{"id":142837,"date":"2008-05-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-05-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-kerala-federation-of-the-blind-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-6-may-2008"},"modified":"2018-01-26T08:48:01","modified_gmt":"2018-01-26T03:18:01","slug":"the-kerala-federation-of-the-blind-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-6-may-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-kerala-federation-of-the-blind-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-6-may-2008","title":{"rendered":"The Kerala Federation Of The Blind vs The State Of Kerala on 6 May, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
The Kerala Federation Of The Blind vs The State Of Kerala on 6 May, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 37281 of 2007(L)\n\n\n1. THE KERALA FEDERATION OF THE BLIND,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. ROSILY A.O., D\/O.LATE OUSEPH,\n3. C.M.SHALI, S\/O.C.M.MAKKAR,\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,\n\n3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.I.ABDUL RASHEED\n\n                For Respondent  :ADVOCATE GENERAL\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI\n\n Dated :06\/05\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n                             V.GIRI, J.\n            -------------------------\n            W.P.(C).No.35134, 37281 & 37825 of 2007,\n                   2999, 4068, 6312, 6958, 7044,\n                      8966 & 10275 of 2008\n            -------------------------\n               Dated this the 6th day of May, 2008.\n\n\n                          JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
            Though the relief sought for by the petitioners in these<\/p>\n
cases are not identical or even similar, the disposal of W.P.(C)<\/p>\n
No.37281\/07 will have an impact on the other writ petitions and<\/p>\n
therefore, they have been heard together and are disposed of by<\/p>\n
this common judgment. After referring to certain issues, I shall<\/p>\n
take each one of the writ petitions. Reference is made to W.P.(C)<\/p>\n
No.37281\/07 in the first instance.\n<\/p>\n
            2. The first petitioner is an association registered under<\/p>\n
the Travancore-Cochin Literary Charitable Societies Registration act<\/p>\n
and is party to the National Federation of the Blind. 2nd and 3rd<\/p>\n
petitioners, members of the 1st petitioner-association, are visually<\/p>\n
handicapped persons. The grievance highlighted by the petitioners<\/p>\n
in these writ petitions revolves around what they allege as failure<\/p>\n
on the part of the Government and its officials to maintain the ratio<\/p>\n
of 1 : 1 : 1 among the orthopaedically handicapped, deaf, dumb<\/p>\n
and blind (visually impaired) persons in the matter of appointments<\/p>\n
W.P.(C).NO.37281\/07 & Con.cases<\/p>\n
                                 :: 2 ::\n<\/p>\n
\nin the civil services against vacancies reserved for physically<\/p>\n
handicapped persons.\n<\/p>\n
            3. The persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities,<\/p>\n
Protection of Rights and Full Participation Act, 1995 {hereinafter<\/p>\n
referred to as “the Act”} was promulgated with a view to give<\/p>\n
effect to the international proclamation of full participation and<\/p>\n
equality of people with disabilities in the Asian and Pacific Region.<\/p>\n
Section 33 of the Act mandates that the appropriate Government<\/p>\n
shall provide for reservation of at least 3% of the vacancies in<\/p>\n
every establishment for physically handicapped persons.         The<\/p>\n
provisions of the Act have an overriding effect and therefore it is<\/p>\n
mandatory on the part of the Government to necessarily reserve<\/p>\n
3% of the vacancies for physically handicapped persons. The Act<\/p>\n
further provides that the vacancies for physically disabled should<\/p>\n
be chosen in such a manner that the 3 particular categories of<\/p>\n
physically handicapped get equal opportunities to get appointed<\/p>\n
under the scheme and in this regard the ratio of 1 : 1 : 1 should<\/p>\n
be maintained among the Orthopaedically handicapped, deaf and<\/p>\n
dumb and the blind (visually impaired).\n<\/p>\n
W.P.(C).NO.37281\/07 & Con.cases<\/p>\n
                               :: 3 ::\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           4. Taking note of Section 33 of the Act, the<\/p>\n
Government issued Ext.P3 Government Order providing for a<\/p>\n
scheme for physically handicapped persons in public services as<\/p>\n
per the scheme appended to Ext.P3.         Clause (3) of the said<\/p>\n
scheme is relevant and is extracted hereunder:<\/p>\n
         “Three per cent of the vacancies arising in Class III<\/p>\n
         and Class IV categories shall be reserved for<\/p>\n
         appointment from physically handicapped persons.<\/p>\n
         The posts to which appointment will be made are<\/p>\n
         enumerated in Annexure I.          The number of<\/p>\n
         appointments to be made each year in various<\/p>\n
         categories will be fixed annually by Government in<\/p>\n
         the    Personnel   and    Administrative    Reforms<\/p>\n
         Department on the basis of the number of<\/p>\n
         appointments made in the Class III and Class IV<\/p>\n
         posts (except N.J.D. vacancies) during the previous<\/p>\n
         year. The Government will collect in January each<\/p>\n
         year from the office of the Kerala Public Service<\/p>\n
