Dismissed

Handicapped Association v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Mar 2008WP(C)/21703/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala dismissed a PIL filed by the Handicapped Association of India challenging the appointments of certain typists and a disabled assemblyman under disability quotas, holding that such service matters do not constitute public interest litigation and must be rejected.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition was rejected; interlocutory applications dismissed; no further direction given to investigate appointments or conduct medical examination.

Handicapped Association Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN

¶5

TUESDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2008 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1929

¶6

WP(C).No. 21703 of 2005(S)

¶7

---------------------------------------

¶8

PETITIONERS :-

¶9

¶10

HANDICAPPED ASSOCIATION OF INDIA, REGD.NO.1037/86, WAYANAD DISTRICT COMMITTEE, P.O.MANANTHAVADY, REP. BY THE PRESIDENT,K.V.MATHAI, S/O.K.V.VARGHESE(LATE), KOCHERIYIL HOUSE, VALLUVADI, P.O.VALLUVADI, SULTAN BATHERY, WAYANAD DISTRICT.

¶11

M.K.SHAJI, S/O.KURIAKOSE,

¶12

MANGOTTIL HOUSE, NENMENI, P.O.NENMENI, SULTAN BATHERY, WAYANAD DISTRICT.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ

¶14

RESPONDENTS:-

¶15

¶16

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,

¶17

GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶18

THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF P & ARD, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶19

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WAYANAD.

¶20

THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, WAYANAD.

¶21

THE DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT OFFICER, KALPATTA, WAYANAD.

¶22

WPC NO.21703 OF 2005

¶23

-2-

¶24

THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶25

THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 8. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FORESTS, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶26

SUCHITHRA, L.D.TYPIST, TALUK OFFICE, SULTHAN BATHERY, P.O.SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD DISTRICT, RESIDING AT KRISHNA NIVAS, MUNDAMKOLLY, CHEERAI P.O., WAYANAD. 10. OMANA, L.D.TYPIST, K.S.E.BOARD, PADDINHARETHARA, WAYANAD DISTRICT, RESIDING AT PATTUKULANGARA VEEDU, PUTHIYIDAM, PAYYAMPALLY P.O., WAYANAD. 11. ANITHA, L.D.TYPIST, OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL AAGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KALPATTA, WAYANAD DISTRICT, RESIDING AT PANAYATHAT VEEDU, KINDI MOOLA, CHERUKATTOOR P.O., WAYANAD DISTRICT.

¶27

MAHESH M., N.G.O. QUARTERS ROOM NO.2/22, MANANTHAVADY.

¶28

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶29

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, WAYANAD.

¶30

THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNEMNT, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAAPURAM.

¶31

R1 TO R6, R8, R13 TO R15 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶32

SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN. R7 BY ADV. SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB R9 BY ADV.SRI.S.SREEKUMAR R11 BY ADV.SRI.P.R.VENKETESH R12 BY ADV.SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR)

¶33

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶34

WPC NO.21703/2005:

¶35

APPENDIX:

¶36

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶37

EXT.P1:- TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 3-11-1997.

¶38

EXT.P2:- TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 17-11-2004.

¶39

EXT.P3:- TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 17-11-2004 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, NORTH

¶40

ZONE,

¶41

KANNUR.

¶42

EXT.P4:- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20-11-2004.

¶43

EXT.P5:- TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 26-11-2004.

¶44

EXT.P6:- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 25-11-2004.

¶45

EXT.P7:- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26-10-2004 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WAYANAD.

¶46

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-

¶47

EXT.R5(A):- A TRUE COPY OF G.O.(MS) NO.41/89/ P & ARD DATED 28-12-89.

¶48

EXT.R5(B):- A TRUE COPY OF G.O.(P) NO.20/98/P & ARD DATED 14-07-98.

¶49

EXT.R5(C):- A TRUE COPY OF SEEM 5/81.

¶50

EXT.R5(D):- A TRUE COPY OF G.O.(P) NO.32/98/P&ARD DATED 28-09-98.

¶51

EXT.R9(A):- TRUE COPY OF MEDICAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY MEDICAL BOARD TO THE 9TH RESPONDENT.

¶52

EXT.R9(B):- TRUE COPY OF THE IST PAGE OF SSLC BOOK OF 9TH RESPONDENT.

