AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This writ petition is filed with following prayers:
i. To issue a Writ Certiorari or any other writ order or direction to the respondent to reserve 3% vacancy for Physically Handicapped person as shown in S.33 of the Act in the Appointment of Munsiff Magistrate.
ii. To issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other Writ, order or direction & Respondents to reserve 3% vacancy for Physically Handicapped person as shown in S.33 of the Act in the appointment of High Court Assistant and other Categories of Appointment of 1st Respondent.
iii. Granting such other Relief as the Petition may request for this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to ground.
(SIC)
When this writ petition came up for consideration on 07.02.2013, this Court passed the following order:
“None appears for the petitioner. There was also no representation on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner, when the writ petition was called on for hearing today.
Post when moved again.”
Thereafter when the matter came up for consideration on 09.04.2013, this Court passed the following order:
“None appears for the petitioner. There was also no representation on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner when the writ petition, which was listed as item No.5 in the admission list, was called on for hearing today at 10.30 AM. On the previous posting day namely, 7.2.2013 also, the learned counsel for the petitioner was not present and there was no representation on his behalf. However this Court did not dismiss the writ petition for default, but directed it to be posted when moved again. In view of the fact that the learned counsel for the petitioner is not present today, this Court is not in a position to hear the writ petition. Though the non-appearance of the learned counsel for the petitioner should have led to the dismissal of the writ petition for default, having regard to the fact that the petitioner is a person suffering from hearing impairment, I refrain from dismissing the writ petition for default, but direct it to be posted after vacation.”
Today, when the writ petition came up for consideration, the counsel for the petitioner sought further time. This writ petition is pending before this Court from 2013 onwards. According to me, this writ petition need not be retained indefinitely.
A counter affidavit is filed by the 1st respondent. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of the counter affidavit:
“10. The High Court Service Rules, 1970 has been replaced by the Kerala High Court Service Rules 2007 with effect from 01.01.2007. Rule 11(2) of Kerala High Court Service Rules, 2007 deals with reservation to physically handicapped persons in the High Court Service. As per the Rules, 3% of the vacancies arising every year in the following categories shall be filled up by appointing physically handicapped persons satisfying the criteria laid down in Rule 9 (e) of part II, Kerala State & Subordinate Service Rules, 1958:
Typist Grade II
Telephone Operator
Typist Copyist Grade II
Clerical Assistants
Binder
Lift Operator
Duplicator Operator
Gardener
Office Attendant
Provided that the persons with partial blindness or low vision will be eligible for appointment to the categories of Clerical Assistant, Duplicator Operator and Gardener only.
Hence as per the existing Rules, the post of Assistants has not been identified for appointment of physically disabled candidates in the High Court Service.
Therefore, the following, matters are placed for the consideration of Rules Committee:-
a. The matter of examining whether Rules 11 (2) be amended with retrospective effect from 01.01.2007 on the basis of Judgment dated 07.07.2010 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.14889/2009 (2010) 7 SCC 626) and the Judgment dated 17.10.2014 in WP (C) No. 27234/2011.
b. The posts mentioned in Rule 8-B of the High Court Service Rules, 1970 viz. Shorthand Writer Grade II, Assistant Grade II, Typist-Copyist Grade II and Peon be reckoned as identified posts under Section 32 of the Disabilities Act for filling up of backlog vacancies during the period from 01.01.1996 to 31.12.2006 when the High Court Service Rules, 1970 was in force.
c. Age concession, 15 (Fifteen) years for the blind & the deaf and the dumb and 10 (ten years) for the orthopedically handicapped, need be allowed over and above the existing age limits prescribed for direct recruitment to various posts in the High Court Service Rules in tune with the Government Orders dated 29.05.1973 and 16.01.1978.
d. Whether grace marks need be allowed to the blind, deaf and dumb and orthopedically handicapped as stipulated in the aforementioned Government Orders and the decision of the Rule Committee regarding the above is awaited.
In the above circumstances it is submitted that the High Court has already taken action in terms of the provisions contained in the Act of 1995 and as per the relief sought for by the Petitioner.”
In the light of the same, it is clear that the 1st respondent already taken steps and therefore, nothing survives in this case.
Recording the counter affidavit, this writ petition is closed.