         Commission details of the vacancies in Class III and<\/p>\n
         Class IV posts to which advice has been made by<\/p>\n
         the Public Service Commission excluding N.J.D.<\/p>\n
         vacancies. The list should contain the number of<\/p>\n
         advices made by each district office and head office<\/p>\n
         separately. Three percentage of the total number<\/p>\n
         of vacancies will be allocated among various<\/p>\n
         districts taking into account the number of<\/p>\n
         appointments made in each district.       The posts<\/p>\n
         suitable for appointment of the different categories<\/p>\n
         of Physically Handicapped are given in Annexure II.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
W.P.(C).NO.37281\/07 & Con.cases<\/p>\n
                              :: 4 ::\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            5. Under Ext.P3, the selection was to be done by a<\/p>\n
committee consisting of the District Collector as the Chairman.<\/p>\n
The appendix to the order also identifies the posts against which<\/p>\n
the   physically handicapped    persons     could    be  appointed.<\/p>\n
Obviously, there were certain posts against which the concerned<\/p>\n
physically handicapped persons may not be suitable for<\/p>\n
appointment and therefore, the posts which are suitable for the<\/p>\n
Orthopaedically handicapped, deaf, dumb and the visually<\/p>\n
impaired persons have been separately identified in the Appendix<\/p>\n
to Ext.P3 Government Order.\n<\/p>\n
            6.  Even   during  the    currency    of   Ext.P3,   the<\/p>\n
Government came out with Ext.P4 Government Order which, inter<\/p>\n
alia, directed that those physically handicapped persons, who<\/p>\n
were appointed on a provisional basis between 15.8.1998 and<\/p>\n
15.8.1999 under Rule 9(a)(i) of Part II of the KSSR will be re-<\/p>\n
engaged and regularized in service. Ext.P4 Government Order,<\/p>\n
inter alia, provided that the concerned persons should have<\/p>\n
completed 179 days during the period between 15.8.1998 and<\/p>\n
15.8.1999. This court, in several writ petitions, directed that such<\/p>\n
physically handicapped persons who have rendered services<\/p>\n
W.P.(C).NO.37281\/07 & Con.cases<\/p>\n
                              :: 5 ::\n<\/p>\n
\nduring the aforementioned period, in such a manner that a<\/p>\n
portion alone would fall within the aforementioned period, were<\/p>\n
also entitled for the benefit of the Government Order and<\/p>\n
accordingly the Government issued Ext.P5 order directing that<\/p>\n
those among the disabled who got provisional service during the<\/p>\n
period between 15.8.1998 and 15.8.1999 were entitled to re-<\/p>\n
engagement, even if the entire period of 179 days of service did<\/p>\n
not fall within the span aforementioned. The petitioners have no<\/p>\n
grievance, as such, regarding the broad principle under which<\/p>\n
Exts.P4 and P5 have been issued, but are particularly aggrieved<\/p>\n
by two factors. They are firstly aggrieved by the fact that the<\/p>\n
Government has not take any steps to maintain the internal ratio<\/p>\n
of 1 : 1 : 1 among the physically handicapped persons, while<\/p>\n
implementing Section 33 of the Act and Ext.P3 order.       It is<\/p>\n
contended that the posts to be reserved for physically<\/p>\n
handicapped persons should have been identified in such a<\/p>\n
manner that the internal ratio of 1 : 1 : 1 is maintained while<\/p>\n
effecting appointments from physically handicapped persons.<\/p>\n
Insofar as the implementation of Ext.P4 is concerned, it is<\/p>\n
contended that more than 90% of the physically handicapped<\/p>\n
W.P.(C).NO.37281\/07 & Con.cases<\/p>\n
                               :: 6 ::\n<\/p>\n
\npersons, who were engaged on a provisional basis during the<\/p>\n
period between 15.8.1998 and 15.8.1999, are Orthopaedically<\/p>\n
handicapped persons and when Exts.:P4 and P5 were issued<\/p>\n
giving a right of re-engagement to such physically handicapped<\/p>\n
persons, it came about that an overwhelming majority of<\/p>\n
physically  handicapped    persons,   who   turned  out   to  be<\/p>\n
beneficiaries of Exts.P4 and P5 orders are Orthopaedically<\/p>\n
handicapped persons. Though the petitioners have no grievance<\/p>\n
against the Orthopaedically handicapped persons also being<\/p>\n
conferred a right of re-engagement, their grievance is that under<\/p>\n
Exts.P4 and P5 order, the Government has made it clear that the<\/p>\n
re-engagement being given to the physically handicapped persons<\/p>\n
under Exts.P4 and P5 will first entail an appointment against the<\/p>\n
backlog vacancies for the years subsequent to 2001. The net<\/p>\n
result, according to the petitioners, is that in the course of<\/p>\n
accommodating the physically handicapped persons, who were<\/p>\n
engaged on a provisional basis between 15.8.1998 and<\/p>\n
15.8.1999, the vacancies, which otherwise should have been set<\/p>\n
apart for visually impaired persons and had turned out to be<\/p>\n
backlog are also being filled up by Orthopaedically handicapped<\/p>\n
W.P.(C).NO.37281\/07 & Con.cases<\/p>\n
                                   :: 7 ::\n<\/p>\n
\npersons. It is in these circumstances that the petitioners have<\/p>\n
approached this court seeking a direction to the Government and<\/p>\n
its officials to see that in filling up the 3% vacancies reserved for<\/p>\n
physically handicapped persons, the internal ratio of 1: 1: 1<\/p>\n
