the petitioner does not have a case that he is a candidate sponsored by the Employment Exchange.

4. A counter affidavit has been submitted by the 4^th respondent, the candidate who was appointed by the 1^st respondent as well. The specific averments contained in the said counter affidavit are to the effect that