IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2011 / 7TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 34693 of 2007(E) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- SHANTU JOSEPH, COMPOSITOR GR.II GOVERNMENT PRESS, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM. RESIDING AT VADAKKE VEEDU, EAST CHERANALLUR, KUVAPPADY P.O., ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.IBRAHIM SMT.ANI JOSEPH.K.A. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR OF PRINTING, CENTRAL PRESS TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT, GOVERNMENT PRESS, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE COMMISSIONER FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.34693/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER NO.5689/93/E3 DATED 9/2/94 ISSUED THROUGH EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE. P2 COPY OF THE ORDER OF RE-APPOINTMENT BY 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 20/12/1994. P3 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO.8940 DATED 18/5/94 ISSUED BY THE MEDICAL BOARD IN ERNAKULAM GENERAL HOSPITAL. P4 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.17647/95/03 DATED 01/8/1995 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT REGULARISING THE SERVICE OF THE PETITIONER WITH EFFECT FROM 30/3/1995. P5 COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, ERNAKULAM. P6 COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.10394/99 DATED 23/4/1999 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P7 COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P8 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 1/6/2006 IN O.P.NO.11543/1999. P9 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 11/7/06 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P10 COPY OF THE EXAMINATION CONDUCTED BY THE MEDICAL BOARD. P11 COPY OF THE LETTER NO.119/07/S2/S.C.P.W.D DATED 27/6/2007 OF THE COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF THE STATE COMMISSIONERATE FOR THE DISABLED. P12 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.119/07/S2/S.C.P.W.D. DATED 26/9/07 TO APPEAR BEFORE THE MEDICAL BOARD. P13 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 8/11/2007 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P14 COPY OF THE DETAILED REPRESENTATION DATED 13/11/2007 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P15 COPY OF THE FAX MESSAGE NO.24520/06/E3 DATED 17/11/2007. P16 COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATION NO.19877/SDI/84/GAD DATED 8/2/1984. 2/- -2- WP(C)NO.34693/2007 P17 COPY OF THE PSC NOTIFICATION IN KERALA GAZETTE DATED 15/10/1996 AT PAGE 1083. P18 COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT COPY OF NOTIFICATION IN SRO NO.603/2000 PUBLISHED IN KERALA GAZETTE EXTRA ORDINARY NO.1271 DATED 30/6/2000 OF SOCIAL WELFARE (A) DEPARTMENT. P19 COPY OF THE TREATMENT CARD OF SPECIALISTS' HOSPITAL, COCHIN-29. P20 COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN O.P.NOS.11543/99, 11712/99, 11836/99,12554/99, 13309/99 AND 14182/99 DATED 01/6/06 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. P21 COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.10394/99/E9 DATED 23/4/99 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 34693 of 2007 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 29th day of July, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is presently working as a Compositor Grade II in the Government Press, Ernakulam. The petitioner was originally appointed through employment exchange for a period of 180 days. The petitioner claimed to be an orthopedically handicapped person with 40% disability. By circular dated 22.10.1994, the Government decided to continue the services of physically handicapped provisional employees and therefore the petitioner was re-appointed by order dated 11.8.1995, although he was relieved from service after the contract period. The petitioner's services were regularised with effect from 30.3.1995. The Government received complaints regarding the certificates produced by certain employees regarding their disability including that produced by the petitioner. The employees including the petitioner were directed to appear before the Medical Board, Kottayam for medical examination. On medical examination, the Medical Board certified that the petitioner did not have 40% disability so as to enable him to claim reservation in appointment. Therefore, by Ext.P15 order, the petitioner was removed from service. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P15 seeking the following reliefs: “i) to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading to issuance of Ext.P15 and quash the same. ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring that the petitioner has been duly appointed and regularised in Government Press, W.P(C) No. 34693 of 2007 -: 2 :- Ernakulam under the scheme for Regularisation of Physically Handicapped Employees. iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order to the 1st respondent to grant the petitioner all benefits attached to the post during the past 14 years on regular appointment and disburse the arrears of salary within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court.” 2. According to the petitioner, the petitioner's claim was considered originally on the basis of a certificate issued by the Medical Board, Ernakulam, who certified his percentage of disability as 40%. There is no reason to doubt the veracity of that certificate and therefore on the basis of a subsequent certificate, the petitioner should not be denied the benefit as physically handicapped person having 40% disability, is the contention raised. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent, wherein it is stated that because of various complaints received against several Government servants to the effect that they obtained appointment in reservation quota applicable to physically handicapped persons, although they did not have minimum 40% disability, the Government decided to re-examine all those cases. Therefore, all those persons were directed to appear before the Medical Board, Kottayam. Against the opinion of the Medical Board, Kottayam, a second opinion was taken from the State Medical Board, Thiruvananthapuram, whose W.P(C) No. 34693 of 2007 -: 3 :- opinion was again re-verified by the State Appellate Medical Board, Thiruvananthapuram and on the basis of certificates issued by those authorities, it was found that the petitioner's percentage of disability was far less than 40% and that is why the impugned order has been passed. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. The petitioner himself has in I.A. No. 2276/2011 stated that the petitioner was examined by four authorities, namely, Medical Board, Ernakulam in 1994, Medical Board, Kotayam in 1998, State Medical Board, Thiruvananthapuram in 2007 and State Appellate Medical Board, Thiruvananthapuram in 2007. In the certificate issued by the Medical Board, Ernakulam, the percentage of disability of the petitioner was 40%. But the Medical Board. Kottayam certified it only as 20%. The State Medical Board, Thiruvananthapuram in 2007 certified that the petitioner has only 25% disability. Again, the State Appellate Medical Bord, Thiruvananthapuram certified the disability of the petitioner as 25%. Therefore, 3 Medical Boards have consistently held that the petitioner's disability ranges from 20 to 25% which is nowhere near 40%. It is based on their certificates that the impugned decision has been taken. The petitioner does not allege any mala fides on the part of the respondents in their action. Insofar as the three medical boards have opined that the petitioner's percentage W.P(C) No. 34693 of 2007 -: 4 :- of disability is 25%, I do not find anything wrong with the action take by the respondents . Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/