among the physically handicapped persons should be maintained<\/p>\n
and the backlog vacancies, which otherwise must be made<\/p>\n
available to visually impaired persons must be filled up only by<\/p>\n
such persons and at any rate, enforcement of Exts.P4 and P5<\/p>\n
orders should not result in the proportionate number of backlog<\/p>\n
vacancies to be made available to visually impaired persons being<\/p>\n
taken over by the Orthopaedically handicapped persons to the<\/p>\n
detriment of the former.\n<\/p>\n
              7. A statement has been filed on behalf of the 1st<\/p>\n
respondent. It is pointed out that various provisions of the Act are<\/p>\n
being implemented in the State and in accordance with the<\/p>\n
provisions of the Act, a scheme for direct recruitment of disabled<\/p>\n
persons was drawn up as per Ext.P3 and it is being implemented.<\/p>\n
Subsequently, in order to effectively implement the scheme, with<\/p>\n
greater transparency and accountability, the selection process of<\/p>\n
physically handicapped persons has been entrusted with the<\/p>\n
W.P.(C).NO.37281\/07 & Con.cases<\/p>\n
                                :: 8 ::\n<\/p>\n
\nPublic Service Commission {for short “the Commission”}. The<\/p>\n
Commission has taken up the recruitment process. Referring to<\/p>\n
Exts.P4 and P5 Government Orders, it was pointed out that<\/p>\n
Ext.P4 order came to be passed taking note of the directions<\/p>\n
issued by this court in several writ petitions.            Since the<\/p>\n
provisionally appointed persons had to be re-engaged, it was not<\/p>\n
possible to maintain the internal ratio of 1: 1: 1, while passing<\/p>\n
Ext.P5 order.    603 number of physically handicapped persons<\/p>\n
were ordered to be reinstated in service against the backlog<\/p>\n
vacancies up to 2003 reserved for physically handicapped<\/p>\n
persons. Paragraph 5 of the statement gives a gist of the action<\/p>\n
taken by the government in this regard. It reads as under:<\/p>\n
            “All the 603 disabled persons who were appointed<\/p>\n
            during the period from 15.08.1998 to 15.08.1999<\/p>\n
            are ordered to be reinstated in service are persons<\/p>\n
            sponsored by the Employment Exchanges. The<\/p>\n
            recommendation      of   individuals    and   their<\/p>\n
            appointment for temporary employment through<\/p>\n
            Employment Exchanges are not done by observing<\/p>\n
            1 : 1 : 1 ratio amongst physically, visually and<\/p>\n
            hearing challenged individuals. Besides the duties<\/p>\n
            and functions attached to the posts to which they<\/p>\n
            were appointed were not assessed to be suitable<\/p>\n
            for the 2 categories of Blind and Deaf.       It is<\/p>\n
            submitted that most of the posts enlisted in the<\/p>\n
W.P.(C).NO.37281\/07 & Con.cases<\/p>\n
                                  :: 9 ::\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n             G.O.(P)85\/07\/SWD dated 30.11.07 are posts<\/p>\n
             meant for the Orthopaedically challenged. Out of<\/p>\n
             the   603     persons,     555   belong    to   the<\/p>\n
             orthopaedically handicapped and there are only<\/p>\n
             33 visually challenged and 15 hearing impaired.<\/p>\n
             Vide G.O.(P)No.50\/07\/SWD dated 15.09.2007 the<\/p>\n
             selection of Class III and IV was changed from<\/p>\n
             the District Collectors to the Kerala Public Service<\/p>\n
             Commission.      In addition to the above 603<\/p>\n
             persons, as on 30.09.2007, there were 25<\/p>\n
             orthopaedically handicapped, 13 hearing impaired<\/p>\n
             and   6   visually   impaired    persons   pending<\/p>\n
             appointments from the select lists prepared by<\/p>\n
             the District Collectors of Thiruvananthapuram and<\/p>\n
             Malappuram.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             8. The petitioners have filed a reply statement. They<\/p>\n
point out that the Government was obliged to maintain the<\/p>\n
internal ratio of 1: 1: 1 while effecting appointments to the 3%<\/p>\n
vacancies reserved for physically handicapped persons and<\/p>\n
whatever be the justification for issuing Ext.P5 order, it should<\/p>\n
not have been done in such a manner as to deprive the visually<\/p>\n
impaired persons of the vacancies which rightfully belonged to<\/p>\n
them. While recognizing a right of re-engagement of physically<\/p>\n
handicapped persons, who were provisionally engaged between<\/p>\n
15.8.1998 and 15.8.1999 it should not have resulted in upstaging<\/p>\n
W.P.(C).NO.37281\/07 & Con.cases<\/p>\n
                               :: 10 ::\n<\/p>\n
\nthe visually impaired persons from being considered against the<\/p>\n
vacancies which ought to have been filled up only by visually<\/p>\n
handicapped persons.\n<\/p>\n
            9. I heard learned counsel for the petitioners<\/p>\n
Sri.Abdul     Rasheed     and     learned      Advocate    General<\/p>\n
Sri.C.P.Sudhakara Prasad along with Senior Government Pleader<\/p>\n
Sri.Nandakumar in the aforementioned writ petition. I also heard<\/p>\n
the counsel who appeared for the various parties, who have got<\/p>\n
themselves impleaded.\n<\/p>\n
            10.   The petitioners are right in contending that a<\/p>\n
minimum of 3% vacancies in public employment is mandatorily<\/p>\n
reserved for physically handicapped persons. The petitioners are<\/p>\n
