Reservation under the Persons with Disabilities Act is constitutionally mandated and cannot be denied due to post identification lapses; violations warrant legal remedy.

ORDER :

Anita Sumanth, J.

The petitioner is affected by Polio from the hip downwards, and suffers from locomotive disability. He had been a petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.1691 of 2011, where the challenge had been to G.O.Ms.No.16 Public (Special.A) Department dated 05.01.2011 on the ground that no reservation had been provided for the category of Persons with Disability (PwD). The petitioner had therein, sought a consequential direction for his appointment as District Judge (Entry level).

2. That Writ Petition had been taken up along with other Writ Petitions culminating in decision dated 11.03.2011, wherein the Division Bench, after hearing the rival contentions advanced, was of the opinion that they had to strike a balance in the situation. They took note of the Constitutional mandate for provision of reservation for PwD, noting simultaneously that the State Government had not identified the posts meant for reservation. In the ultimate analysis, they were of the view that it was not an appropriate case to disturb the selection of judges already made.

3. The Writ Petitions were thus dismissed making it clear that there shall be a provision for reservation of PwD in fulfillment of the constitutional mandate in the immediate next vacancy of District Judges subject to availability and suitability of the candidate. In the present Writ Petition, the challenge is to Notification dated 01.05.2013 along lines similar to the earlier Writ Petition, on the ground of no reservation having been provided for the category of PwD.

4. Mr.Nambi Aarooran, learned counsel who appears for the petitioner reiterates the relevant events leading to the institution of the earlier writ petition, stating that Notification dated 24.06.2010 had been issued calling for applications for appointment of 17 District Judges.

5. The petitioner had been aggrieved by the fact that there was no reservation provided for PwD as mandated under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of rights and full participation) Act 1995 (1995 Act), that provides for reservation of 3% to be provided for the category of PwD, and the State Rules.

6. The petitioner had participated in the process of selection, albeit unsuccessfully. He challenged his non-selection along with other unsuccessful candidates, and the Writ Petition had been dismissed, this Court directing R3 in conclusion, to ensure proper representation of persons in PwD category in the next selection.

7. The present Writ Petition assails the selection of District Judges (Entry level) pursuant to Notification dated 01.05.2013 (2013 Notification). The petitioner had applied for, and participated in the process of selection unsuccessfully, aggrieved by which, he has challenged the 2013 Notification and the selection process, on the ground that the selection had not been made in a transparent manner and was in violation of the constitutional mandate of providing opportunity for physically challenged persons in employment.

8. Mr.P.K.Rajagopal, learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent, i.e., the Registrar General, High Court, would first argue that much water has flown under the bridge since the date of the impugned Notification. The process of selection was complete in 2014 and the appointees have been in service thereafter. Their services are without blemish and their position cannot be disturbed now.

9. While acceding to the position that 3% reservation has been ear-marked for PwD under the 1995 Act, Mr.Rajagopal draws our