ROY VARGHESE Vs. HIGH COURT OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is a practising lawyer is an applicant for appointment to the post of Munsiff-Magistrate. Ext. P1 notification was issued by the High Court of Kerala, inviting applications for the said post. The petitioner is a physically challenged person with 50% locomotive disability. According to him, the High Court should have reserved 3% of the vacancies, notified to be filled up, for the physically handicapped persons. Feeling aggrieved by the omission of the respondents to reserve 3% seats for the physically handicapped persons, this writ petition was filed, seeking the following reliefs.

(2.) In the writ petition, the first respondent has filed a counter affidavit, contending that as per Section 32 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, the Government have issued order dated 14-7-1998, providing 3% reservation to physically handicapped persons in Class III & Class IV posts. Later, the Government, on the recommendation of an expert committee, has identified 20 posts coming under Class I and Class II categories for applying the 3% reservation for the physically handicapped persons. The list of such posts identified is included in the Appendix to Ext. R1(a) Government Order dated 6-8-2005. Since the Government did not identify the post of Munsiff-Magistrate as one of the posts, for which 3% reservation could be provided as per Ext. R1 (a), Ext. PI notification did not provide any reservation for the physically handicapped persons, it is submitted.

(3.) The second respondent has filed a statement, substantially raising the very same contentions taken by the first respondent. After the filing of the counter affidavit by the first respondent, the petitioner has amended the writ petition, challenging Ext. R1(a), producing the same as Ext. P3 in the amended writ petition. He has amended the prayers also, incorporating the following additional prayers.