Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: backlog vacancies in Secretary vs Renjith J.V on 4 February, 2021Matching Fragments
(WA Nos.1237, 1238, 1239, 1242/2020 & 131/2021) Dated this the 4th day of February, 2021 Shaffique, J.
These appeals have been filed against the common judgment dated 26/8/2020 in WP(C) Nos. 224, 1806, 2800/2019 and 4753/2020.
2. The Government of Kerala by GO(P)No.18/2018/SJD dated 18/11/2018 issued instructions to all appointing authorities of aided institutions to ensure 3% and 4% reservation with reference to the total number of vacancies in the cadre strength by making appointments in aided schools and aided colleges including professional colleges to the posts which are identified as suitable for persons with disabilities. By virtue of the aforesaid order, backlog vacancies were directed to be filled up from 7/2/1996 to 18/4/2017 as per the provisions of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the 1995 Act) WA No.1237/2020 & conn.cases and 4% of the vacancies in such institutions w.e.f. 19/4/2017 as per the provisions of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the 2016 Act). The Consortium of Catholic School Managements in Kerala filed WP(C) No. 1806/2019 and the NSS Colleges Central Committee filed WP(C) No. 2800/2019 challenging the Government Order dated 18/11/2018 (hereinafter referred to as Ext.P8), (as referred in WP(C) No. 1806/2019).
6. The main contention urged on behalf of the Consortium of Catholic School Managements in Kerala is that Ext.P8 order cannot be enforced since no posts had been identified to be filled up in terms of Sections 32 and 33 of the 1995 Act and Sections 33 and 34 of the 2016 Act. It is pointed out that in Ext.P8 order, the Government while directing backlog vacancies from 7/2/1996 to be filled up, the posts which are identified are in terms of Government Orders GO(P) No.61/2012/SWD dated 17/10/2012, GO(P) No.1/2013/SJD dated WA No.1237/2020 & conn.cases 3/1/2013, GO(P) No.30/2013/SJD dated 4/4/2013, GO(P) No.1/2015/SJD dated 5/1/2015 and GO(P) No.18/2017/SJD dated 14/9/2017. These Government Orders have been produced as Exts.P3 to P7 in WP(C) No. 1806/2019. The contention urged by the learned counsel is that the posts which had been notified are relating to Government departments, Government schools and colleges and do not have any relation to the creation of posts with reference to aided schools and colleges. It is therefore argued that unless the posts in such aided schools and colleges are notified in terms of the statutory provision, incorporating Exts.P3 to P7 Government Orders will not suffice. It is also argued based on Section 102 of the 2016 Act that when the 1995 Act has been repealed, sub-section (2) will not save the Government Orders Exts.P3 to P7.
9. Smt.P.K.Nandini, learned counsel while supporting the WA No.1237/2020 & conn.cases judgment of the learned Single Judge placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Government of India through Secretary and Another v.Ravi Prakash Gupta [(2010) 7 SCC 626] wherein direction had been given by the Apex Court to ensure filling up of backlog vacancies which had accumulated due to delay in identification of posts under S.32 of the 1995 Act. Counsel argued that the Apex Court is keen to ensure that the aforesaid Act is implemented in letter and spirit and therefore several such directions had been issued. It is pointed out that even if the posts which had been stated by the State Government initially was made applicable only to Government institutions, that did not preclude the aided institutions in applying the very same principle. Once the provisions of the Statute had come into force, every institution which comes within the parameters of Government establishment under the Act is bound to comply with the same. Ext.P8 order came to be passed only when it was noticed that the aided institutions were not complying with the statutory provisions. Learned counsel therefore supports the view taken by the learned Single Judge. Learned Government Pleader Sri.A.J.Varghese appearing on behalf of the State also supported WA No.1237/2020 & conn.cases Ext.P8 order. He also submitted that the Apex Court had issued several directions in the aforesaid matter. He made reference to two judgments of the Apex Court in Dalco Engineering Private Ltd and Others [(2010) 4 SCC 378] and Union of India v. National Federation of the Blind and Others [(2013) 10 SCC 772]. Another judgment relied upon is that of this Court in which one of us (myself) had rendered a judgment in Manager L.M.S. Special Schools, Trivandrum v. State of Kerala (2012 (3) KHC 163). The said judgment was confirmed by the Division Bench in Manager LMS Special Schools v. V.M.Omana and Others (2012 (3) KLT 507).
26. The compliance report to be filed by the States shall be supplied to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the Union of India as well as to the learned counsel for the applicant/intervenor so that they can assist the Court."
Probably it is pursuant to the aforesaid directions that the State Government had come forward with Ext.P8 order dated 18/11/2018 in order to fill up the backlog vacancies in aided educational institutions.