IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2011 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1933 OP.No. 17789 of 1999(P) --------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- P.SYAMALAN, KALATHOOR (SYAMALA MANDIRAM), MYNAGAPPALLY NORTH, KUNNATHOOR TALUK, KOLLAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY6 THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EMPLOYMENT DIRECTOR, EMPLOYMENT DIRECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 14. 3. THE TOWN EMPLOYMENT OFFICER, KUNNATHOOR, SASTHAMCOTTAH, KOLLAM DISTRICT. ADDL.R4. MANAGING DIRECTOR, COCHIN REFINERIES, KOCHI. (ADDL.R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 01.04.2002 IN C.M.P.No.49465 OF 1999). BY ADV. SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR FOR ADDL.R4 SMT.NISHA BOSE, GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 TO R3. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP.No. 17789/1999 Order on C.M.P.No.29104 of 1999 in O.P.No.17789 of 1999 Closed. 26.05.2011 Sd/- T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. A P P E N D I X PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1 : COPY OF DISABILITY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE MEDICAL BOARD OF DISTRICT HOSPITAL, KOLLAM. EXT. P2 : COPY OF IDENTITY CARD ISSUED BY TOWN EMPLOYMENT OFFICER, KUNNATHOOR TO THE PETITIONER. EXT. P3 : COPY OF COMMUNICATION DTD. 25.10.97 VIDE No.P3/73584/97. EXT. P4 : COPY OF COMMUNICATION FROM 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 10.2.98. EXT. P5 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION OF PETITIONER DTD. 28.7.98 TO the MANAGING DIRECTOR, COCHIN REFINERIES. 4TH RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT. R4(a) : COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 6.12.1996. // True Copy // P.A. to Judge. smp T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. --------------------------------------- O.P.No.17789 OF 1999 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of May, 2011. J U D G M E N T Apparently aggrieved by the non consideration of the petitioner's claim for sponsorship through the Employment Exchange, this original petition has been filed. 2. The petitioner is a physically handicapped person having 75% (moderate) disability. The petitioner registered his name in the Quilon District Employment Exchange on 17.06.1983 vide No.5445/83 and it was subsequently transferred to Town Employment Exchange, Karunagappally and then to Kunnathoor Employment Exchange at Sasthamcottah. Ext.P2 is the copy of the identity card. 3. It is pointed out that the claim of the petitioner has not been duly considered and by Ext.P4 even though it was informed that he was considered for appointment in the Cochin Refinery, there was no response from the said employer and therefore, he submitted Ext.P5 representation. O.P. No.17789/1999 2 4. Heard the parties. In the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent, the details regarding registration of the petitioner's name have been stated in paragraphs 2 and 3. It is revealed therein that the petitioner's name has been sponsored for consideration in different vacancies. Finally it is stated that the petitioner was considered against seven temporary submissions and three regular submissions during the period from 1998 to 2000 and no irregularities have been committed in the matter. 5. In the counter affidavit filed by the additional 4th respondent it is pointed out that the additional 4th respondent had notified two vacancies of General Workmen-B (Trainee) to the Special Employment Exchange for Physically Handicapped, Thiruvananthapuram, Vocational Rehabilitation Centre for Physically Handicapped and to the Divisional Employment Exchange, Kakkanad vide requisition dated 22.10.1996. In response to the same, the Vocational Rehabilitation Centre had furnished a list of 23 candidates within the stipulated time and the special Employment Exchange and the Divisional Employment Exchange did not respond to the request by providing the lists O.P. No.17789/1999 3 within the stipulated period. Therefore, the candidates sponsored by the Vocational Rehabilitation Centre were called for a written test and interview on 11.12.1996 and the selected candidates were appointed. The Employment Officer, Special Employment Exchange for Physically Handicapped, Thiruvananthapuram as per Ext.R4(a) furnished a list of five candidates thereafter. But, by the time, selection was already over and the petitioner's name was not seen included in Ext.R4(a). Therefore, it cannot be said that there is any fault on the part of the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner could not get any employment even thereafter as his name is not being considered. Evidently, sponsorship will be in terms of seniority and other factors and if the petitioner's registration is valid and is surviving and if he is eligible for any sponsorship, his name will be considered in terms of seniority in any of the vacancies for which sponsorship is made on a requisition by any willing employers. With the above observation, this original petition is disposed of. No costs. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE smp