Back
2017 Supreme(Online)(KER) 19999
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.V.ASHA, J
SATHEESH KUMAR.P.V – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
WP(C)/20063/2017
SRI.V.K.SATHYANATHAN, SRI.JOHN T.PAUL, SRI.N.NAGARESH, SMT.VANDANA P., SRI.JOSE KURIAKOSE
Accurate representation of disability in job applications is crucial; errors must be rectified through due administrative process.
Headnote:
Disability - Appointment - Disability Act Section List - The court examined the implications of a disability classification error in a job application. It mandated reconsideration of the application, emphasizing the importance of accurate disability representation and timely administrative response.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a partially disabled ex-serviceman, applied for an Assistant Gr.III position, was included in the rank list, but was denied appointment due to an error in indicating his disability as 'D' instead of 'PD'.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the third respondent to consider the petitioner's representation regarding the disability classification mistake and mandated a hearing to review the evidence of his disability.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was wrongfully denied appointment due to a typographical error regarding his disability classification.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for accuracy in disability reporting and affirmed the right to a fair consideration of disability claims in job applications.
Final Decision: The court ordered reconsideration of the petitioner's appointment application within three months.
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner, who is a partially disabled Ex-serviceman, had submitted application before the second respondent for appointment to the post of Assistant Gr.III. He was included in the select list also, as Rank.No.596 in Ext.P7 Rank list, for the South Zone. Petitioner submits that he happened to indicate his disability as 'D' (complete deaf) instead of 'PD' (partially deaf). Petitioner submits that on account of the fact that his disability happened to be noted in the application as a deaf person instead of partially deaf person, he is not given appointment. Petitioner points out that he is having only 40% disability with respect to his hearing impairment, producing Ext.P3, disability certificate. Pointing out these circumstances, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P8 representation before the 3rd respondent. Petitioner submits that all the persons included in Ext.P7 rank list, have already been appointed and he is denied appointment only because of the mistake which occurred in the application. No positive action is taken so far on Ext.P8 representation.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
In view of the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the third respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P8 representation, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in the light of the disability certificates produced by the petitioner and to take action, if necessary, after subjecting the petitioner to examination by a Disability Board. Orders shall be passed within a period of 'three months' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
