Isac Antony vs State Of Kerala

P.V.Kunhikrishnan, J.

The above writ petition is filed with following prayers:

“(i) To call for the records leading to the issuance of Exhibit P4 and set aside the originals of the same to the extend it includes the petitioner by issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ order or direction.

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other writ appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondents to exclude the petitioner from the invigilator duty in the higher secondary examination.

(iii) pass such other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper to grand in the circumstances of the case.

(iv) to dispense with filing of English translation of vernacular documents produced along with the writ petition.

(v) pass such other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper to grant in the circumstances of the case.” (sic)

The petitioner is a physically disabled person with 45% locomotive disability. He is now working as HSST (Junior) – Physics in St.John’s Higher Secondary School, Mattom in Alappuzha District. According to the petitioner, usually physically handicapped persons were not deputed for examination duty. They were only deputed for paper valuation and petitioner usually participated in the paper valuation camps. But now by Ext.P4, the petitioner was deputed for invigilator’s duty. It is the case of the petitioner that he cannot walk freely and he is moving his left leg with the support of his left arm so he is unable to climb steps to reach the classes and he is unable to distribute the question papers and answer sheets quickly and it will cause prejudice to the students also. Aggrieved by the duty allotted to the petitioner, the petitioner submitted Ext.P5 before the 3rd respondent. It is submitted that the same is forwarded to the 4th respondent. The grievance of the petitioner is that the same is not considered by the 4th respondent.

Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Government Pleader.

Since Ext.P5 is pending before the 4th respondent, I think there can be a direction to the 4th respondent to consider the same within a short time, because the duty allotted to the petitioner is already started.

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of in the following manner:

The 4th respondent is directed to consider Ext.P5 as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within one week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

The petitioner will produce a certified copy of this judgment together with a copy of this writ petition before the 4th respondent for compliance.