Salim vs State Of Kerala
2024 Latest Caselaw 13237 Ker

Kerala High Court

Salim vs State Of Kerala on 23 May, 2024

Author: P Gopinath

Bench: P Gopinath

W.P.(C)No.33244/2018                1

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
     THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2024 / 2ND JYAISHTA, 1946
                       WP(C) NO. 33244 OF 2018
PETITIONER:
          SALIM,AGED 36 YEARS
          S/O SHIHABUDEEN, THUNDIL PADEETTATHIL, MANAPPALLI
          P.O, THAZHAVA , KOLLAM DISTRICT

            BY ADVS.DEEPA SREENIVASAN
            P.H.ABDUL KALAM
            M.J.MANOJ


RESPONDENTS:

     1      STATE OF KERALA
            REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE
            GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY,
            GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN
            695001

     2      THE DIRECTOR
            IT MISSION AND AKSHAYA, STATE IT MISSION OFFICE,
            KELTRON CAMPUS, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

     3      THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM DISTRICT,
            PIN-691013

     4      LIJU J,KOCHAYYATH, KARUNAGAPPALLY, S.R.P. MARKET P.O,
            KOLLAM DISTRICT.

            BY ADVS.GOVERNMENT PLEADER
            SRI.T.S.SARATH
            SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN
            SRI.M.KIRANLAL
            SRI.R.RAJESH (VARKALA)


OTHER PRESENT:

            SRI. VENUGOPAL V (GP)


THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C)No.33244/2018                     2

                                JUDGMENT

This writ petition was filed in the year 2018 seeking the following

reliefs:-

"i) To issue a declaration that the petitioner is entitled to be allotted with entrepreneurship of Akhaya centre at Kuthirapanthy in Thazhava Panchayath, in Kollam District and that he is entitled to preferential claim in view of the provisions contained in Person with Disabilities (Equal Rights and Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and also in view of the Rights of Persons Disabilities Act, 2016.

ii) To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order, calling for the records leading upto Exhibit P10 and quash the same.

iii) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to take steps for re-interview as ordered in Exhibit P5 in tune with the Exhibit P2 norms and also grant preference to the petitioner in view of provisions contained in the Person with Disabilities (Equal Rights and Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and also in view of the Rights of Persons Disabilities Act, 2016.

iv) to issue such other further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case."

Ext.P10 communication which is challenged in the writ petition is a

communication issued by the District Collector, Kollam, following the

directions issued by this Court in Ext.P8 judgment. The District Collector

who is also the Akshaya Chief Co-ordinator directed the Sub Collector to

review the marks allotted to the first three rank holders in the provisional

rank list. Ext.P10 records that the Sub Collector had heard the

submissions of the first three rank holders and since the Interview Board

had allotted the highest marks to the petitioner and since the persons who

obtained rank Nos.1 and 2 had no objection against the interview

conducted, no fresh interview need be conducted for selection of the

Akshaya entrepreneur. The claim of the petitioner that he is a disabled

person and the benefits available to a disabled person has not been

extended to the petitioner in the interview does not stand to reason as the

petitioner was awarded the highest mark in the interview. That apart, it is

seen that though this writ petition was filed in the year 2018, there are no

interim orders in the writ petition.

Having considered the contentions raised and having perused the

pleadings, I find no reason to grant any relief sought for in the writ

petition. The writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

GOPINATH P. JUDGE acd

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 33244/2018

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DISABILITY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE TALUK HEAD QUARTERS HOSPITAL, KOLLAM

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO. G.O. (M.S) NO. 17/2007/ITD DATED 31.07.2007

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 4.11.2017 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL PREFERRED 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION BEARING NO.

479/2017/AKS219 DATED 14.7.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.8.2017 IN WRIT APPEAL NO. 1721/2017 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 06.04.2018

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DT.

29.06.2018 IN R.P. NO. 447/2018 IN W.P.(C) NO. 8108/2018 AND W.P.(C) NO. 4540/2018

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF HEARING DT.

01.09.2018.

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DT.

29.09.2018 BEARING NO. AKS/KLM/139/2018

EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DT. 08.03.2017 FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.