also right in contending that the internal ratio of 1:1:1 is to be<\/p>\n
maintained while filling up the vacancies reserved for physically<\/p>\n
handicapped persons.        A strict implementation of Ext.P3<\/p>\n
Government Order could not have resulted in any grievance by<\/p>\n
the visually impaired persons that the ratio is not adhered to. But<\/p>\n
the internal ratio was admittedly not being adhered to when the<\/p>\n
Government decided to re-engage the physically handicapped<\/p>\n
persons, who were provisionally engaged during the period<\/p>\n
W.P.(C).NO.37281\/07 & Con.cases<\/p>\n
                                :: 11 ::\n<\/p>\n
\nbetween 15.8.1998 and 15.8.1999.         Sri.Rasheed is right in<\/p>\n
contending that this situation came about because in provisionally<\/p>\n
engaging physically handicapped persons between 15.8.1998 and<\/p>\n
15.8.1999 the various heads of offices did not kept in mind the<\/p>\n
internal ratio of 1:1:1. Thus, when a right of re-engagement was<\/p>\n
given to physically handicapped persons, who were engaged<\/p>\n
provisionally between 15.8.1998 and 15.8.1999 it consequently<\/p>\n
resulted   in   an   overwhelming     number   of  Orthopaedically<\/p>\n
handicapped persons getting re-engaged and regularized in<\/p>\n
services. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they do<\/p>\n
not have a grievance against such right of re-engagement being<\/p>\n
given to Orthopaedically handicapped persons.        But the real<\/p>\n
grievance    arises  when    enforcement   of   Exts.P4  and    P5<\/p>\n
Government Orders is against the backlog vacancies of physically<\/p>\n
handicapped persons up to the year 2003. Since overwhelming<\/p>\n
number of physically handicapped persons engaged during the<\/p>\n
period between 15.8.1998 and 15.8.1999 were Orthopaedically<\/p>\n
handicapped persons, this has resulted in the vacancies which<\/p>\n
otherwise should have been set apart for visually handicapped<\/p>\n
W.P.(C).NO.37281\/07 & Con.cases<\/p>\n
                                 :: 12 ::\n<\/p>\n
\nand hearing impaired persons also being made available to<\/p>\n
Orthopaedically handicapped persons.\n<\/p>\n
            11.  The petitioners are right in submitting so.      In<\/p>\n
fact, that the ratio was not adhered to is admitted in the<\/p>\n
statement filed on behalf of the 1st respondent; that the ratio is to<\/p>\n
be clearly adhered to is also fairly admitted in the statement.<\/p>\n
            12. Learned Advocate General Sri.C.P.Sudhakara<\/p>\n
Prasad, on instructions, submits that Ext.P5 order came to be<\/p>\n
issued to effect compliance with the directions issued by this<\/p>\n
court in several judgments directing that the benefit of Ext.P4<\/p>\n
Government Order to be given to all those physically handicapped<\/p>\n
persons, who were engaged between 15.8.1998 and 15.8.1999,<\/p>\n
even if only a portion of the service rendered by them fall within<\/p>\n
such time.      Learned Advocate General submits that the<\/p>\n
Government has taken a decision to the effect that all physically<\/p>\n
handicapped persons, viz., Orthopaedically handicapped, hearing<\/p>\n
impaired and visually impaired, who have rendered service during<\/p>\n
the period between 15.8.1998 and 15.8.1999 will be re-engaged<\/p>\n
and regularized in service. The submission made by the learned<\/p>\n
Advocate General is recorded.\n<\/p>\n
W.P.(C).NO.37281\/07 & Con.cases<\/p>\n
                                  :: 13 ::\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
             13. Learned Advocate General further submits that<\/p>\n
the Government has already decided to entrust the special<\/p>\n
recruitment to the vacancies set apart for physically handicapped<\/p>\n
persons to the Commission. The posts, which are suitable for<\/p>\n
physically handicapped persons have been identified in Ext.P3<\/p>\n
Government Order.       But before the Commission commences<\/p>\n
recruitment, the eligibility criteria may have to be laid down or in<\/p>\n
some cases, revised or modified.          This is a time consuming<\/p>\n
process. But the Government is taking all earnest efforts to see<\/p>\n
that minimum 3% vacancies, which have arisen in all the<\/p>\n
departments in the Government from the year 2004 onwards, will<\/p>\n
be filled up only by physically handicapped persons.        Learned<\/p>\n
Advocate General further submits that in effecting such<\/p>\n
appointments, the Government will ensure that the appointments<\/p>\n
will be effected by maintaining the internal ratio of 1: 1: 1 among<\/p>\n
the Orthopaedically handicapped, hearing impaired and visually<\/p>\n
impaired persons.     Necessary intimation will be given by the<\/p>\n
Government to the Commission in this regard and special<\/p>\n
recruitment from here onwards will adhere to the broad<\/p>\n
classification amongst the physically handicapped persons and the<\/p>\n
W.P.(C).NO.37281\/07 & Con.cases<\/p>\n
                                :: 14 ::\n<\/p>\n
\nratio of 1:1:1 among the three broad categories of physically<\/p>\n
handicapped persons. This submission is also recorded.<\/p>\n
             14. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners is<\/p>\n
right in submitting that the re-engagement of physically<\/p>\n
handicapped persons under Exts.P4 and P5 orders should not<\/p>\n
result in the internal ratio being violated as such, I refrain from<\/p>\n
interfering with any of the appointments effected as per Ext.P5<\/p>\n
order essentially for two reasons: Firstly, the Government came<\/p>\n
