SHEELA S.B. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) K .M.Joseph,J The petitioner was an applicant. The 2nd respondent invited applications from physically disabled candidates for appointment to the post of Draftsman Grade -II (Special Recruitment to the physically handicapped persons) in the Survey and Land Reforms Department. It contemplated two categories of physically handicapped persons namely, orthopedic handicapped which was expressly mentioned as orthopedic handicapped under the category of lower extremities (minor defects) besides partially deaf categories. The petitioner has been certified to be physically handicapped but in the upper extremities. Petitioner's claim that has been rejected on the basis that she suffers from physically handicappedness not in the lower extremities but in the upper extremities. In other words, it is found that the petitioner did not have Ortho -lower extremities handicappedness. The original application filed by the petitioner before the Kerala State Administrative Tribunal has been dismissed.

(2.) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was illegally excluded. In this connection, he drew our attention to the order of Government of Kerala dated 3.1.2013 where under the Government has found inter alia that the Sub classification of Orthopedic handicapped into the upper extremities and lower extremities is not correct in terms of the provisions of Section 2(O) and 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. In terms of such order classification is also mentioned which are suitable for appointment of the physically handicapped. We find that the Draftsman Civil No.16 is one of the posts. The notification by which the petitioner applied was issued by the Public Service Commission in the Gazette dated 30.4.2012 and the last date of application was 6.6.2012. The petitioner has not challenged the notification as found by the tribunal. Therefore, the tribunal was not called upon to decide the legality of the notification in the light of the lacuna which the applicant points out with reference to the Government Order dated 3.1.2013. We have noticed that the notification issued by the Public Service Commission was published earlier than the Government Order which was issued only on 3.1.2013. What is stated in the Government Order is that is as follows:

(3.) THOUGH what the Public Service Commission has done to issue notification inviting applications for the post of Draftsman Gr.II, we cannot understand it as Subordinate Legislation and it is not covered by Section 20 of the General Clauses Act. In other words, it is not a statutory notification as such issued under the Disabilities Act. Further more, we notice that there is no challenge to the notification issued by the Public Service Commission as noticed by the tribunal. Still further more, it is pointed out by the learned Government Pleader and as noticed by the tribunal that if the claim of the petitioner is to be allowed, it would amount to giving to the petitioner a benefit which is not extended to various others who are similarly situated. In such circumstances, we are of the view that no ground is made out by the petitioner in this judicial review proceedings to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.