SOJIMOL Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Registry has noted a defect regarding the maintainability of the writ petition. A clarification was sought whether the matter is to be dealt with by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal. Since learned counsel for the petitioner requested to send the matter to the Bench, the matter came up for consideration and accordingly it was heard.

(2.) The writ petition is filed by the petitioner who has been included in the rank list, Ext. P3, published by the Public Service Commission for appointment to the post of HSA (Maths). He is claiming appointment in the reservation quota for disabled (Orthopaedically Physically Handicapped - locomotor disability). The challenge is against Ext. P4 order passed by the Government directing the Public Service Commission to advise physically handicapped candidates against serial Nos. 33, 66 and 99 in a cycle of 100 vacancies. Various reliefs have been accordingly sought.

(3.) Shri. Benoy Thomas, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not a person included in any service and he is an outsider and therefore the remedy of the petitioner is only to approach this Court. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and Others etc. etc. v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and Others, 1998 KHC 565 : AIR 1999 SC 114 : 1998 (2) KLT SN 51 : 1998 (7) SCC 273 : 1998 AIR SCW 3467 : JT 1998 (5) SC 645 . It is submitted that in the light of S.19 and S.20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act (for short 'the Act'), only a person aggrieved by any order, can approach the Tribunal. Learned counsel therefore submits that the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court in Tomy Philip v. The Chief General Manager, Telecommunication, 2001 KHC 440 : 2001 (2) KLT 490 : ILR 2001 (2) Ker. 97 may not be the correct one, as the decision of the Apex Court in Dr. Duryodhan Sahu's case (supra) will prevail.