PRASANNAKUMARI E.S., ERUVELI WARRIOM, CHOTTANIKKARA (P.O.), ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN Vs. THE REGISTRAR, KANNUR UNIVERSITY, MANGATTUPARAMBU, KANNUR UNIVERSITY CAMPUS (P.O.), KANNUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case set up in the above writ petition is as follows: The petitioner is a visually impaired person with 100% disability as certified by Ext.P-1 disability certificate dated 30.10.2009 issued by the competent Medical Board. She acquired L.L.B. Degree and had also later successfully passed the L.L.M. (Master of Laws) course and had also cleared the National Eligibility Test (NET) qualification that is prescribed by the University Grants Commission (UGC) for appointment as Lecturers/Assistant Professors in colleges and universities. Ext.P-2(a) dated 21.03.2005 is the certification awarded by the University Grants Commission after her successfully clearing the NET examination held on 20th June, 2004 in the discipline of law and it is certified therein that she has qualified the UGC-NET examination for eligibility for Lecturer-ship in the subject of law and that she is a post graduate in the subject of law and that the validity of the said NET certification is forever. The 1st respondent Kannur University had issued Ext.P-3 selection notification dated 29.01.2008 inviting applications from eligible candidates for selection and appointment to the post of Lecturer/Assistant Professor in law reserved for persons with disability. It was also made clear in Ext.P-3 notification that if there are no eligible candidates from the reserved category, candidates belonging to other eligible categories including open category will be considered strictly as per the norms stipulated in KS &SSR (Kerala State & Subordinate Service Rules). The petitioner had submitted her application in response to Ext.P-3 notification and she had fulfilled all the prescribed academic qualifications for the post of Lecturer/Asst. Professor in law. The upper age limit prescribed for the above post was 40 years as on 01.01.2008. It is further stipulated that usual relaxation in upper age will be given to candidates belonging to SC, ST, OBC and other categories as per the University rules. According to the petitioner, she was entitled for age relaxation by 10 years in view of the consistent norms followed by the State authorities as per Ext.P-5 G.O.(P)158/73/PD dated, 29.05.1973. Though the petitioner was permitted to participate in the interview as discernible from Ext.P-4 Memo (No.Ad B1/Appointment/Lr-Law/2010 dated 22.09.2010) later, she came to know that she was the sole applicant from the reserved category of physically disabled candidates and that the university had selected and appointed an open candidate to the above said notified vacancy. Thereupon, aggrieved by the non selection of the petitioner, she was constrained to file WP(C) No.19769/2012 before this Court. The respondent Kannur University took up the stand that the petitioner had completed 40 years and 7 months as on 01.01.2008 (the cut off date prescribed in the selection notification), and that Ext.P-5 G.O. dated 29.05.1973, was adopted by the respondent university only as per proceedings dated 21.01.2009 and that therefore the said age relaxation was not in force as on the last date of submission of applications as per Ext.P-3 and that therefore the petitioner was ineligible being age barred for the said selection and that the respondent university had selected and appointed an open candidate in the place of a reserved candidate in the selection, etc. The learned Single Judge, as per Ext.P-7 judgment rendered on 08.06.2015 had allowed W.P.(C) No.33953/2011 filed by the petitioner herein and found that Ext.P-5 (G.O. dated 29.05.1973) is applicable for age relaxation of physically disabled candidates even in university service as the university is a 'State' within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution and that the rejection of the petitioner's case was illegal and had accordingly quashed the impugned decision and had also set aside the appointment granted to the open candidate and had directed the respondent university to consider the matter afresh with reference to the suitability of the petitioner, etc. Ext.P-7 judgment was challenged by the respondent Kannur University in Writ Appeal No.1459/2015 and the Division Bench as per Ext.P-8 judgment dated 20.07.2015 had dismissed the said appeal. The Division Bench found that much before the last date of submission of the application as per Ext.P-3, the State Government in exercise with its statutory powers conferred under Sec. 38 of the Persons with Disability (Equal opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 [Central Act 1 of 1996] enacted by the Parliament, whereby it was ordered as per various Government Orders issued from 1998 upto 2008 that relaxation in age as per the provisions in KS &SSR will continue to be extended to the physically handicapped candidates, etc. The latest such Government Order issued by the Government was on 19.07.2008. The Rule 10(C) of KS &SSR of Part II provides that upper age limit is extend-able by 5 years for SC/ST candidates and by 3 years for OBC candidates. Therefore the Division Bench found that without resolving the issue as to whether the age relaxation would be upto 3 years or 5 years, that physically disabled candidates like the petitioner herein is entitled for age relaxation, even if the lower age limit by 3 years is taken, going by her date of birth. On this ground the Division Bench found that the impugned rejection order passed by the University is illegal and ultravirus and had thus confirmed the conclusions arrived at by the learned Single Judge as per Ext.P-7 judgment. Incidentally, it is very relevant to note that the petitioner herein, who is a 100% visually impaired person, and who is also a post graduate in law, had appeared before this Court as party-in-person in successfully prosecuting the above said writ proceedings, which culminated in Ext.P-7 and could efficiently place her arguments before this Court, without any assistance.

(2.) Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, as per Exts.P-7 and P-8 judgments, the matter stood remitted to the respondent university for consideration of the petitioner's case afresh. The respondent university took up the stand that the specific direction in Ext.P-7 judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge was to consider the suitability of the petitioner for the post notified as per Ext.P-3, etc., and that therefore they constituted a selection committee to consider as to whether the petitioner, who is a physically disabled candidate, could successfully discharge the duties and functions attached to the post of Lecturer/Asst. Professor in law. In this regard it is also to be noted that the very basis of the reservation for physically disabled candidates as notified in Ext.P-3 is on the basis of the mandatory provisions contained in the above said Central Act 1 of 1996. Incidentally it is also to be noted that the State of Kerala had issued Ext.P-11 G.O. in exercise of its powers conferred under the above said Central Act, 1996, whereby it is found that the post of Lecturer/Asst. Professor in law is one that is identified as suitable for appointment of physically disabled candidates. After the consideration of the matter by the selection committee, the university had issued the impugned Ext.P-10 proceedings dated 08.01.2016 rejecting the candidature of the petitioner, on the ground that the petitioner, being a visually impaired candidate, cannot properly carry out and discharge the duties and functions attached to the post of Lecturer/Asst. Professor in law. It is this order at Ext.P-10 that is essentially under challenge in the present writ proceedings. The prayers in the above Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows:

(3.) The University has filed a statement dated 04.07.2016 in this case wherein it is contended that the direction issued by the learned judge in Ext.P-7 judgment that the University should consider the suitability of the petitioner, has not been varied in Ext.P-8 appellate judgment and that the said direction has become final and that therefore the exercise taken by the selection committee in assessing the suitability of the petitioner as referred to in the impugned Ext.P-10 proceedings is perfectly in order that the selection committee after elaborate consideration found that the petitioner is not suitable for appointment as Lecturer in the Legal Studies Department of the University and that the Syndicate has also approved the said findings of the selection committee referred to in Ext.P-10. It is specifically admitted in para 5 of the statement that there are no separate guidelines laid down by the University for the assessment of merits of the candidates for selection as Lecturer/Assistant Professor and that the sole method is to rely on the expertise of the persons nominated in the selection committee, who has to assess the suitability of the candidates. Further it is stated that the post of Assistant Professor/Lecturer in Law reserved for physically disabled candidates has not been filled up.