IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 21493 of 2007(H)
1. ROSILY VARGHESE, D/O.VARGHESE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE COMMISSIONER,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE DIRECTOR,
3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT,
4. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT, VIGILANCE AND
5. SECRETARY, HEALTH DEPARTMENT,
For Petitioner :SRI.A.X.VARGHESE
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
Dated :12/07/2007
O R D E R
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J.
-------------------------
W.P.(C)No.21493 of 2007 H
-------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of July, 2007.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner submits that she is a physically
handicapped person. She was initially appointed provisionally
in the Government Press, Ernakulam as Binder Grade II.
Later, under the relevant orders directing regularisation of
physically handicapped persons, the petitioner was also
regularised in service by Ext.P1 order dated 11.12.1996.
Ext.P2 Medical Certificate issued by the District Medical Board
would show that the petitioner suffers from 40% disability.
Later, other physically handicapped persons raised complaints
against the regularisation of the petitioner and others on the
ground that they are not physically handicapped persons
eligible for regularisation. So, the competent authority issued
notice to the petitioner and others. Those notices were
challenged before this court by filing O.P.No.11836/99 and
connected cases. The said original petition was disposed of by
Ext.P3 judgment, directing the 2nd respondent to take a final
decision in the matter, after considering the objections of the
petitioner herein and others and affording them an
opportunity of being heard. The petitioner submits, while so,
W.P.(C) No.21493 of 2007
:: 2 ::
she has been served with Ext.P4 notice dated 27.6.2007 by
the 1st respondent, the State Commissioner of Handicapped,
Thiruvananthapuram. This writ petition is filed challenging
Ext.P4 on the ground that the preliminary enquiry proposed
under Ext.P4 is unsustainable.
2. This court has already ordered by Ext.P3 to
look into the representations of the petitioner and take a
final decision by the 2nd respondent. So, the present
proceedings initiated by the 1st respondent is without
jurisdiction, it is submitted. So, the petitioner prays for
quashing Ext.P4.
3. Going by Ext.P4, it could be seen that the
same is a notice under Section 63 of the Persons with
Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and
Full Participation) Act 1995. Section 62 thereof authorises
the Commissioner to look into the complaints with respect to
matters relating to deprivation of rights of persons with
disabilities. So, the enquiry contemplated under Ext.P4 is
entirely different from the enquiry pending before the 2nd
W.P.(C) No.21493 of 2007
:: 3 ::
respondent. So, I feel that the action taken by the 1st
respondent under Section 63 is within his jurisdiction.
4. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with
Ext.P4. But, the petitioner may place all the materials
before the 1st respondent to enable him to take a just and
proper decision. All the contentions of the petitioner
regarding the genuineness of her disability are kept open.
Writ petition is closed, subject to the above
observation.
Sd/-
(K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR)
JUDGE
sk/
//true copy//
P.S. To Judge