to issue Ext.P5 order to effect compliance with the directions<\/p>\n
issued by this court in several judgments.           Secondly, the<\/p>\n
beneficiaries of Ext.P5 are also physically handicapped persons,<\/p>\n
though they come under a separate category. An interference<\/p>\n
with such appointments for the purpose of maintaining the<\/p>\n
internal ratio even among the backlog vacancies would result in<\/p>\n
serious detriment and hardship to equally deprived category of<\/p>\n
employees.     In the circumstances, I think, it is appropriate that<\/p>\n
the respondents be directed to take ameliorative measures to<\/p>\n
redress the grievance of the visually impaired persons, but<\/p>\n
without affecting the appointment of the other physically<\/p>\n
handicapped persons who are the beneficiaries of Exts.P4 and P5.<\/p>\n
W.P.(C).NO.37281\/07 & Con.cases<\/p>\n
                                 :: 15 ::\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           15. In the result, the Government is directed to take<\/p>\n
steps to implement the following directions:<\/p>\n
       (a)   The Government will first identify the different<\/p>\n
             posts in Class III, IV, II and I, suitable for<\/p>\n
             appointment     of   the    physically handicapped<\/p>\n
             persons. Though this has now been done in<\/p>\n
             Appendix to Ext.P3 Government Order, it will be<\/p>\n
             appropriate that comprehensive orders are passed<\/p>\n
             identifying the different posts in the different<\/p>\n
             departments, wherein the 3% of the vacancies will<\/p>\n
             necessarily have to be filled up by physically<\/p>\n
             handicapped persons. This direction is being issued<\/p>\n
             taking note of the fact that Ext.P3 Government<\/p>\n
             Order was issued about 10 years back and it will<\/p>\n
             be appropriate that an updating exercise be done<\/p>\n
             for identifying the different posts and making it<\/p>\n
             current for the purpose of special recruitment. The<\/p>\n
             exercise involving identification of the posts shall<\/p>\n
             be done at the earliest, as undertaken by the<\/p>\n
             learned Advocate General and at any rate, within a<\/p>\n
             period of six months from today.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       (b)   The Government and the Commission shall, in the<\/p>\n
             course of conducting special recruitment, fill up<\/p>\n
             the vacancies to be filled up by physically<\/p>\n
             handicapped persons, in such a manner that the<\/p>\n
             internal ratio, as contemplated by Section 33 of the<\/p>\n
             Act, is maintained. The Government shall ensure<\/p>\n
             that one category of physically handicapped<\/p>\n
             persons does not entertain a grievance against<\/p>\n
             another   category     of   physically handicapped<\/p>\n
             persons. As undertaken by the learned Advocate<\/p>\n
W.P.(C).NO.37281\/07 & Con.cases<\/p>\n
                             :: 16 ::\n<\/p>\n
\n         General, orders containing the guidelines to be<\/p>\n
         followed by the Government and the Commission<\/p>\n
         in the manner of such special recruitment shall be<\/p>\n
         issued as early as possible. I refrain from fixing a<\/p>\n
         time limit for this exercise essentially taking note<\/p>\n
         of the submission made by the learned Advocate<\/p>\n
         General that it may not be possible to fix a rigid<\/p>\n
         time for this time consuming part of the exercise.<\/p>\n
     (c) In filling up the vacancies from 2004 onwards,<\/p>\n
         which is to be done by the Commission, the<\/p>\n
         Government and the Commission shall ensure that<\/p>\n
         the    internal   ratio   of   1:1:1   among      the<\/p>\n
         Orthopaedically handicapped, hearing impaired<\/p>\n
         and visually impaired, is maintained.\n<\/p>\n
     (d) Of   course,    in  maintaining     the   ratio,  the<\/p>\n
         Government and the Commission would obviously<\/p>\n
         take note of the peculiarities of the duties attached<\/p>\n
         to a post and a possible inability by a particular<\/p>\n
         category of physically handicapped persons to<\/p>\n
         discharge the duties in the said post.            The<\/p>\n
         Government is at liberty to keep these features in<\/p>\n
         mind in issuing guidelines in maintaining the<\/p>\n
         internal ratio.\n<\/p>\n
     (e) The submission made by the learned Advocate<\/p>\n
         General that all the physically handicapped<\/p>\n
         persons who were provisionally engaged between<\/p>\n
         15.8.1998 and 15.8.1999      will be re-engaged, is<\/p>\n
         recorded and the Government is directed to see<\/p>\n
         that this is implemented without any dilution.<\/p>\n
     (f) Insofar as the vacancies up to the year 2003 are<\/p>\n
         concerned, the Government shall take note of the<\/p>\n
         number of vacancies which ought to have been set<\/p>\n
W.P.(C).NO.37281\/07 & Con.cases<\/p>\n
                                :: 17 ::\n<\/p>\n
\n            apart for visually impaired and hearing impaired<\/p>\n
            persons amongst the said vacancies up to the year<\/p>\n
            2003, in maintaining the ratio of 1:1:1 and in<\/p>\n
