Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Madhu S vs Travancore Devaswom Board on 23 June, 2022

Author: V Raja Vijayaraghavan

Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan

WP(C) No.20301/2022                         1/6




                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                          PRESENT
                      THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
              Thursday, the 23rd day of June 2022 / 2nd Ashadha, 1944
                            WP(C) NO. 20301 OF 2022(K)
   PETITIONER:

          MADHU S, AGED 51 YEARS S/O. SIVASANKARA PILLAI, AGED 51 YEARS,
          RESIDING AT KARUNILAM, THAKAZHY P.O., ALAPPUZHA - 688 562 (PRESENTLY
          WORKING AS WATCHER AT THE KAMAPURAM DEVASWOM, THAKAZHY SUB GROUP,
          AMBALAPUZHA UNDER TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD)

   RESPONDENTS:

      1. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHANCODE, KAWDIAR POST,
         THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
      2. COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD,
         NANTHANCODE, KAWDIAR POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003.
      3. DEPUTY DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE
         DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHANCODE, KAWDIAR POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695
         003
      4. KERALA DEVASWOM RECRUITMENT BOARD, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD
         BUILDING, M. G. ROAD, AYURVEDA COLLEGE JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
         - 695 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
      5. SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEVASWOM DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
         SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001
      6. SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL JUSTICE,
         GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695
         001
      7. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT
         SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001

        Writ petition (civil) praying inter alia that in the circumstances
   stated in the affidavit filed along with the WP(C) the High Court be
   pleased to (A) Stay the opertion of Ext.P6 order dated 22-01-2022 to the
   extent it restricts the benefits due under the 1995-Act from
   22-09-2021(date of identification of the post); and (b) restrain the 1st
   and 2nd respondents from making appointments pursuant to Ext.P9
   notification dated 18-05-2022, without obtaining express orders from this
   Hon'ble Court: or in the alternative, (c) direct the 1st and 2nd
   respondents to keep one vacancy out of 50 vacances notified in Ext.P9
   notification unfilled, until disposal of this Writ Petition.
        This petition coming on for admission upon perusing the petition and
   the affidavit filed in support of WP(C) and upon hearing the arguments of
   M/S.SHAMEENA SALAHUDHEEN, O.M.SHALINA, T.V.VINU & JISEMOL THOMAS,
   Advocates for the petitioner, SRI. C.K. PAVITHRAN, STANDING COUNSEL for
   respondents 1,2 & 3, SRI. V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR, STANDING COUNSEL for
   respondent 4 and of GOVERNMENT PLEADER for respondents 5 to 7, the court
 WP(C) No.20301/2022         2/6

   passed the following:-




                P.T.O.
 WP(C) No.20301/2022                           3/6




                              RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J.
                             -------------------------------------
                              W.P.(C) No.20301 of 2022
                            -------------------------------------------
                          Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2022


                                           ORDER

Sri. C.K. Pavithran, the learned Standing Counsel, takes notice for respondents 1, 2 and 3. Sri. V.V. Nandagopal Nambiar, the learned Standing Counsel takes notice for the 4th respondent. The learned Government Pleader takes notice for respondents 5 to 7.

2. Smt. Shameena Salahudeen, the learned counsel pointed out that the steps initiated by respondents 1 and 2 to fill up the vacancies in the post of LD Clerk/Sub Group Officer Gr.II through 'Direct Recruitment' without providing for reservations in promotions cannot be sustained. The learned counsel would urge that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court complaining of inaction on the part of the respondents 1 to 3 in complying with the provisions of Act 1 of 1996 and this Court in Madhu S. v. Travancore Devaswom Board and Ors. [2017 (1) KLT 653] had directed the respondent Board to take emergent steps to see that the posts in the Devaswom Board, which can be reserved for persons with disability, are identified under Section 32 of the Act, by the Government. Directions were also issued to the Board to take urgent steps for the appointment of WP(C) No.20301/2022 4/6 W.P.(C) No.20301 of 2022 2 physically handicapped candidates under 3% seats, reserved for them in the identified posts. While doing so, it was ordered that the handicapped employees working under the Board and eligible for appointment by transfer/promotion shall also be considered against the vacancies in identified posts in the 3% quota. According to the learned counsel, no steps were initiated by the respondents to comply with the directions and the petitioner had to initiate Contempt proceedings, which is still pending. It is pointed out that the 3rd respondent has now issued Ext.P6 order restricting the right of the petitioner to be considered for promotion under Quota reserved for Persons with Benchmark Disabilities from 22.9.2021, the date on which posts were identified. According to the petitioner, the same is illegal and against the provisions of Act 1 of 1996 and Act 49 of 2016.

3. The learned counsel has placed reliance on Union of India v. Ravi Prakash Gupta [(2010) 7 SCC 626], Union of India v. National Federation of the Blind [(2013) 10 SCC 772] and State of Kerala v. Leesamma Joseph [(2021) 9 SCC 208] and it is argued that reservation has to be computed with reference to the total number of vacancies in the cadre strength and no distinction can be made between the posts to be filled 'by direct recruitment' and 'by promotion'. According to the learned counsel, WP(C) No.20301/2022 5/6 W.P.(C) No.20301 of 2022 3 without determining the cadre strength, the respondents were not justified in proceeding with the recruitment.

4. Sri. C.K. Pavithran, the learned Standing Counsel, seeks an adjournment to get instructions and to make submissions.

5. Having regard to the submissions advanced, respondents 1 and 2 are directed not to keep aside one vacancy out of 50 vacancies as notified in Ext.P9. The respondents shall also refrain from making appointments pursuant to Ext.P9 notification, without securing orders from this Court.

Tag this matter along with W.P.(C) No.17626 of 2022 and post on 29.06.2022.

Sd/-


                                                      RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V,
                                                               JUDGE

       NS




23-06-2022                        /True Copy/                             Assistant Registrar
 WP(C) No.20301/2022                 6/6

                       APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20301/2022
Exhibit P6            A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.R.O.C.13693/21/MISC-A/ESTT-

A DATED 22.01.2022 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT-DEPUTY DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.707R1/2022/K.D.R.B. DATED 18.05.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT