IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 18578 of 2005(J)
1. B.P.HARIHARAN, ASSISTANT GRADE I DEPOT,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA,
... Respondent
2. THE ZONAL MANAGER, FOOD CORPORAITION OF
3. THE SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER,
For Petitioner :SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY
For Respondent :SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN, SC, FCI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :03/08/2007
O R D E R
Antony Dominic, J.
========================
W.P(C).No.18578 of 2005
========================
Dated this the 3rd day of August, 2007.
JUDGMENT
Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking to quash
Ext.P6 to the extent it excludes him and Ext.P8 order by which
his representation for promotion to the post of Assistant Manager
(Depot) under the physically handicapped quota has been
declined. It is seen that the petitioner is a handicapped person
with 40% permanent disability which is not disputed by the
respondents as well.
2. He entered service as Assistant Grade III (Depot) on
8.1.1976 and was thereafter promoted as Assistant Grade II and
is presently working as Assistant Grade I. According to him,
although he is entitled to be promoted to the post of Assistant
Manager (Depot) in the normal channel of promotion, his claim
under the physically handicapped quota has been negatived by
the respondents and it is in this background that the petitioner
sought to quash Ext.P6 and P8 as stated above.
WP(C)18578/05 -: 2 :-
3. Respondents have filed a counter affidavit. It is stated
in the counter affidavit that in terms of Ext.R3(a) Circular
No.40/90 dated 22.10.1990 issued by the Headquarters of Food
Corporation of India, reservation that is available to the
physically handicapped category is as per the provisions
contained in the Office Memorandum No.36035/8/89/Estt. (SCT)
dated 20.11.1989 issued by the Department of Personnel and
Training, Government of India. It is stated that the said Circular
provided that within Group ‘C’ reservation will be provided to the
three categories of physically handicapped persons, viz, visually
handicapped, hearing handicapped and the orthopaedically
handicapped. According to them, so far as the petitioner is
concerned, he has permanent disability due to polio Residual
Paralysis and he does not come within any of those three
categories enumerated in the Circular or Office Memorandum
mentioned above. It is also stated in paragraph 9 of the counter
affidavit that the Headquarters issued Circular dated 7.10.2002
withdrawing the benefit of promotion for physically handicapped
from Category III to Category II. Petitioner has no case that he
comes within the purview of Ext.R3(a) or the Office Memorandum
WP(C)18578/05 -: 3 :-
mentioned above and if that be so, the petitioner cannot succeed
in this Writ Petition. In addition to this, the fact that benefits
extended through aforesaid Circulars in this regard have also
been withdrawn by Circular dated 7.10.2002 in which case,
petitioner cannot assert any further claim for promotion in that
category. In the above circumstances, I am not in a position to
sustain the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of
Assistant Manager (Depot) in the physically handicapped quota.
4. However, petitioner has a case that even according to
the respondents, he is entitled to the benefits of reservation in
the matter of promotion to the post of Assistant Grade II and
Assistant Grade I and that these benefits have not been granted.
According to him, if these promotions were granted in time, he
would have been senior in the Category of Assistant Grade I and
would have earned promotion to the higher posts without
reservation and in the normal channel. This aspect is not seen to
have been specifically dealt with in the counter affidavit. Taking
into account above grievance of the petitioner, I direct the
second respondent to consider the eligibility of the petitioner to
have been extended reservation in the physically handicapped
WP(C)18578/05 -: 4 :-
quota in the matter of his promotion to the post of Assistant
Grade II and Assistant Grade I with effect from the dates on
which he should have been given those benefits. On such
examination, if he is found to be eligible, consequential benefits
should also be extended to him. The matter shall be dealt with
by the second respondent within a period of six months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
Antony Dominic,
Judge.
ess 3/8