Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

W.P(C).No.21117 Of 2016 conclusions, without any proper assessment and merely on the ground that the petitioner happens to be a physically disabled candidate. Therefore, in any view of the matter, the conclusion arrived at in Ext.P-10 appears to be tainted with serious unfairness and impropriety. Further it is stated that the selection committee was of the opinion that the petitioner will not be able to properly carry out the setting of question papers confidentially, etc. It is further opined therein that the petitioner will not be able to properly discharge the duties of conducting examinations, class tests and evaluation of answer sheets because of her visual disability. Further it is stated that the selection committee is of the view that the petitioner will not be able to do justice to the rigorous academic requirements of a research oriented Masters Degree Programme and that the petitioner will not be able to properly carry out the responsibility involved in the design of course curriculum and updation from time to time, etc. The predominant aspect that emanating from Ext.P-10 is that the selection committee has arrived at a decision that the petitioner is not suitable for appointment as Assistant Professor in Law as she happened to be suffering from physical disability. It is not in dispute that the State Government in exercise of the statutory powers under the Central Act, 1996, has issued Ext.P-11  ::13::

W.P(C).No.21117 Of 2016 Government Order whereby the post of Lecturer/Assistant Professor in Law has been notified as one which is suitable for appointment from amongst visually disabled candidates (visually disabled, locomotive disability, cerebral palsy). So, the substantial question involved in this case is as to whether the selection authority like the respondent University can assess whether physically disabled candidates are suitable for discharge of duties and functions of the post in spite of Ext.P-11 notification? The issue in this regard is substantially covered against the University by a Division Bench of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.2440/2012 in the case Bijoy M.S. v. Kerala Public Service Commission, Trivandrum and Others reported in 2014 KHC 370 as well as by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case Secretary, Kerala Public Service Commission, Trivandrum v. Seema.I. and Ors. reported in 2014 (4) ILR (KER) 773. The Division Bench of the Tribunal in the aforementioned ruling reported in 2014 KHC 370 (para.14), dealt with a case where the Public Service Commission contended that even if the post is identified as suitable by the State Government as per Sec.32 of the above Central Act, the Commission, as the selecting authority, is fully within its power to assess the issue as to whether the physically disabled candidate is suitable in the matter of  ::14::

W.P(C).No.21117 Of 2016 and that the said provision was in force even long before the last date of submission of the application in question and that the petitioner is entitled to succeed, in her challenge in the previous round of litigation as regards the rejection of her candidature. It is thereafter that the matter was remitted to the University for consideration for the selection of the petitioner to the post of Assistant Professor in Law afresh. It is not in dispute that the post was notified as reserved for physically disabled candidates. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was the sole candidate who was eligible for the said selection. It is also not in dispute that the State Government has issued the statutory notification wherein the post of Lecturer/Assistant Professor in Law is notified to be suitable for appointment of physically disabled candidates including visually disabled candidates by virtue of the provisions contained in Sec.32 of the Central Act. Yet, the selection authority as per the impugned Ext.P-10 proceedings has rejected the petitioner's candidature on the ground that she, being a visually handicapped person, is not suitable to perform the duties and responsibilities of Assistant Professor in Law. The University Grants Commission, which has been established by virtue of the Legislative Competence of the Parliament referable to co-ordination and determination of standards in  ::20::

W.P(C).No.21117 Of 2016 the higher education sector has chosen to prescribe a very tough and difficult test, viz, National Eligibility Test as the bench mark for teaching position in Colleges and Universities. The petitioner, who is a visually handicapped candidate, has succeeded in passing that tough and arduous test as evident from Ext.P-2(a), and the State Government themselves as per Ext.P-11 Government Order have identified the post in question as suitable to be manned by visually disabled candidates. So this Court fails to understand the rationale and logic of the impugned rejection of the candidature of the petitioner on the grounds stated therein. It is all the more so, in the light of the ratio decidendi laid down settled by the Division Bench of the Tribunal as well as the Division Bench of this Court as referred to herein above. The respondent University does not have any case that the petitioner is not having the requisite merit to hold the post and that therefore she is not suitable, etc. On the other hand, the respondents, without even properly assessing the suitability of the petitioner on the basis of transparent and objective merit criteria to hold the post, have taken the unreasonable stand that she is not suitable to discharge the functions and duties of the post as she is visually disabled. The said stand reflected in Ext.P-10 rejection order is clearly illegal, unreasonable and improper, going by the above  ::21::