ATHUL ANTONY A Vs. HIGH COURT OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An unsuccessful candidate for the post of Office Attendant of this court has filed this Writ petition, challenging the notification prescribing a minimum of 35% marks for qualifying in the interview to be included in the rank list.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are as follows:

(3.) A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2, denying the averments in the Writ Petition. It is averred that in the notification, clause 8 states explicitly that selection will be based on the marks of the written test and, 10 marks is fixed for the interview and the minimum mark required to be included in the rank list will be 35% in the interview. The petitioner became successful in the written test, and he was eligible to be called for interview. The shortlist was prepared in compliance with the Rule of reservation prescribed in part II of Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 (KSSR), Kerala High Court Service Rules, 2007 (for short 'the Rules, 2007') and Kerala High Court Service (Method of Recruitment Rules 2009) (for short 'the Recruitment Rules, 2009'). The shortlist contained the main list and supplementary list of reservation categories, including 3% reservation for persons with benchmark disability in Visual impairment, hearing impairment, and locomotor disability. Later, Ext.P10 addendum notification was issued, including 1% for the mentally disabled and persons with multiple disabilities, ensuring 4% reservation to those with disabilities. The addendum notification was published, lowering the marks of the candidates obtained in the written test to the extent necessary, and the disability and the percentage of disability for the above categories were considered to be the same as mentioned in G.O.(P) No.19/2020/SJD dated 25.8,2020. As the petitioner was included in Ext.P10 notification, he was called for the interview. The petitioner scored only 3 marks in the interview, and since he did not achieve the minimum of 35% marks, he was excluded from the rank list. Differently, abled persons are interviewed to assess individually whether they are in a position to discharge their duties satisfactorily. All the persons in the supplementary list were interviewed with the same criteria and not with the persons who do not have the disability.