Kerala High Court
Rajesh P Jose vs Kerala Public Service Commission on 10 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 19TH SRAVANA, 1944
OP(KAT) NO. 151 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA (EKM) NO. 1147/2021 OF KERALA
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER:
RAJESH P JOSE,AGED 40 YEARS
S/O JOSE P.Y, PANAYALIL, AVOLI P.O,
MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM,
KERALA, , PIN - 686677
BY ADV J.JULIAN XAVIER
RESPONDENTS:
1 KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
PATTOM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
KERALA, PIN - 695004
2 DISTRICT OFFICER
KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
KARSHAKA ROAD, ERNAKULAM SOUTH,
ERNAKULAM, KERALA, PIN - 682016
BY ADV P.C SASIDHARAN
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 04.08.2022, THE COURT ON 10.08.2022 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
OP(KAT)151 of 2022
2
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., JJ
-----------------------------------------
OP(KAT)No .151 of 2022
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of August 2022
JUDGMENT
Mohammed Nias.C.P., J.
This original petition is filed by the applicant challenging the
dismissal of O.A. No.1147 of 2021 filed for a direction to the
respondents to set apart one vacancy so as to enable the applicant to
be included in the rank list. The applicant had participated in the
selection process for the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) pursuant
to the notification issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission
(KPSC). The applicant was qualified and had appeared for the OMR
test conducted by the PSC. At the time of filling up of the application
he had indicated in the application form that he belongs to DA PH-
Dumb category which was entitled to 1% reservation and the turn
earmarked for that category was 34 in the cycle of 100. The last date
for receipt of the application was 28.12.2016, the OMR test was held
on 15.07.2017, the probability list was published on 7.2.2018, and
after verification of the documents, rank list was published on
2.4.2018. As per the notification dated 3.1.2013, '3% of the vacancies
reported to the Commission for the above post shall be reserved for
appointment of Differently Abled persons, limited to the categories Low
Vision, Hearing impairment and Locomotor Disability/Cerebral Palsy'.
OP(KAT)151 of 2022
There were sufficient number of differently abled candidates included
in the rank list mentioned above. The petitioner at the time of
verification of the documents, produced a certificate showing that he
had 60% mental illness of moderate category, and therefore claimed
inclusion in the 4% reservation category on the basis of the notification
which came on 25.8.2020, which included categories of Autism,
Intellectual disability, Specific Learning Disability, Mental Illness etc.
It is relevant to note that the said notification came much after the last
date of the notification in question and preparation of the ranked list
was brought into force only with effect from 25.8.2020 and the same is
applicable only to the selection process initiated after that date. The
petitioner claimed a weightage of 10% of the mark stating that he
suffered 60% mental illness and that his weightage should be added
and he must be included in the ranked list and filing the original
application.
2. The Tribunal found that the application of the petitioner
was one claiming the benefit of 'Dumb' category and that the
category coming under the group of mental illness was not available
at the time of the notification and further found that the applicant
had only secured 14 marks in the written examination and that the
marks obtained by the last candidate included in the main ranked list
in respect of the differently abled candidates was 36. Thus, finding
that even if the contentions of the applicant are accepted, he cannot
OP(KAT)151 of 2022
be included in the ranked list, dismissed the original application.
Being aggrieved by the same, this original petition is filed.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that it was
a mistake committed by the petitioner in applying under the category
'Dumb' when actually he was having 60% moderate medical illness
for which he would get the benefit of the notification of the year
2020. A bonafide mistake on his part should not stand in the way of
including him in the select list, as he is entitled to be considered on
the basis of the certificate produced by him showing mental illness.
4. We find ourselves unable to agree to the submissions of
the learned counsel for the appellant. It is not disputed that the
application of the petitioner was under the category 'Dumb', and
resultantly, he cannot be allowed to change the category after the
submission of his application. That apart, the notification that enable
a candidate to claim the benefit of the inclusion of mental illness as a
disability came only on 25.8.2020 much after the last date for
application, namely 28.12.2016 and even the publication of the
ranked list on 2.4.2018. The claim of the applicant made in the year
2021 obviously could not have been considered. We are also given to
understand that the ranked list itself expired on 4.8.2021. The
applicant's marks as stated above also will not enable him to find a
place in the select list. The petitioner has not challenged the
OP(KAT)151 of 2022
notification which did not include the category under the head
'medical illness'. For these reasons we are not in a position to accept
any one of the arguments made on behalf of the petitioner. The
learned counsel for the petitioner also cites the judgment in Vikash
Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission and others [(2021)
5 SCC 370] for the proposition that even if the notification that
included mental illness as a category came only in the year 2020, he
was entitled to be considered on account of the provisions of the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. True, we are bound by
every principle stated therein, however we do not find any such
proposition in the judgment of the Apex Court cited before us which
will lend support to the contentions of the petitioner. The reasoning
of the Tribunal as well as the reasoning given by us lead to the only
conclusion that the dismissal of the original application by the
Tribunal was fully justified.
The Original Petition (KAT) lacks merit and the same is
accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE
Sd/-
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.,
JUDGE
dlk 4.8.2022
OP(KAT)151 of 2022
APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 151/2022
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION DATED 25.11.2016
FOR THE POST OF LOWER DIVISION CLERK
(VARIOUS) UNDER CATEGORY NO. 414/2016 ISSUED
BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE
APPLICANT PURSUANT TO ANNEXURE A1 DOWNLOADED
FROM THE PROFILE OF THE APPLICANT.
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO. EVII(3)2124/18 DATED
16.10.2018 ISSUED TO THE APPLICANT BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE NO. C2-
MB/1995/16 ISSUED TO THE APPLICANT BY THE
DISTRICT MEDICAL BOARD, ERNAKULAM ON
02.06.2016
Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF SHORT
LIST NO. 01/2018/DOE DATED 07.02.2018 ISSUED
BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF RANKED
LIST NO. 275/2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
Annexure A7 TRUE COPY OF THE SCREENSHOT OF THE POP-UP
MESSAGE DISPLAYED ON THE PROFILE OF THE
APPLICANT
Annexure A8 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE
APPLICANT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED
22.07.2021
Annexure A9 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.A5-
2/29/2020-KPSC DATED 05.02.2021
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE OA (EKM) NO.1147/2021 ALONG
WITH ANNEXURES
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.08.2021 IN
O.A (EKM) 1147/2021
