Appointment of physically disabled individuals must adhere to statutory provisions ensuring appropriate remuneration.

J U D G M E N T

Dated this the 12^th day of February, 2026 The petitioner is a physically handicapped person with 40% of disability. Following the mandatory direction issued by the Government in Ext.P13 order, the 4^th respondent appointed the petitioner as Lab Assistant on 15.02.2024. For the purpose of approving the appointment of the petitioner, several requests were made to the 3^rd respondent.

2. When inordinate delay occurred at the office of the 3^rd respondent for approving the appointment of the petitioner as Lab Assistant with effect from 15.02.2024 in pursuance to Ext.P5 order of appointment, the petitioner approached the Government. In pursuance of the direction issued by the Government on 22.08.2025, the

2^nd respondent directed the 3^rd respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner in the category of posts reserved for physically disabled persons.

3. However, disregarding the direction contained in Ext.P11 proceeding of the 2^nd respondent, the 3^rd respondent approved the appointment of the petitioner as daily waged employee, as per Ext.P12 order. Aggrieved by Ext.P12 order, the petitioner approached the Government with Ext.P14 revision petition. However, in spite of expiry of about three months, no action has been taken by the Government for considering and issuing suitable direction to the 3^rd respondent for approving the appointment of the petitioner with effect from 15.02.2024 as Lab Assistant in the category of physically challenged person, contends the Counsel for the petitioner.

4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 3. Notice to the 4^th respondent is dispensed with in view of the nature of the relief to be granted in this writ petition.

5. The contention of the petitioner is that Ext.P12 order of the 3^rd respondent approving the appointment of the petitioner on daily wage basis, is unjustified inasmuch as the petitioner being appointed against vacancies reserved for physically handicapped persons, the appointment should have been made on scale of pay basis.

6. Be that as it may, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P14 revision petition invoking Rule 92 of Chapter XIVA of KER in this regard. Therefore, it would be only just and proper that the 1^st respondent considers Ext.P14 and passes appropriate orders thereon within a reasonable time.

The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing the 1^st respondent to consider Ext.P14 and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of three months after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

Sd/-