Beena Anto vs The State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 10601 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                           PRESENT
      THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
  FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 29TH ASWINA, 1944

                  WP(C) NO. 31690 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:

           BEENA ANTO
           AGED 51 YEARS
           W/O GEORGE T. V.,
           TRISSOKKARAN HOUSE, THALORE P.O,
           THRISSUR-680306.

RESPONDENT/S:

    1      THE CHIEF SECRETARY
           STATE OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT
           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

    2      THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
           GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT,
           GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001

    3      ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY,
           PERSONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPARTMENT
           GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001

    4      THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
           GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
           GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

    5      DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER,
           PALACE ROAD, THRISSUR - 680020.

    6      TOWN EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE OFFICER,
           TOWN EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE, IRINJALAKUDA,
           MINI CIVIL STATION, THRISSUR - 680121.

           BY ADVS.
           PAUL ABRAHAM VAKKANAL
           ABRAHAM VAKKANAL (SR.)
           VINEETHA SUSAN THOMAS

           SRI JIBU TS GP

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 21.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 31690 OF 2022

                                       2

                                 JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court, seeking a declaration to

the effect that, being a disabled person, her age for the appointment is to

be reckoned as on 18.11.2018, the date of Exhibit P12 notification issued

by the Social Justice Department under the Government of Kerala,

providing reservation for Persons with Disabilities (PwD) in terms of the

provisions of the Person with Disabilities Act, 1995 and The Rights of

Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 ("the Act" for short).

2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:

The petitioner is a graduate in Botany with B.Ed, and she has also

qualified the KTET Examination. She has an assessed disability of 42%,

which fact is evident from Exhibit P14 Disability Certificate. She enrolled

herself as a disabled person under the Department of Empowerment of

Persons with Disabilities, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment.

She has also been issued with a Unique Disability ID by the Government

of India. Despite being qualified, she is denied appointment owing to the

fact that she has crossed the upper age limit, which is 50 years.

3. When the matter was taken up for consideration, Sri. Paul

Abraham Vakkanal, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

petitioner, relied on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Rajeev Kumar Gupta and others v. Union of India and others WP(C) NO. 31690 OF 2022

[(2016) 13 SCC 153], and it is argued that the objective behind the

enactment of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities,

Protection of Rights & Full Participation), 1995 and the Right of Persons

with Disabilities Act, 2016 is to integrate persons with disabilities into

society and to ensure their economic progress. According to the learned

counsel, though the Government had come out with Ext.P12 order on

18.11.2018, there was an undue delay in implementing the beneficial

provisions of the Act. The learned counsel would also rely on the law

laid down in Union of India v. National Federation of the Blind

(2013) 10 SCC 772), and it is argued that numerous barriers were

constructed with a view to keep out persons like the petitioner so as to

deprive them an opportunity to achieve their potential. According to the

learned counsel, for the above reasons, the petitioners' age for

appointment is to be reckoned as of 18.11.2018 as 47 years, the date of

issuance of Ext.P12 notification, on which date the reservation was made

applicable to aided institutions and the respondents are bound to

consider such age of the petitioner for appointment in reservation quota

for physically handicapped. According to the learned counsel, detailing

the above aspects and requesting sympathetic consideration, the

petitioner has preferred Ext.P11 representation before the 1st

respondent. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that for the WP(C) NO. 31690 OF 2022

time being, the petitioner would be satisfied if directions are issued to

the 1st respondent to consider the representation, keeping in mind the

constitutional as well as the statutory obligation to safeguard the rights

of persons with disabilities.

4. The learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that if the

request of the petitioner is for consideration of Ext.P11, she has no

serious objection.

5. After having carefully evaluated the contentions raised in this

writ petition, the submissions made across the Bar, and the facts and

circumstances, I am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of

by directing the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P11 representation

submitted by the petitioner keeping in mind the constitutional and

statutory obligations and to pass an order expeditiously, in any event,

within a period of one month from the date of production of a copy of

the order. Before passing orders, an opportunity of being heard shall be

afforded to the petitioner.

This writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE

avs WP(C) NO. 31690 OF 2022

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 31690/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DISABILITY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT MEDICAL BOARD DT: 02-04-1993.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE UNIQUE DISABILITY ID.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S DEGREE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT (FOR BSC. BOTANY) DT: 27-03-1993.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S B ED DEGREE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT DT: 23-101996.

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S COMPUTER OFFICE CLERK TRAINING PROGRAMME CERTIFICATE DT: 25-07-2003.

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S KTET ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATE DT: 25-06-2018.

Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S DISCHARGE CERTIFICATE ISSUED FROM KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY HIGH SCHOOL DT. 31-3-2018.

Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE FROM ST PAUL'S CEHSS, KURIACHIRA, THRISSUR, DT. 31-5-2017.

Exhibit P8(A) TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE FROM ST PAUL'S CEHSS, KURIACHIRA, THRISSUR FROM JUNE 2018 ONWARDS.

Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S CARD ISSUED FROM THE TOWN EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE IRINJALAKUDA.

Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE SSLC CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER, FOR AGE PROOF.

WP(C) NO. 31690 OF 2022

Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DT: 30-8-2022, WITHOUT ANNEXURES.

Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF GO.(P) NO. 18/2018/SJD DT:

18/11/2018.

Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF GO.(MS).111/2022/GEDN DT:

25-06-2022.

Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE DISABILITY CERTIFICATE DT:

23-3-2005 OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED AS PER RULE 4 OF THE 1996 RULES.

Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE PERSON WITH DISABILITY REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER WITH ENROLLMENT NO.3207/00000/1812/1467795 DT: 27-12-2018.

Exhibit P16 TRUE COPY OF THE UNIQUE DISABILITY ID CARD ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE DMO OFFICE, THRISSUR, ON 18-2-2020.