SIBIN PAUL Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges the order dated 30.07.2015 of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (KAT for short) dismissing the application filed by him. The petitioner is a visually challenged person and according to him, he suffers from 40% disability. Pursuant to a notification issued by the second respondent, Kerala Public Service Commission, he had applied for selection and appointment to the post of Public Works Overseer Grade -II/ Draftsman Grade -II/ Town Planning Surveyor Grade -II/ Water Works Inspector Grade - II in the Kerala Municipal Common Service. The said notification is exhibit P1 in annexure A2. Exhibit P2 is the Certificate in proof of his disability. The second respondent considered the petitioner's application and thereafter he was included in the probability list of candidates, exhibit P3 dated 23.11.2010. He was included in the list of handicapped persons prepared in accordance with the terms of G.O.(P).No.8/2010/S.W.D. dated 1.2.2010. However, later on by an Erratum Notification dated 16.08.2011 all the blind as well as deaf and dumb candidates were removed from the probability list. Aggrieved by his deletion from the probability list, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.28056 of 2011 before this Court. The Writ Petition was admitted and an interim order directing the respondents not to advise and fill up one post of Public Works Overseer Gr -II/Draftsman Grade II/ Town Planning Overseer Gr -II/Water Works Inspector Grade II in the Kerala Municipal Common Service at the 33rd turn for blind category was granted.

(2.) Later on, the Writ Petition was transferred to the KAT and renumbered as T.A.No.739 of 2013. The petitioner contended that he was fully qualified to be selected and appointed to one of the vacancies notified by the PSC. He had been included in the blind category with Reg No.102880. However, from the rank list exhibit P8 dated 2.9.2011, the PSC totally excluded the blind as well as the deaf and dumb candidates. During the pendency of the proceedings before the KAT, the petitioner produced Annexure MA -1, an order dated 04.04.2013 by which, the posts of Overseer Gr -I, II and III (Civil) Public Works Department and Local Self Government Departments are identified as suitable for physically handicapped low vision candidates. In view of the said Government Order, it was contended that, the petitioner was entitled to a direction to be appointed to the post that was directed to be kept vacant by the interim order of this Court.

(3.) The contentions of the petitioner were disputed by the PSC as well as other respondents. According to the PSC, at the time of issuing the notification exhibit P1, the notified post had not been identified as suitable for the appointment of either blind or deaf and dumb candidates. It was for the above reason that, reservation for the physically handicapped persons was limited to one category namely the orthopaedically disabled. It was for the said reason that, the petitioner was deleted from the probability list. The subsequent identification of the post as suitable by annexure -MA1 does not entitle the petitioner to claim inclusion in the list that was already published.