Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU TUESDAY, THE7H DAY OF OCTOBER201415TH ASWINA, 1936 WP(C).No. 25611 of 2014 (B) ---------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- K.GANESH KUMAR, KOTTARATHIL HOUSE, MANNAM NAGAR P.O., PERUMPULIKKAL, PANDALAM, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN-689 501. BY ADV. SMT.M.P.MARY. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SOCIAL JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, PRAJOE TOWERS, VAZHUTHAKKAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 014.
3. PRINCIPAL, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, KALLOOPPARA, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN-689 603. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.M.A. FAYAZ. R3 BY ADV. MR.V.A. MUHAMMED, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON0710-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. WP(C).No. 25611 of 2014 (B) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXHIBIT P1- TRUE COPY OF THE DISABILITY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE MEDICAL BOARD, PATHANAMTHITTA. EXHIBIT P2- TRUE COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE2D RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3- TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE3D RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4- TRUE COPY OF GOVT. ORDER
DATED1701-2014. EXHIBIT P5- TRUE COPY OF APPENDIX TO THE GOVT. ORDER
SHOWING THE LIST OF PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED PERSONS IN PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. EXHIBIT P6- REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER TO R2. EXHIBIT P7- REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER TO R3. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs. DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.
--------------------------------------- W.P.(c) No. 25611 of 2014 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of October, 2014 JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents, apart from perusing the record. Since the issue lies in a narrow compass, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself.
2. The petitioner, a physically challenged person, is said to have worked on daily wage basis in the office of the third respondent, based on the appointment made by the second respondent. The record reveals that the petitioner as well as certain other physically challenged persons were appointed after their names had been sponsored by the Employment Exchange. Though Exhibit P4 Government Order stipulates a policy that all the physically challenged employees appointed through Employment Exchange between 16.08.1999 and 31.12.2003 in provisional capacity, W.P.(c) No. 25611 of 2014 2 on their completion of 179 days shall be provided permanent employment subject to their eligibility, the petitioner had been retrenched from service without extending Exhibit P4 benefit. Having made Exhibits P6 and P7 representations to the second and third respondents, the petitioner approached this Court ventilating the grievance that so far his representations had not been disposed of.
3. In the above factual background, the learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contended that if Exhibit P5 is examined it is evident that all the other persons who worked along with the petitioner on temporary basis in Pathanamthitta District had their services regularized in terms of Exhibit P4, but not the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner has been discriminated against without any justification. Based on Exhibits P2 and P3 certificates issued by respondents 2 and 3 respectively, the learned counsel has stated that the petitioner did complete 179 days as has been mandated in Exhibit P4. Under those circumstances the learned counsel for the petitioner urged this Court to allow this writ petition with a direction to the second and third respondents to provide W.P.(c) No. 25611 of 2014 3 employment to the petitioner on permanent basis.
4. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the second and third respondents has submitted that Exhibit P6 representation is pending before the second respondent, who is the competent authority to take a decision on providing employment to the petitioner on permanent basis. Accordingly, he urges this Court to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the said authority, but without adverting to the merits of the matter.
5. Having regard to the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 2 and 3, without adverting to the merits of the matter, this Court disposes of the present writ petition with a direction to the second respondent to consider Exhibit P6 representation of the petitioner, especially in the light of Exhibit P4 Government Order, and pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If required, the petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition along with the judgment before the second respondent to enable the W.P.(c) No. 25611 of 2014 4 said authority to take a decision on the plea of the petitioner concerning permanent employment, at the earliest. With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of. DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE DMR/-