Dismissed

Secretary, Kerala Public Service Commission v. Ashalekshmi

Kerala HC13 Jun 2016OP(KAT)/56/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Bench of the Kerala High Court dismissed an original petition filed by the Public Service Commission challenging an Administrative Tribunal order that favored a physically challenged candidate. The Court relied on precedents.

What did the court decide?

The original petition filed by the Public Service Commission was dismissed in the terms of the cited judgments.

Secretary, Kerala Public Service Commission… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶5

MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/23RD JYAISHTA, 1938

¶6

OP(KAT).No. 56 of 2015 (Z)

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA 1384/2014 of KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 02-12-2014

¶8

PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2: -

¶9

SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695004.

¶10

DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA SERVICE COMMISSION, KOLLAM, KERALA - 691 002.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC

¶12

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND 3RD RESPONDENT: -

¶13

ASHALEKSHMI.I,

¶14

D/O.INDIRAMMA, RESIDING AT KOCHUVEEDU, POOTHAKULAM, PARAVOOR,

¶15

POOTHAKULAM P.O., KOLLAM - 691 302,

¶16

WORKING AS REGIONAL LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT, GHSSS PARAVOOR, PARAVOOR P.O., KOLLAM - 691 301.

¶17

SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶18

R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN

¶19

R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJ MOHAN

¶20

BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. M. MOHAMMED SHAFI

¶21

THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

OP(KAT).No. 56 of 2015 (Z)

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS : -

¶25

EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE O.A.1384/2014 WITH ANNEXURES.

¶26

EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE COMMISSION.

¶27

EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN O.A.1384/2014 DATED 2.12.2014.

¶28

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : - NIL.

// TRUE COPY //

P.A. TO JUDGE

DMR/-

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶33

¶34

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JJ.

¶35

¶36

O.P. (KAT) No. 56 of 2015

¶37

Dated this the 13^th day of June, 2016

¶38

J U D G M E N T

¶39

P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.

¶40

The issue involved in this original petition preferred by the Public Service Commission is whether the PSC can further assess the suitability of physically challenged candidates in respect of the recruitment to the posts which have been identified by the Government in favour of such candidates/class under Section 32 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and the extended reservation provided under Section 33 of the said Act.

¶41

The candidature of the party respondent was rejected by the PSC, pursuant to which the matter was

¶42

taken up before the Tribunal with the following prayers:

¶43

“i) A direction to the 1^st and 2^nd Respondents to stop further appointments from the Annexure A5 ranked list, pending disposal of the Original Application.

¶44

O.P. (KAT) No. 56 of 2015

¶45

¶46

ii) To reserve a post of UPSA (Malayalam Medium) for the applicant, in case this Honorable Tribunal finds it is practically difficult to allow the interim relief No.1.”

¶47

After considering the facts and figures and the relevant provisions of law, the issue was answered by the Tribunal in favour of the applicant, which, in turn, is sought to be challenged by the PSC by filing the present original petition.

¶48

Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the Public

¶49

Service Commission, the learned Government Pleader, as

¶50

well as the learned counsel appearing for the party respondent.

¶51

It is brought to the notice of this Court during the course of hearing, that the issue was considered at length by a Division Bench of this Court (to which one of us was a member) as per the ruling reported in Secretary, KPSC,

¶52

Tvm v. Seema I. and Others [2014 KHC 716]. The position has been answered against the PSC. This was followed by yet another Bench (to which also, one of us was a member) as per the decision reported in Kerala Public Service Commission and another v. Sujith Kumar E.N.

¶53

O.P. (KAT) No. 56 of 2015

¶54

¶55

[ILR 2015 (4) Kerala 307]. It is pointed out that yet another Bench also has considered the issue in O.P.(KAT) No.39/2015 and the challenge raised by the PSC stands repelled as per the judgment dated 11.11.2015.

¶56