            making a requisition to the Commission to fill up<\/p>\n
            the vacancies from the year 2004, the Government<\/p>\n
            shall ensure that the claims made by any visually<\/p>\n
            impaired or hearing impaired persons, which<\/p>\n
            otherwise could have been satisfied if the ratio of<\/p>\n
            1:1:1 is adhered to even against the vacancies up<\/p>\n
            to 2003 are, as far as possible, recouped in the<\/p>\n
            course of appointing physically handicapped<\/p>\n
            persons against the vacancies from 2004 onwards.<\/p>\n
            If this exercise requires adjustment of the<\/p>\n
            vacancies which arise beyond 2008 also, then the<\/p>\n
            same shall also be done, to see that the process of<\/p>\n
            recouping is done as completely as possible.<\/p>\n
           16. All interim orders shall stand vacated.<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)No.35134\/07<\/p>\n
           17. The above writ petition has been filed by an<\/p>\n
Orthopaedically handicapped person, who is an applicant for the<\/p>\n
post of Junior Health Inspector Grade II and is included in the<\/p>\n
rank list. The petitioner essentially seeks a direction to appoint<\/p>\n
him by enforcing Ext.P4 rank list against the vacancy which ought<\/p>\n
to be reserved for a physically handicapped person. The relief<\/p>\n
sought for by the petitioner, if granted, would involve a direction<\/p>\n
to the Government and the Commission to apply the ratio of<\/p>\n
W.P.(C).NO.37281\/07 & Con.cases<\/p>\n
                               :: 18 ::\n<\/p>\n
\nphysically handicapped persons against a general recruitment<\/p>\n
which was undertaken by the Commission.          In my view, this<\/p>\n
would not be appropriate. If the petitioner’s turn arises in the<\/p>\n
course of enforcement of the rank list, obviously he would be<\/p>\n
entitled to advice and appointment.     But, even otherwise, the<\/p>\n
petitioner would be entitled to be considered for appointment not<\/p>\n
only to the post of Junior Health Inspector, but to any other post<\/p>\n
to which he could legitimately apply as being eligible and it is<\/p>\n
certain that his claim would be considered in the course of the<\/p>\n
special recruitment which the Government is to undertake as<\/p>\n
already discussed above.\n<\/p>\n
            18. Subject to eligibility, the petitioner obviously<\/p>\n
would have a right to be considered and it is so declared.<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)No.4068\/08<\/p>\n
            19.    The petitioner is a physically handicapped<\/p>\n
person, who had worked during the period between 13.8.1998<\/p>\n
and 08.10.1998. The petitioner is entitled to re-engagement in<\/p>\n
terms of Exts.P4 and P5 orders and Ext.P11 Government Order<\/p>\n
makes it clear that the re-engagement is made applicable to the<\/p>\n
W.P.(C).NO.37281\/07 & Con.cases<\/p>\n
                                :: 19 ::\n<\/p>\n
\nemployees in Local Authorities also. Ext.P7 is a representation<\/p>\n
pending before the 1st respondent.\n<\/p>\n
            20. In the result, the 1st respondent is directed to<\/p>\n
look into Ext.P7 in the light of Ext.P3 Government Order and in<\/p>\n
the light of the undertaking given by the learned Advocate<\/p>\n
General and recorded above. Needful shall be done within three<\/p>\n
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment along<\/p>\n
with a copy of the writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)No.2999\/08<\/p>\n
            21. The petitioners are physically handicapped<\/p>\n
persons with 40% loco motor disability.     They are essentially<\/p>\n
aggrieved by the delay on the part of the Government in taking<\/p>\n
appropriate steps for special recruitment and that this should be<\/p>\n
done against the backlog vacancies of 2004 onwards.          In my<\/p>\n
view, the comprehensive directions, which have been issued in<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)No.37281\/07, will take in all the interests of the<\/p>\n
petitioners herein also. It may not be possible to fix a rigid time<\/p>\n
for the Government to issue comprehensive guidelines regarding<\/p>\n
the manner in which the special recruitment is to be conducted.<\/p>\n
W.P.(C).NO.37281\/07 & Con.cases<\/p>\n
                               :: 20 ::\n<\/p>\n
\nW.P.(C)No.10275\/08<\/p>\n
            22. The petitioner, who was a physically handicapped<\/p>\n
person with 40% Orthopedic Physical disability, is aggrieved by<\/p>\n
the fact that, though he was engaged on a provisional basis as a<\/p>\n
Village man between 15.8.1998 and 15.8.1999 as evidenced by<\/p>\n
Exts.P3 to P5, he is yet to be re-engaged. Ext.P8 comprehensive<\/p>\n
representation is pending before the Government. In view of the<\/p>\n
undertaking given by the learned Advocate General, I have no<\/p>\n
doubt in my mind that the Government will consider the case of<\/p>\n
the petitioner and issue orders of re-engaging him in service. To<\/p>\n
enable the Government to do so, the petitioner is directed to<\/p>\n
submit a comprehensive representation before the Government<\/p>\n
within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this<\/p>\n
judgment along with a copy of the writ petition, in which case,<\/p>\n
the Government will pass suitable orders within three months<\/p>\n
thereafter.\n<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)No.6312\/08<\/p>\n
            23. The petitioner, a physically handicapped person,<\/p>\n
was appointed as an HSA by the Deputy Director of Education as<\/p>\n
per Ext.P1 order and she discharged her duties between<\/p>\n
W.P.(C).NO.37281\/07 & Con.cases<\/p>\n
                                 :: 21 ::\n<\/p>\n
\n15.8.1998 and 15.8.1999.         Her claim for appointment was<\/p>\n
directed to be considered under Ext.P2 judgment and P3 order<\/p>\n
was passed by the Government requiring the Deputy Director to<\/p>\n
issue an order of appointment.           Though the petitioner has<\/p>\n
approached the 2nd respondent to receive the order and join duty,<\/p>\n
she is yet to be given posting orders.        Apparently, this was<\/p>\n
because of the pendency of W.P.(C)No.37281\/07.<\/p>\n
            24. The only direction now required, in the light of<\/p>\n
the disposal of W.P.(C)No.37281\/07, is one to the 2nd respondent<\/p>\n
to see that the petitioner is given posting orders in the light of<\/p>\n
Ext.P3 order at the earliest, at any rate, within three months from<\/p>\n
the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is so directed.<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)No.8966\/08<\/p>\n
            25. The petitioner a physically handicapped person,<\/p>\n
who had rendered service as a Lower Division Binder between<\/p>\n
7.5.1999 and 22.11.1999, as evidenced by Ext.P3, is entitled for<\/p>\n
re-engagement and regularization as directed in Ext.P3. Ext.P8<\/p>\n
representation is pending before the Government. Taking note of<\/p>\n
the undertaking given by the learned Advocate General that all<\/p>\n
persons, who have rendered provisional service during the period<\/p>\n
W.P.(C).NO.37281\/07 & Con.cases<\/p>\n
                                :: 22 ::\n<\/p>\n
\nbetween 15.8.1998 and 15.8.1999 shall be re-engaged and<\/p>\n
regularized in service, I direct the 1st respondent to consider and<\/p>\n
pass appropriate orders on Ext.P8 within a period of one month<\/p>\n
from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)No.7044\/08<\/p>\n
            26. The petitioner, a physically handicapped person,<\/p>\n
had rendered provisional service from 2.8.1999 to 27.1.2000 in<\/p>\n
the Mavelikkara Municipality.     The petitioner is entitled to re-<\/p>\n
engagement and regularization of service.       Taking note of the<\/p>\n
averments in the writ petition and the fact that the petitioner’s<\/p>\n
claim is justified, the 2nd respondent is directed to see that the<\/p>\n
petitioner is issued orders of posting in terms of Ext.P5 order<\/p>\n
within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this<\/p>\n
judgment.\n<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)No.6958\/08<\/p>\n
            27. The petitioner is an Orthopaedically handicapped<\/p>\n
person, having disability in excess of 40%. The petitioner prays<\/p>\n
for a direction that she be considered for appointment as part-<\/p>\n
time menial in the Department of Education. The only direction<\/p>\n
which could be issued in this regard is one to the petitioner to<\/p>\n
W.P.(C).NO.37281\/07 & Con.cases<\/p>\n
                               :: 23 ::\n<\/p>\n
\napproach the Government with a grievance. Accordingly, if the<\/p>\n
petitioner files a comprehensive representation before the first<\/p>\n
respondent, it shall be looked into and a suitable decision taken<\/p>\n
thereon within a period of three months from the date of receipt<\/p>\n
of a copy of this judgment.\n<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)No.37825\/07<\/p>\n
            28. The petitioner, a post graduate in law, is<\/p>\n
physically challenged with more than 40% disability.          The<\/p>\n
petitioner is included in a rank list published on 31.12.2005 for<\/p>\n
the post of Municipal Secretary Grade II.         Essentially, the<\/p>\n
petitioner prays for a direction to the Government and the<\/p>\n
Commission to apply the ratio available to physically handicapped<\/p>\n
persons against a rank list published at the end of a general<\/p>\n
recruitment undertaken by the Commission.       The rank list has<\/p>\n
expired on 31.12.2007. The petitioner cannot seek a direction to<\/p>\n
apply the ratio to the rank list which has been published by the<\/p>\n
Commission at the culmination of a general recruitment. If the<\/p>\n
petitioner’s turn comes, then obviously, she is entitled to be<\/p>\n
considered and it is so declared.      But, even otherwise, the<\/p>\n
petitioner would be entitled as and when a special recruitment is<\/p>\n
W.P.(C).NO.37281\/07 & Con.cases<\/p>\n
                               :: 24 ::\n<\/p>\n
\nundertaken by the Government and the Commission, as already<\/p>\n
directed in W.P.(C)No.37281\/07. The right of the petitioner to be<\/p>\n
considered is also declared and no further direction is call for in<\/p>\n
this writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
            The writ petitions are disposed of as above.<\/p>\n
                                                   Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
                                               (V.GIRI)
\n                                                 JUDGE
\nsk\/<\/p>\n
