IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2010 / 19TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 15843 of 2010(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- K.RANGANATHAN,S/O. KRISHNAKUNJU,AGED 45, THAIVALAPPU, VANDANAM,ALAPPUZHA-5. BY ADV. SRI.S.SUDHISH KUMAR SRI.K.B.DAYAL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVT., FOOD & DIVIL SUPPLIES(A) DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADDL.R3. THE CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, SUPPLY-CO, KOCHI -20. (ADD.R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN IA NO.7311/2010 DT 9.6.2010) GOVT.PLEADER SRI.ARAVINDKUMAR BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 15843 OF 2010 (E) ===================== Dated this the 9th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is an UDC in the Civil Supplies Department. He is a physically handicapped person having 45% disability, which is evident from Ext.P1 certificate. This was on account of the amputation of his right hand. 2. On an earlier occasion, he was deputed to the Civil Supplies Corporation and considering his physical disability, that was cancelled. However, all such cases were reviewed by the Government and Ext.P3 order was issued, directing deputation of 14 persons including the petitioner. 3. Petitioner represented against Ext.P3 by Ext.P4 and this Court in Ext.P5 judgment directed the Government to consider the request. The request was considered and Ext.P6 order was issued rejecting his representation. The reasoning contained in Ext.P6 order is in para 5 thereof, which is extracted below for reference. According to the medical certificate produced by him the percentage of disability is only 45% which is moderate. The petitioner is now discharging his duties in District Supply Office without hindrance. As his physical disability does not hinder him in discharging his duties WPC No. 15843/10 :2 : entrusted with the office of District Supply Office he can carry out the work in Supplyco depot also if he is posted in Alappuzha District itself on deputation. There found no hard reason to allow permanent exemption to him from deputation. It is challenging Ext.P3 to the extent he is deputed and Ext.P6 rejecting his representation, the writ petition is filed. 4. Counsel contends that in view of the disability of the petitioner, he will not be able to discharge the duties. A reading of Ext.P6 shows that the disability of the petitioner was considered by the Government and Government was satisfied that the duty which the petitioner has to discharge on deputation is not much different from what he is discharging now and that with the disability that he has, he will be able to discharge those duties. This finding of fact cannot be interfered with in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the absence of anything to show that the finding is perverse or erroneous. 5. Counsel relies on Ext.P7 order reviewing the order of deputation of another person covered by Ext.P3. However, a reading of Ext.P7 shows that, on materials, the Government was satisfied that the person concerned was unable to walk and stand for a long time, and on that reasoning, the deputation was WPC No. 15843/10 :3 : cancelled. Unlike the case dealt with in Ext.P7, in Ext.P6 order, the Government was satisfied that the petitioner is capable of discharging his duties on deputation. Therefore, Ext.P7 cannot come to the assistance of the petitioner. I am not satisfied that Ext.P6 calls for any interference. 6. Needless to say that if there is any difficulty for the petitioner to discharge the duties, it will be open to the petitioner to move a representation before the Civil Supplies Corporation Authority, in which event, they will sympathetically consider the same. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp