GEORGE MATHEW Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a person suffering from Locomotor disability assessed as 70%. He has approached this Court, being aggrieved by the refusal on the part of the 3rd respondent in advising the petitioner towards the post of Computer Programmer cum Operator against the 4% quota earmarked for persons with disabilities as provided under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (Act 49 of 2016).

(2.) Short facts are as under: a. The petitioner responded to Ext.P2 selection notification dtd. 15/11/2013 issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission (PSC) for selection to the post of Computer Programmer-cum-Operator in the Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing and Marketing) Corporation Ltd. ["The Corporation" for the sake of brevity]. After due process of selection, despite the fact that the petitioner is shown as a person with disability in Ext.P3 Short-list, when Ext.P5 ranked list was issued, he was shown as Rank No. 56. No weightage was given to him nor was he considered for entitlement in terms of the benevolent provisions of Act 49 of 2016. In the said circumstances, he approached this Court and filed W.P.(C) No. 22650/2019. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Government passed Ext.P9 order identifying the post of Computer Programmer cum Operator as suitable for reservation under Act 49 of 2016. Taking note of the above aspect, this Court, by Ext.P10 judgment, ordered as under: 2. One post has been identified and reported to the PSC. However, there was a direction of this court dtd. 6/12/2019 that the respondents should not make any advice for appointment against one vacancy of computer programmer cum operator, in the general category. This order was extended from time to time. Evidently, one vacancy is now kept apart for the petitioner. The 4th respondent shall report this vacancy to the PSC. Hence, there will be a direction to the second respondent-PSC to forthwith issue advice memo as against one post now set apart for the petitioner. According to the petitioner, total number of four vacancies are available to the PwD candidates. Without making any observation on that, petitioner shall be placed in appropriate place in accordance with law.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 2 and 3. After narrating the factual aspects, it is stated that the Government, by G.O.(P) No. 12/19/SJD dtd. 31/10/2019, enhanced the reservation for the disabled from 3% to 4% in tune with the provisions of the Act 49 of 2016 and directions were issued to allocate 1, 26, 51 and 76 turns in a roster of 100 points to disabled candidates. The rank list for the post has expired on 2/7/2022 and all substantive vacancies received within the validity period have been advised. It is stated that in terms of the provisions of Act 49 of 2016, whenever a vacancy arises in a turn earmarked for a particular category of disabled, and there is no candidate available on the ranked list for accommodation against the said vacancy, the vacancy has to be carried forward to the next selection and only in the event of the candidates of that category not being available at the next selection can the post be interchanged with candidate of other disability. It is stated that the setting apart of disabled - Low Vision turn and vacancy due to the non-availability of candidates under low vision in the current ranked list is proper in the light of Act of 1995 and Act 49 of 2016.