IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 21ST JUNE 2011 / 31ST JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 15030 of 2011(C) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- GEETHA.M,PARAMBATH MEETHAL, PALAYADU NADA.P.O,IRINGAL(VIA), KOZHIKODE-673530. BY ADV. SRI.M.KRISHNAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY(SW),DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.SANDESH RAJA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.15030/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF DISABILITY DTD. 8.4.2010. P2:- COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DTD. 19.3.2008. P3:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 28.12.2009. P4:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 22.7.2010. P5:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 8.2.2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 15030 of 2011 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 21st day of June, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a physically handicapped person having visual disability of 40%. The petitioner applied for the post of supervisors in the Integral Child Development Scheme of the Department of Social Welfare of the Government of Kerala, pursuant to a notification inviting applications issued by the Public Service Commission. After the selection process, the petitioner came to know that the petitioner has not been considered for selection in the reservation category for physically handicapped persons. On a query by the petitioner, the petitioner was informed that since in her application, the petitioner did not mention that she was entitled to weightage/reservation for physically handicapped persons, the petitioner could not be considered for the same. The petitioner is challenging the same seeking the following reliefs: “(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash Ext. P4 order. (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner's application to the post notified in Ext. P2 as a person with a permanent disability in the light of Ext. P1 certificate.” The petitioner's contention is that the application does not contain any column relating to reservation for physically handicapped persons and therefore the petitioner cannot be denied that benefit on the ground that the petitioner has not indicated in her application that she is entitled to the benefit of physically handicapped persons. 2. I directed the standing counsel for the Public Service W.P(C) No. 15030 of 2011 -: 2 :- Commission to get instructions. The standing counsel produced before me a copy of the application form. It contains column no. 11 thus: “11. Are you entitled to weightage /Priority being Sportsman/Ex-serviceman/Physically Handicapped? Give details.” He further points out that in the general conditions appended to the notification inviting applications, clause 18 specifically stipulates that claims made subsequent to the application will not be considered under any circumstances and proof submitted without proper claim in the application also will not be considered. The learned standing counsel submits that in the application of the petitioner, in the column prescribed, the petitioner did not mention anything and therefore the petitioner's claim for benefits as a physically handicapped person could not be considered. The petitioner has no case that in her application, the petitioner has specifically mentioned her claim for benefits as a physically handicapped person. Therefore, in view of the same and the said clause in the general conditions, the petitioner cannot claim benefits applicable to physically handicapped persons. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/