E. DINESHAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, a physically challenged person with 40% locomotor (ortho) disability, has approached this Court for quashing Ext. P5 to the extent it restricts the benefits of 3% reservation of handicapped persons mandated by Sections 32 and 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short) with effect from the date of Ext. P5, i.e. from 1.2.2010 only and also for a declaration that the physically handicapped persons defined under the Act are entitled to get the back log vacancies from 1996 in the post of Assistant Grade II/Clerk/Junior Clerk/LD Clerk/Cashier filled up while making appointments to the public sector undertakings and Government Companies under the first respondent by reserving 3% to the physically challenged persons. There is a further prayer for a direction commanding respondents 4 to 7 to report all the existing vacancies in the aforesaid cadre so as to enable the third respondent to advise suitable candidates from Ext. P4 list.

(2.) THE petitioner alleges that despite clear mandate under Sections 32 and 33 of the Act, because of the arbitrary restriction imposed by the first respondent, a large number of vacancies of Assistant Grade II/Clerk/Junior Clerk/LD Clerk/Cashier in Government owned companies and public sector undertakings earmarked for physically challenged persons under 3% quota were filled up by appointing the candidates of general and other reserved categories and consequently, the petitioner is denied appointment even though he is included in Ext. P4 ranked list. He alleges that the second respondent published Ext. P3 ranked list for appointment to the aforesaid posts and thereafter Ext. P4 addendum notification was issued publishing supplementary list of physically challenged persons in these categories. The petitioner is ranked No. 70 in Ext. P4 list in the 'ortho' category.

(3.) IN the counter affidavit filed by the respondents 2 and 3, they contended as follows: