RAVINDRAN K.M. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is having 75% locomotor disability. On being sponsored by the Employment Exchange for appointment in the Life Insurance Corporation of India he missed an opportunity to get reappointment on the basis of Ext.P9 order issued by the Government.

(2.) The petitioner registered his name in the Employment Exchange, Palakkad on 26.03.1998. He has passed B.Com degree. His date of birth is 05.07.1970. He is physically challenged with 75% locomotor disability. On the basis of his seniority of registration, the Employment Officer, Palakkad sponsored him for employment in LIC. Thereafter he was appointed in the LIC for a period of 85 days from 28.02.2000 to 22.05.2000, as per Ext.P2 order of LIC, and he was posted at the payment Branch Office at Palakkad as temporary Assistant on a scale of pay of Rs.1950-3970. Petitioner submits that the temporary appointments in LIC are given only for a period of 85 days and therefore he was discharged from LIC on completion of 85 days. While so, Government initiated proceedings to collect the details of Physically Handicapped candidates who have worked for 179 days during the period from 16.08.1999 to 03.12.2000. Such details were calculated from among persons who were appointed under Rule 9(a)(i) of KS&SSR for a period of 179 days, between 16.08.1999 and 03.12.2000, on being sponsored by Employment Exchange, in order to forward the same to Social Justice Department. Government thereafter issued Ext.P9 order on 18.05.2013 by which 2677 Physically Handicapped persons who worked for 179 days between 16.08.1998 and 31.12.2003 under Rule 9(a) (I), on being sponsored by Employment Exchange. It was ordered that they would be reappointed against supernumerary posts. Petitioner thereupon submitted several representations before the Employment Officer as well as Government requesting to take steps to reappoint him.

(3.) The Employment Officer had as per Ext.P4 letter dated 09.07.2017 informed the petitioner that his case was not liable to be considered since his appointment was not under Rule 9 (a)(i) of KS&SSR. Petitioner approached the Chief Minister with Ext.P5 representation pointing out that he did not get the benefit of Ext.P9 order though he had worked in the year 2000 during the period from 28.02.2000 to 22.05.2000 as an Assistant in LIC. It is pointed out that though he was included in various rank lists and has appeared in various tests conducted by Public Service Commission he was not offered any regular appointment and the only appointment he got through Employment Exchange was one in the LIC. Therefore he requested to take steps to consider his case also and to give him appointment in any of the office in Palakkad District.