P. RADHAKRISHNAN Vs. COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner claims to be a disabled person with 42% locomotor disability, who is working as a temple staff under the 1st respondent Board. The petitioner seeks for reservation in appointment to the 25% vacancies earmarked for temple staff in the post of Watchman -cum -Peon. The petitioner claims reservation under The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for brevity 'Act of 1995').

(2.) THE learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Board, however, relies on the counter affidavit, which is in line with Ext.P8 order of the respondent Board, wherein the prayer made by the petitioner was declined for reason of the respondent Board being not an 'establishment' under the Act of 1995. The issue revolves only around whether the respondent Board can be considered to be an 'establishment' as defined under the Act of 1995.

(3.) ON a reading of the definition the learned Standing Counsel would contend that the respondent Board is not a Corporation nor is it an authority or body owned or controlled or aided by the Government or a local authority or a Government Company, as specifically noticed in the definition clause. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, would refute the contention on the basis of the decision in Dalco Engineering Private Limited v. Satish Prabhakar Padhye - : (2010) 4 SCC 378 as also relying upon the provisions of the Travancore -Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 (for brevity 'TCHRI Act 1950') and the definition of 'Corporation' as seen from the Black's Law Dictionary.