Kerala High Court
Babukuttan Nair vs State Of Kerala on 20 January, 2011
Author: S.Siri Jagan
Bench: S.Siri Jagan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 1113 of 2011(L)
1. BABUKUTTAN NAIR, R.S,
... Petitioner
2. SREELATHA R,
3. RAJAN.S, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.GOPALAN
4. SANDHYA R, AGED 32 YEARS, W/O UNNI,
5. MOHANAN C, AGED 41 YEARS,
6. JAYAKUMAR A
7. SUJA THOMAS, AGED 38 YEARS,
8. BIJU V
9. SATHEESH KRISHNAN B,AGED 30 YEARS
10. HARI V, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.VAMANAN
11. DINSAR A.M,AGED 35 YEARS,
12. RAJENDRAN PILLAI
13. DEEPU R.S, AGED 27 YEARS,S/O.RAJMOHAN
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
... Respondent
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE
3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,KOLLAM 691 001
4. THE THASILDAR,
5. THE THASILDAR
6. THE THASILDAR, TALUK OFFICE,
7. THE THASILDAR, PATHANAPURAM TALUK,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.V.THAMBAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :20/01/2011
O R D E R
S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C)No. 1113 of 2011
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 20th day of January, 2011
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners are physically handicapped persons who were appointed as Villagemen on provisional basis for 179 days. They apprehend termination from service on completion of 179 days. They are aggrieved by the same. According to them, as per Section 23 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, 3% of Class III and IV posts are to be reserved for physically handicapped candidates. But the Government has identified posts for such reservation only from 2004 onwards and the 3% are calculated for backlog appointments only from 2004 onwards which according to the petitioners are against the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act. They would contend that the Government was bound to identify these posts with effect from 1995 and not with effect from 2004 and W.P.(C)No. 1113 of 2011 -2- therefore the backlog vacancies should be calculated with effect from 1995. They would also seek a direction to the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioners in those backlog vacancies.
2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also.
3. The petitioners have not been able to satisfy me that they have a right to be regularised in service. In the matter of regularisation, the physically handicapped persons cannot be treated differently from other persons. In the matter of appointment of physically handicapped persons also Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India are squarely applicable. Apart from the petitioners there are other physically handicapped persons who are eligible to be considered in the 3% reservation quota applicable to physically handicapped persons. If the petitioners are regularised in the posts in which they have been appointed temporarily, that would affect the fundamental right of other physically handicapped persons who are also eligible W.P.(C)No. 1113 of 2011 -3- to be considered for appointment to those posts under Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. As of now the petitioners are only provisional hands and they have no right to continue in service beyond the period for which they have been engaged, which is the settled law on the subject.
4. Apart from that the Government has already declared its policy on the question of regularisation of physically handicapped persons. Government orders issued in this regard specifically stipulated that only persons appointed in the temporary vacancies up to a specific date are entitled to the benefit of regularisation. The petitioners have admittedly been engaged provisionally subsequent to that date fixed by the Government. As such going by the policy of the Government also the petitioners are not entitled to regularisation in service.
5. As regards the question as to whether the backlog vacancies for physically handicapped persons in the 3% quota have to be calculated from 1995 or 2004 is not W.P.(C)No. 1113 of 2011 -4- necessary to be considered in this writ petition insofar as the petitioners are not entitled to regularisation as claimed by them. Therefore that question is left open to be considered in an appropriate case, where the vacancies have to be computed for advice by the Kerala Public Service Commission. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE //True copy// P.A. TO JUDGE shg/