Roy Varghese vs High Court Of Kerala on 2 June, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 15727 of 2008(R)


1. ROY VARGHESE, S/O.O.E.VARGHESE, AGED 33,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI-682031.
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE

3. DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE,

4. COMMISSIONER FOR PERSONS WITH

                For Petitioner  :SRI.G.KRISHNAKUMAR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI

 Dated :02/06/2008

 O R D E R
                          V.GIRI, J
                        -------------------
                    W.P.(C).15727/2008
                       --------------------
            Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2008

                       JUDGMENT

Petitioner is aggrieved by the delay incurred by the

Government in earmarking 3% of the vacancies to the

post of Munsiff-Magistrate in the Kerala Judicial service,

for the physically handicapped persons. Petitioner is an

aspirant for the said post. On an earlier occasion,

petitioner had approached this Court in the wake of a

notification inviting applications from interested persons

for appointment to the post of Munsiff-Magistrate.

Petitioner had been advised to move the Government for

appropriate orders, under Section 32 of ‘The Persons with

Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and

Full Participation) Act, 1995’, for providing reservation to

the post of Munsiff-Magistrate. Petitioner filed Ext.P3

comprehensive representation before the Chief Secretary.

Ext.P4 will show that an expert committee has been

constituted to take necessary action on the general issue

of reservation of 3% of vacancies for physically

handicapped persons and to identify suitable Class I & II

posts in that regard.

W.P.(C).15727/2008
2

2. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner

Mr.Krishna Kumar and the learned senior Government

Pleader Mr.Nandakumar, I am of the view that the

Government should expedite its action pursuant to

Ext.P4.

3. In the result, writ petition is disposed of directing

the second respondent to take appropriate action and

pass orders on Ext.P4, as expeditiously as possible, at

any rate within a period of six months from the date of

receipt of a copy of this judgment.

V.GIRI,
Judge

mrcs