SREELEKHA Vs. K P S C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Common issues arise for consideration in these cases and they are heard together and by consent of parties they are being disposed of by this common judgment W.P(C).No. 1838/08 is taken as the leading case.

(2.) The petitioner applied for the post of L.D.Typist in Various Departments pursuant to Ext.P2 notification issued by the Public Service Commission (for short "the Commission"}. Apparently, the petitioner is a physically handicapped person because of his visual incapacity in one eye. Petitioner is otherwise qualified for the post, as evidenced by Ext.P1 series certificates. It is the case of the petitioner that he did not claim any weightage on the premise that he is a physically handicapped persons. He was included in Ext.P3 short list and he was asked to appear for the interview with the requisite certificates. He did so. According to him, the certificates were verified as well. But then, he was told that he cannot be considered for appointment as L.D.Typist in view of G.O.(P).No.20/98 dated 14.7.1998, Ext.P11 because of the visual incapacity in one eye. The petitioner submitted Ext.P5 representation along with the medical certificates issued by Dr.Lalitha Susan Thomas apparently certifying that the vision in his eye does not disable him to carry out the duties in an office. The petitioner again reiterated his request under Ext.P6 along with which he enclosed the medical certificate issued by a Government Medical Officer certifying that he has normal vision in his left eye.

(3.) A list was published by the Commission. Petitioner was not included and hence this writ petition, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent to include the name of the petitioner in the rank list for appointment to the post of L.D. Typist in Palakkad District in accordance with his performance in the test and to advise him for appointment in accordance with his ranking.