                    \/\/true copy\/\/<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court The Kerala Federation Of The Blind vs The State Of Kerala on 6 May, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 37281 of 2007(L) 1. THE KERALA FEDERATION OF THE BLIND, … Petitioner 2. ROSILY A.O., D\/O.LATE OUSEPH, 3. C.M.SHALI, S\/O.C.M.MAKKAR, Vs 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-142837","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Kerala Federation Of The Blind vs The State Of Kerala on 6 May, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-kerala-federation-of-the-blind-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-6-may-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Kerala Federation Of The Blind vs The State Of Kerala on 6 May, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-kerala-federation-of-the-blind-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-6-may-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-05-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-26T03:18:01+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"23 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-kerala-federation-of-the-blind-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-6-may-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-kerala-federation-of-the-blind-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-6-may-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Kerala Federation Of The Blind vs The State Of Kerala on 6 May, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-05-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-26T03:18:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-kerala-federation-of-the-blind-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-6-may-2008\"},\"wordCount\":4582,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-kerala-federation-of-the-blind-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-6-may-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-kerala-federation-of-the-blind-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-6-may-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-kerala-federation-of-the-blind-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-6-may-2008\",\"name\":\"The Kerala Federation Of The Blind vs The State Of Kerala on 6 May, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-05-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-26T03:18:01+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-kerala-federation-of-the-blind-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-6-may-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-kerala-federation-of-the-blind-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-6-may-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-kerala-federation-of-the-blind-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-6-may-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Kerala Federation Of The Blind vs The State Of Kerala on 6 May, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Kerala Federation Of The Blind vs The State Of Kerala on 6 May, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-kerala-federation-of-the-blind-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-6-may-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Kerala Federation Of The Blind vs The State Of Kerala on 6 May, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-kerala-federation-of-the-blind-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-6-may-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-05-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-26T03:18:01+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"23 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-kerala-federation-of-the-blind-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-6-may-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-kerala-federation-of-the-blind-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-6-may-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Kerala Federation Of The Blind vs The State Of Kerala on 6 May, 2008","datePublished":"2008-05-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-26T03:18:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-kerala-federation-of-the-blind-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-6-may-2008"},"wordCount":4582,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-kerala-federation-of-the-blind-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-6-may-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-kerala-federation-of-the-blind-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-6-may-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-kerala-federation-of-the-blind-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-6-may-2008","name":"The Kerala Federation Of The Blind vs The State Of Kerala on 6 May, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-05-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-26T03:18:01+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-kerala-federation-of-the-blind-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-6-may-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-kerala-federation-of-the-blind-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-6-may-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-kerala-federation-of-the-blind-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-6-may-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Kerala Federation Of The Blind vs The State Of Kerala on 6 May, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/142837","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=142837"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/142837\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=142837"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=142837"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=142837"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}