[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Sumesh V.K vs The District Employment Officer on 3 February, 2026
W.A No.177 of 2026
: 1 :-
2026:KER:8189
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 14TH MAGHA, 1947
WA NO. 177 OF 2026
(AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 02.04.2025 IN WP(C) NO.31767
OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA)
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
SUMESH V.K
AGED 40 YEARS
O CHANDRAN NAIR, SUMALAYAM HOUSE, THARUVANA
P.O,WAYANAD-670645
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.S.ARAVIND
SHRI.TINU ABRAHAM
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT OFFICER
DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE, CIVIL STATION.
KALPETTA,WAYANAD, PIN - 673122
2 THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER
INDIAN SYSTEMS OF MEDICINE, WAYANAD ST. MARY'S
ORTHODOX CHURCH BUILDING 1ST FLOOR, KALPETTA NORTH,
WAYANAD, PIN - 673122
ADV.SUNILKUMAR KURIAKOSE.(GP)
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
30.01.2026, THE COURT ON 3.2.2026 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.A No.177 of 2026
: 2 :-
2026:KER:8189
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,
&
P.V.BALAKRISHNAN,JJ.
-------------------------------------
W.A. No. 177 of 2026
---------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of February 2026
JUDGMENT
P.V.BALAKRISHNAN,J
Heard C.M.Appln.No.1 of 2026 for condonation of delay.
For the reasons stated in the affidavit, delay of 201 days in filing
the writ appeal is condoned.
2. This intra-court appeal is filed by the petitioner in W.P.
(C)No.31767/2024, challenging the judgment dated 02.04.2025,
dismissing his writ petition.
3. The appellant is a person with bench mark disability of
50%. He had attended the interview for the post of Part time
Sweeper, in the office of the 2nd respondent, as per Ext.P2 letter
issued by the Employment Exchange. But the appellant was not
selected by the Interview Board. It is the case of the appellant that
no specific reasons have been assigned for not selecting the
appellant. It is also his case that the respondents have not
complied with Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
Act, 2016 and, if the vacancies are reserved as per the said
provision, the appellant would have been selected. It is in such
: 3 :-
2026:KER:8189
circumstances, the appellant filed the writ petition seeking the
following relief:
"Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
order, or direction commanding the respondents to reconsider
the petitioner's application for the post of Part-Time Sweeper
in the light of mandatory provisions of Rights of Persons With
Disabilities Act,2016 and Rules thereunder in the interest of
justice."
4. The learned single judge, after considering the materials on
record and hearing both sides, dismissed the writ petition.
5. Heard Adv. Aravind S.S., the learned counsel appearing for
the appellant and Adv. Sunilkumar Kuriakose, the learned senior
Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as per
the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act and Rules, every
Government establishment must reserve certain percentage of
vacancies to be filled by persons with bench mark disabilities, like
the appellant and they must maintain a vacancy based roster for
such persons. He contended that the respondents are, by violating
all these provisions, making recruitment continuously and if they
have followed the laws, the appellant would have been selected.
7. Per contra, the learned Senior Government Pleader
: 4 :-
2026:KER:8189
submitted that, when the vacancy was reported to the Employment
Exchange, it is after taking note that the vacancy is earmarked for
candidates in general quota, a list of 12 candidates was forwarded
to the 2nd respondent, who after conducting an interview, selected
the most suitable person and appointed him. He also submitted
that the relief prayed for by the appellant cannot be granted, since
the person who has been selected has not been arrayed as a party
in the writ petition.
8. In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that on the basis
of an interview conducted, a person has already been selected and
appointed in the vacancy notified. The appellant has not arrayed
the said person as a respondent in the writ petition. We are of the
view that the appellant will not be entitled to the relief as sought
afore, since he is a necessary party and any orders passed in this
case will adversely affect him.
9. Be that as it may, the statement filed by the 2 nd respondent
shows that apart from the appellant, 12 other persons have also
been called for the interview and that it is the person, who has
secured the highest mark in the interview, who has been
appointed. The appellant does not dispute the said fact and he has
no case that the interview board was biased or it has acted
: 5 :-
2026:KER:8189
arbitrarily or illegally. The only contention of the appellant is that
the recruitment has been made without complying with the
provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act and Rules,
which states that a percentage of the vacancies, must be reserved
for persons with bench mark disabilities. Even though such a
contention has been taken by the appellant, there is no material on
record to show that the post in which the appellant has applied, has
been identified as a post for accommodating such persons, who are
having bench mark disabilities. The appellant also has not produced
the list which would show the posts which have been identified for
accommodating such persons. Therefore, considering all the afore
facts and circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere
with the impugned judgment passed by the learned single judge.
Ergo, we find no merit in this writ appeal and the same is
accordingly dismissed. Sd/-
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
Judge
Sd/-
P.V.BALAKRISHNAN
Judge
dpk
