Back
2009 Supreme(Online)(KER) 16585
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J
SASIKUMAR P.T. – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C)/5244/2008
SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ 2) GANESAN C. SO. NARAYANI C.
Persons with disabilities are entitled to be considered for employment against reserved vacancies despite procedural delays in documentation.
Headnote:
Disability - Employment - Act Section List - The court affirmed the entitlement of persons with disabilities to be considered for appointment in Class IV vacancies based on previous directives, emphasizing timely consideration despite procedural delays.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, persons with physical disabilities, claimed they were not considered for Class IV employment vacancies reserved for them, despite being in the Employment Exchange panel, as their medical certificates were late.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners were similarly entitled to consideration for vacancies as per previous court rulings and directed the District Collector to evaluate their claims.
Issues: Whether the petitioners' claims for appointment against the reserved vacancies were appropriately considered despite procedural lapses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld that failure to receive medical certificates on time should not preclude the petitioners from being considered for employment against mandated quotas.
Final Decision: The court directed the District Collector to consider the petitioners for appointment to reserved vacancies within three months.
J U D G M E N T
Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side.
2. The petitioners are persons with physical disability. The Government had taken a policy decision to fill up back log vacancies of Class IV employees earmarked for persons with disability during the period from 1998- 1999 to 2003-2004. The District Collectors were authorised and empowered to select and appoint candidates against the said vacancies. With effect from 1.4.2004, such appointment is to made through the Kerala Public Service Commission. The grievance voiced by the petitioners is that they have not been considered for selection by the District Collector though 17 persons who were included along with them in the panel sent by the Employment Exchange have been appointed. The petitioners submit that in similar circumstances, a learned Single Judge of this Court has disposed of W.P.(C) Nos.18773 of 2008 and 30640 of 2008 with a direction to the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram to consider the claims of persons similarly situate, for appointment to vacancies of Class IV employees, earmarked for persons with disability.
3. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit wherein it is stated that though the names of the petitioners were included in the panel sent by the Employment Exchange, as their medical certificates were not received in time, no written test or interview was conducted in their case. In my opinion, in view of the directions issued by this Court in W.P.(C) Nos.18773 of 2008 and 30640 of 2008, the petitioners herein are also entitled to have their claims considered. I accordingly dispose this writ petition with a direction to the second respondent, District Collector, Kannur to consider the claims of the petitioners for appointment against vacancies of Class IV employees earmarked for persons with disability, for the period from 1998- 99 to 2003-2004. Necessary steps in that regard shall be taken and completed within three months from the date on which the petitioners produce a certified copy of this judgment before the District Collector, Kannur. While considering the claims of the petitioners, the claims of other persons included in the panel forwarded by the Employment Exchange shall also be considered.
P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE.
app/-
