P MOHAMMED ABDULLA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Regularisation of service of the appellant is now cancelled and his services are dispensed with as per Ext. P15. The challenge against the said order failed. Therefore, this writ appeal. Few facts are essential for its disposal.

(2.) He was initially employed on a temporary basis in terms of R.9(a)(i) of the General Rules as a Lower Division Clerk, as per Ext. P1. While he was serving as a temporary appointee, taking into account of the international year of physically handicapped persons, the Government issued directions to regularise the physically disabled temporary hands working in service at that time. The petitioner had some disablement for his right thumb. On the basis of the certificate obtained in that regard, his services were regularised by the head of the department. While he was thus continuing as a regular employee, there was complaint by the Association of Physically Challenged Persons that he had obtained the undeserving benefits of regularisation as he did not have that much disability to be entitled to enjoy the benefit of regularisation. An original petition was filed by the said association. This resulted in an enquiry being conducted and finally Ext. P8 order was passed terminating his services. This was without affording an opportunity of being heard to him. Therefore, in an original petition filed by him, the termination was quashed and he was directed to be reinstated in services with all consequential benefits. But as per Ext. P9 Judgment, the learned Single Judge observed that:

(3.) Necessarily, as there was complaint from the Association of Physically Challenged Persons, Government had to act in consonance with the observation of the learned Single Judge. So he was issued with Ext. P13 show cause notice. He had produced a Medical Certificate from the Professor and Head of Orthopaedic Department, Medical College, Calicut to show that he did have disability to the right thumb. But the Government found that he did not have that much percentage of disability to entitle him for regularisation; and that he had obtained regularisation fraudulently. Accordingly, Ext. P15 order was passed again terminating him from service. This was challenged again by him in Writ Petition No. 3276/2004. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition. Therefore, this appeal.