IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 14 of 2007()
1. K.M. SINI, AGED 24 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SREE SANKARACHARYA SANSKRIT
... Respondent
2. SATHEESAN P., AGED 35 YEARS,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN
For Respondent :SRI.B.S.KRISHNAN(SR.),SC,SANSKRIT UTY.
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI
Dated :23/10/2009
O R D E R
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ.
------------------------------
W.A. No.14 of 2007
------------------------------
Dated this, the 23rd day of October, 2009
JUDGMENT
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The first respondent University invited applications
for appointment to the post of Class IV employees. The
appellant was one of the candidates. She was not included in
the rank list published pursuant to the said selection.
Therefore, she was not appointed. Being a physically
challenged person with more than 40% disability, claiming
appointment in the 3% quota ear marked for such candidates,
the Writ Petition was filed. The University filed a counter
affidavit stating that a physically challenged person, who was
included in the rank list was appointed, while they made
appointments to 30 vacancies. Since the appellant was not
included in the rank list, she could not be considered for
appointment. Accepting the said contention, the learned
Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition. Feeling aggrieved
W.A. No.14 of 2007
– 2 –
by the same, the writ appeal is preferred.
2. Going by the facts of the case, it would appear
that the notification was made for selection of general
candidates. There was no reservation provided in the said
notification for physically challenged persons. But, the
University has chosen to appoint one physically challenged
person, who found a place in the rank list. From the said
submission, it would appear that, though his turn as per merit
has not arisen, a candidate included in the rank list was
appointed in the quota earmarked for physically challenged
persons.
3. Normally, for filling up the 3% quota for
physically challenged persons, separate notification and
selection are made. In this case, as evident from he
pleadings and materials, there was no reservation for
physically challenged persons in the notification. The
appellant has not chosen to challenge the notification or the
W.A. No.14 of 2007
– 3 –
action of the University in not providing any reservation for
physically challenged persons. In the absence of such a
challenge, no relief could be granted to the appellant, who did
not find a place in the rank list. Therefore, though for a
different reason, we dismiss the Writ Appeal.
Sd/-
K. Balakrishnan Nair,
Judge.
Sd/-
P. Q. Barkath Ali,
Judge.
DK.
(True copy)