Timeliness and prior adjudication limit the ability to claim reservation under disability provisions in employment contexts.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner was an applicant for appointment to the post of Assistant Grade II in the Calicut University. He is a physically handicapped person. The notification in question is dated 25.3.2000 which is produced as Ext.P1. The writ petition is filed seeking for a direction to provide reservation for physically handicapped persons in the reservation quota of 3%. The petitioner contends that in the light of Ext.P9 Government Order, 3% vacancies in Class III and Class IV posts in Public Services will have to be reserved for appointment from physically handicapped persons in the light of the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.

2. Heard learned Standing Counsel for the University. It is clear from the averments in the writ petition that the selection that was conducted to the post of Assistant Grade II was the subject matter of challenge in various writ petitions before this court. It appears that a written test was conducted on 10.3.2001 and the University published a short list containing 562 candidates. Ultimately, a rank list was published on 14.5.2002 wpc 9622/2009 2 containing the names of 566 candidates. The said rank list contained a main list and a supplementary list which were challenged in O.P.No.15309/2002. This court directed the Lal Bahadur Sasthri Centre to have a revaluation of the answer papers which was complied with. Ext.P4 produced herein is the short list published thereafter by the University. Some of the candidates whose names figured in the first list, filed Writ Appeal No.1451/2006 challenging the judgment in O.P.No.15309/2002. The petitioner's claim is based on the short list produced as Ext.P5 after the disposal of the Writ Appeal. Subsequent disputes arose between the rival claimants in the two lists which were ultimately adjudicated by a Division Bench of this court in the judgment in Writ Petition No.15528/2007 and connected cases dated 6.2.2009. Therefore, the matter is now governed by the directions contained in the said judgment.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that this court had directed the publication of supplementary list after following the requirements of the rules of reservation and therefore it is contended that the claim of persons like the petitioner will also have to be governed by the same.

4. Learned Standing Counsel for the University submits that the claim of physically handicapped persons was not a subject matter before wpc 9622/2009 3 this court in any of the proceedings and the directions given by the Division Bench in the above judgment, especially after mentioning the rules of reservation will not take in the claim for reservation made by any of the physically handicapped candidates. A reading of the judgment shows that what is mentioned is only about the rules of reservation, viz. reservation provided for various communities for consideration of their claim in accordance with the relevant rules framed by the University as per the provisions of the Constitution.

5. In that view of the matter, the belated attempt made by the petitioner in this writ petition to reopen the entire thing to have a reservation in favour of physically handicapped persons, cannot be accepted. The notification was not challenged at the relevant point of time and the petitioner had also participated in the selection process without any demur.

Therefore, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.

(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)

kav/