Allowed

Joshin Joseph, v. Higher Education Department

Kerala HC17 Aug 2022WP(C)/4888/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition regarding appointment as Assistant Professor. The petitioner, ranked second in the Community Quota, is directed to be offered the vacancy opened by the first rank holder's refusal. Questions regarding PWD Act roster implementation are reserved for future need.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 3rd respondent to offer the available vacancy in the Community Quota to the petitioner within one month.

Joshin Joseph, Vs Higher Education Department — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 26TH SRAVANA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 4888 OF 2022

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

JOSHIN JOSEPH, AGED 30 YEARS
S/O. P.C. JOSEPH, PARIYATH HOUSE,
KURIANAD P.O, MONIPALLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,
PIN 686 636.

¶7

BY ADVS.
DENU JOSEPH
YEDU KRISHNA R.B.

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO HIGHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN 695 001.

¶10

2 MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADERSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM, PIN 686 560, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR

¶11

3 MARIAN COLLEGE, KUTTIKANAM P.O, KUTTIKKANAM, PEERUMEDU, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN 685 531, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.

¶12

BY ADVS.
KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM (SR.)
TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM
THOMAS GEORGE

¶13

SRI JOSHY THANNICKKAMMATTAM-GP;
SRI SURIN GEORGE IPE-SC

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WPC 4888/22

JUDGMENT

The petitioner says that he was Rank No.2 in the Community Quota of a Rank List prepared by the 3 rd respondent

¶19

– College, for being appointed to the post of Assistant Professor in Commerce. He adds that he is also Rank No.4 in the overall list and is a handicapped person entitled to reservation as per the provisions of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘PWD Act’ for short) .

¶20

2 . The petitioner submits that the First Rank holder in

¶21

the Community Quota did not join and therefore, that the said vacancy is still available, which statutorily obligates the 3 rd respondent to offer it to him. He asserts, as an alternative submission, that, in any event, he would also be entitled to the said post because he belongs to one of the enumerated categories under Section 34 of the ‘PWD Act, 2016’; and thus prays that the

¶22

3rd respondent be directed to offer appointment to him within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶23

3 . The afore submissions of the petitioner, as made by his

¶24

WPC 4888/22

¶25

¶26

learned counsel – Sri.Denu Joseph, were answered by Sri.Kurian George Kannamthanam, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Sri.Alex George, appearing for the 3 rd respondent, saying that since the first vacancy in the Community Quota is still vacant, there is no legal impediment in offering the same to the petitioner. He, however, expressed an apprehension that, on account of the Government Order dated 18.05.2022 – a copy of which has been produced on record as Ext.R3(b) – a controversy may arise in future as regards the vacancies meant for persons with disabilities and hence prayed that his client be protected from such.

¶27

4 . I am afraid that I cannot accede to the afore request of the learned Senior Counsel because, once the petitioner is accommodated to the available vacancy in the Community Quota, on him being the 2 nd Rank holder in the Rank List for such purpose, obviously his claim to the said post will be edificed on the fact that he belongs to the said quota and nothing else. Therefore, if a question is to arise in future as to whether the said vacancy ought to have been reserved for the roster

¶28

WPC 4888/22

¶29

¶30

applicable under the PWD Act, it is a matter that will have to be decided at the relevant time, after hearing all sides. This Court cannot grant protection either to the College or to the petitioner in a speculative manner; but, both of them will have every liberty to defend themselves in the event the question regarding application of Ext.R3(b), particularly as regards the roster under the ‘PWD Act, 2016’ is to arise in future.

¶31

5 . As matters now stand, the fact remains that a vacancy

¶32

is available in the Community Quota - on the First Rank Holder having refused to accept it; and therefore, certainly the petitioner must be accommodated against the same, in his capacity as a member belonging to the relevant community.

¶33

In the afore circumstances, I allow this Writ Petition and direct the 3 rd respondent to offer the available vacancy in the Community Quota to the petitioner, as agreed to by them; and this shall be done as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶34

Needless to say, all questions regarding the roster points

¶35

WPC 4888/22

¶36

¶37

under the ‘PWD Act, 2016’ and the application of Ext.R3(b)

¶38

order, are left open to be impelled by the respective parties, if it

¶39

becomes so necessary, in future.

¶40

I make it reiteratingly clear that I have directed as afore only taking note of the petitioner’s position in the Community Quota and not adverting to his position as a person with disabilities.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

RR

¶43

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGE

WPC 4888/22

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4888/2022

¶48

`PETITIONER EXHIB`	`ITS`
`Exhibit P1`	`THE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF` `ADVERTISEMENT IN DEEPIKA DAILY DATED` `17.02.2021.`
`Exhibit P2`	`THE COPY OF MEMO FOR INTERVIEW DATED` `26.05.2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P3`	`THE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY` `THE PETITIONER UNDER RIGHT TO` `INFORMATION ACT DATED 07.08.2021.`
`Exhibit P4`	`THE TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 06.09.2021` `WITH RELEVANT ATTACHED DOCUMENTS GIVEN` `BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN RESPONSE TO` `EXHIBIT P3.`
`Exhibit P5`	`THE TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 17.01.2022` `GIVEN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN RESPONSE` `TO EXHIBIT P5.`
`Exhibit P6`	`THE TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 17.01.2022` `GIVEN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN RESPONSE` `TO EXHIBIT P5.`
`Exhibit P7`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED` `06.02.2022 BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD` `RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P8`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED` `30.12.2021 BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND` `RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY.`
`Exhibit P9`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE` `UNIVERSITY DATED 19.01.2022.`
`Exhibit P10`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE DISABILITY` `CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER` `FROM GOVERNMENT GENERAL HOSPITAL,` `KOTTAYAM.`
`Exhibit P11`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE` `SOCIAL JUSTICE DEPARTMENT DATED` `18.11.2018.`
`Exhibit P12`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(MS) NO.` `96/2021/HEDN DATED 15.02.2021 ISSUED BY` `THE HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,` `GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.`
`RESPONDENT EXHIB`	`ITS`
`Exhibit R1(A)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28/02/2022` `OF THE STATE COMMISSIONER FOR PERSONS` `WITH DISABILITIES, KERALA`
`Exhibit R1(B)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(RT) NO.` `242/2022/HEDN. DATED 28/02/2022 OF THE`

¶49

WPC 4888/22

¶50

¶51

GOVERNMENT

Joshin Joseph, v. Higher Education Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joshin Joseph, v. Higher Education Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.P.Jibu Vs State of Kerala

Aneesh Sasidharan Vs Kerala Co. Operative Milk Marketing Federation

M.V. Sunny, Vs the State of Kerala

Dr.Vishnu Damodar, Vs State of Kerala

Naveen Manomohanan Vs Union of India

Sudarshanan. G. Vs Kiran. T.R.