¶53

EXT.R9(C):- TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY DATED 18-3-96 OF BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, SULTAN BATTERY.

¶54

EXT.R11(A):-TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 16-6-1999 ISSUED BY THE STATE

¶55

STANDING DISABILITY ASSESSMENT BOARD, KERALA AT THIRUVANANTHAAPURAM.

¶56

EXT.R11(B):-IDENTITY CARD NO.KL.WND HI 14 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA DATED NIL.

¶57

EXT.R12(A):-TRUE COPY OF DISABILITY CERTIFICATE DATED 22-6-2000 ISSUED BY THE WAYANAD DISTRICT HOSPITAL, MANANTHAVADY AND ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF SPEECH AND HEARING, MYSORE DATED 2-6-2005.

¶58

P.S.TO JUDGE.

¶59

//TRUE COPY//

¶60

H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.T.SANKARAN, J.

¶61

¶62

W.P.(C) No.21703 of 2005

¶63

¶64

Dated, this the 11^th day of March, 2008

¶65

JUDGMENT

¶66

H.L.Dattu, C.J.

¶67

First petitioner is an association of handicapped persons. Second petitioner is an active worker of the first petitioner association. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the reliefs sought for by the petitioners are; to direct the State of Kerala to investigate into the allegations levelled against respondents 9 to 12 in the writ petition; for a mandamus to the first respondent to terminate the services of respondents 9 to 11 and lastly to arrange for a medical examination of the alleged disability of respondents 9 to 12 by constituting a committee of honest, fair and impartial doctors.

¶68

The writ petition is styled as a public interest litigation. The sum and substance of the issue in the writ petition is that respondents 9 to 12 though they are not disabled persons, they have been appointed in the categories/quota of the disabled persons.

¶69

Having gone through the pleadings, we are of the view that the petitioners are literally questioning the appointment of respondents 9 to 12 in different services of the State of Kerala.

¶70

Time and again the apex Court has observed that in service matters no public litigation would lie. In Kushum Lata v. Union of India and others (2006) 6 SCC 180, the Supreme Court at paragraph 17 of the judgment has observed as under:

¶71

“17. As noted supra, a time has come to weed out the petitions, which though titled as public interest litigations are in

¶72

W.P.(C) No.21703 of 2005

¶73

¶74

essence something else. It is shocking to note that the courts are flooded with a large number of so-called public interest litigations where only a minuscule percentage can legitimately be called as public interest litigation. Though the parameters of public interest litigation have been indicated by this Court in a large number of cases, yet unmindful of the real intentions and objectives, the courts are entertaining such petitions and wasting valuable judicial time which, as noted above, could be otherwise utilised for disposal of genuine cases. Though in Duryodhan Sahu (Dr.) v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra (1998) 7 SCC 273, this Court held that in service matters PILs should not be entertained, the inflow of so-called PILs involving service matters by competitors continue unabated in the courts and strangely are entertained. The least the High Courts could do is to throw them out on the basis of the said decision. (emphasis is supplied by us)

¶75

However, Mr.Kaleeswaram Raj, learned counseI appearing for the petitioners, submits that a public interest litigation would lie in view of what has been stated by the apex Court in the case of Nair Service Society v. State of Kerala (2007 (2) KLT 77.

¶76

That was a case where a writ petition was filed by the Nair Service Society primarily challenging the Narendran Commission's report on reservations. The Supreme Court has entertained that petition. A report which provides for reservation cannot be termed as service matters as such. Therefore, the decision on which reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners would not assist him in any manner whatsoever.

¶77

In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the public

¶78

W.P.(C) No.21703 of 2005

¶79

¶80

interest litigation filed by the petitioners requires to be rejected and it is rejected.

¶81

All pending interlocutory applications stand dismissed.

Ordered accordingly.

( H.L.DATTU)

CHIEF JUSTICE

(K.T.SANKARAN) JUDGE

¶86

vns

Handicapped Association v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Handicapped Association v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Thieh Ingots (P) Ltd. Vs M.Subair

State of Kerala Vs M/S.Indian Opticals, Ernakulam

State of Kerala Vs Sri.a.P.Santhosh Kumar

State of Kerala Vs Sri.Thomas George

Santhosh Kumar Vs M.Rajan

T.P.Kelu Nambiar Vs the Bar Council of Kerala & Others