Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.23 seconds)
Ashakumari.P vs State Of Kerala on 13 December, 2010 cites

Lali.D.S. D/O. D.K.Sreedharan vs Mahatma Gandhi University on 1 June, 2010

2. Both the State and the P.S.C. contends that, the Government has already published the list of posts identified under Section 32 of the Act, which does not include the post of Legal Assistant Grade-II in the Law Department and therefore the petitioner is not entitled to seek appointment in the 3% reservation category to the post of Legal Assistant Grade-II. They rely on the decision of this court in Lali v. Mahatma Gandhi University [2010 (3) KLT 539] as also the decision of this court in W.P. (C) No.15485/2009 in support of their contention. The counsel for the respondents 4, 5, 6, 11, 12, 16 and 20 to 22 would contend that, insofar as the Government has not identified this post as one suitable for accommodating the W.P.(C)No. 28824 of 2010 -3- appointment of physically handicapped persons the question of application of reservation as per the Act to this post does not arise.
Kerala High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 1 - K T Sankaran - Full Document

Govt Of India Th:Secy & Anr vs Ravi Prakash Gupta & Anr on 7 July, 2010

5. I am of opinion that, in view of the said provisions of the Act, it is mandatory for the State to identify all the posts which can be suitably manned by physically handicapped persons of any particular category with their disability, mentioned in the Act. The Government cannot arbitrarily hold that they have decided not to identify a particular post as one in which 3% reservation has to be made for physically handicapped persons even though the duties of the post can be discharged by physically handicapped persons with their disability. It is the cardinal duty of the State to identify all the posts which can be manned by physically handicapped persons as those coming within Section 32 of the Act in view of the mandatory W.P.(C)No. 28824 of 2010 -5- provisions of the Act. The State cannot insist that for this purpose they have identified only certain posts. If the duties of a particular post can be performed by a physically handicapped person of any of the categories, the State is bound to identify that post under Section 32 unless the establishment is exempted under the proviso to Section 33 of the Act. I am supported in this view by a decision of the Supreme Court in Government of India through Secretary and another v. Ravi Prakash Gupta [(2010) 7 SCC 626], in paragraphs 24 to 29 of which it is stated thus:
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 115 - A Kabir - Full Document
1