IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 1217 of 2009()
1. TOMY ABRAHAM
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THOMAS.P.K.& OTHERS
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.T.N.MANOJ
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.S.R.BANNURMATH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
Dated :22/12/2009
O R D E R
S.R. Bannurmath, C.J. & A.K. Basheer, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.A.No. 1217 OF 2009
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2009
JUDGMENT
A.K. Basheer, J.
This appeal is at the instance of a third party to WP(C)
No.7895 of 2008. He has filed this appeal against the judgment
in the above writ petition after obtaining leave. He impugns the
judgment taking particular exception to the direction issued by
the learned Single Judge to treat the vacancy at Karukutty for
appointment of an Authorised Retail Distributor for distribution of
rationed articles.
2. It is the admitted position that the appellant was
appointed as an Authorised Retail Distributor of ARD No.124 in
Ward No.8 of Karukutty Grama Panchayat pursuant to Annexure
A notification dated October 4, 2007. Annexure B will show that
appellant was appointed in terms of the order issued by the Taluk
Supply Officer on June 6, 2008.
3. However, the writ petitioner, (he passed away
immediately after disposal of the Writ Petition) filed the writ
W.A.No. 1217 OF 2009
-:2:-
petition contending, inter alia, that the above ARD in Ward No.8
of Karukutty Grama Panchayat ought to have been reserved in
favour of physically handicapped persons as provided under
Clause 45(2)(a)(v) of the Kerala Rationing Order, 1966.
4. The learned Single Judge upheld the above contention
and disposed of the writ petition with certain directions; one of
which was that the District Supply Officer shall draw up a list of
authorised retail outlets, where vacancies as indicated in the
counter affidavit, are presently available. It was further directed
that the percentage of reservation to be made available to
Physically disabled persons, as mentioned in Clause 45(2)(a)(v)
of the Kerala Rationing Order, shall be applied to the said
vacancies and every 20th vacancy shall be set apart for a
physically disabled person. The other direction was that every
20th vacancy earmarked in this regard shall be identified and
reserved for physically disabled persons and a notification
specifying the number of vacancies set apart for physically
disabled persons shall be published. But the crucial direction to
W.A.No. 1217 OF 2009
-:3:-
which the appellant takes exception, is with regard to the
vacancy at Karukutty. The learned Single Judge directed that the
vacancy at Karukutty shall also be subjected to the same
process.
5. It may at once be noticed that Annexure A notification
with regard to the vacancy at Karukutty was published in the
year 2007. It is true that the said vacancy was notified without
earmarking it for physically disabled persons as provided under
the Clause referred to above. In other words, the said vacancy
was open for general category candidates also. Appellant had
applied for the said vacancy and he was duly selected and
appointed. In that view of the matter, the contention raised by
the writ petitioner that the said vacancy also ought to have been
reckoned as one available to the physically disabled persons,
cannot be countenanced for reasons more than one. First of all,
as mentioned earlier, the said vacancy was not earmarked for
physically disabled persons. Secondly, the entire vacancies
available in the District of Ernakulam were not identified and
W.A.No. 1217 OF 2009
-:4:-
quota was not fixed as stipulated under Clause 45(2)(a)(v). It is
true that every 20th vacancy has to be earmarked for physically
disabled persons. But unless and until all the vacancies had
been identified and quota and rotation fixed, it cannot be said
that the vacancy at Karukutty ought to have been given to the
physically disabled persons, especially since the selection process
in respect of the said vacancy was afoot since 2007 and the
appellant was appointed pursuant thereto.
6. There is yet another aspect of the matter. It is the
admitted position that the writ petitioner is no more. He passed
away shortly after pronouncement of the judgment by the
learned Single Judge. In that view of the matter also, the
vacancy at Karukutty need be treated as one which is now
available for physically disabled persons. To that extent the
direction issued by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained.
7. In the above facts and circumstances, we hold that the
vacancy at Karukutty need not be reckoned as one available for
physically disabled persons. The other directions contained in the
W.A.No. 1217 OF 2009
-:5:-
impugned judgment are not disturbed.
The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
S.R. Bannurmath,
Chief Justice.
A.K. Basheer,
Judge.
ttb