IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH DECEMBER 2009 / 9TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 37596 of 2009(T) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. SREEJA VAYALERI, D/O.BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 27 YEARS, SREENILAYAM, KAMMAVAN AMSOM, MUDAPATHOOR POST, MALLANOOR, KANNUR. 2. SREEVIDYA.V.K, D/O.P.A.NARAYANAN, AGED 25 YEARS, VELLIYAMKULAM EAST, KATHIZOOR, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.K.K.CHANDRALEKHA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. KANNUR DISTRICT LOTTERY OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF STATE LOTTERY, KANNUR. 3. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.NOBLE MATHEW THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss S. SIRI JAGAN, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= W.P.(C) No. 37596 of 2009 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 30th day of December, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioners claim to be physically handicapped persons. They produced Exts.P1 and P2 disability certificates in support of that claim, which would go to show that they are suffering from 40% physical disability. By Ext.P3 order they have been provisionally appointed as Clerks on daily wages in the Lottery Department at Kannur. The petitioners have filed this writ petition anticipating termination of their services to accommodate other provisional daily wage employees. The petitioners would submit that they are entitled to the benefit of G.O.(P) No.46/08/SWD dated 19-7-2008 and, therefore, they are eligible to be advised by the Kerala Public Service Commission for regular appointment. Therefore, they seek the following reliefs:- a) to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order directing respondent Nos. 1 & 2 to regularize the provisional employment of the petitioners; b) to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order directing respondents 1 and 2 not to terminate the petitioners till the completion of selection process for the above posts. W.P.(C) No. 37596/09 2 c) to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order directing respondents 1 and 2 to consider and dispose of Exts.P4 and P5 representations submitted by the petitioners; and d) to issue such other and further orders or directions this Honourable Court deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. 2. In respect of another employee included in Ext.P3 appointment order, this Court had in W.P.(C) No. 32258 of 2009 passed the following judgment:- “Petitioner claims to be a physically challenged woman with 40% disability as certified in Ext.P1. The prayer sought is to direct respondents 1 and 2 to commence the selection process for physically handicapped persons and fill up vacancies in the quota ear marked. 2. The standing counsel appearing for the PSC referred to Government Order GO(P) No.46/08/SWD dated 19-7-2008 and submits that the Government have already directed the PSC to advise physically handicapped persons against Sl.Nos.33, 66, 99 out of 100 vacancies on out of turn basis. It is stated that as and when any vacancy is available PSC will be inviting applications and if the petitioner is eligible for the same application can be made in which event her candidature will be duly considered. This submission should redress the grievance of the petitioner and it is directed that it will be open to the petitioner to submit her application as and when suitable vacancy is notified. 3. Petitioner prays that she is continuing on daily wages under the 3rd respondent and there is a threat of termination. It is stated that so long as there is scope for employment she should not be disturbed. W.P.(C) No. 37596/09 3 4. This essentially is a matter for the 3rd respondent to consider. It will be open to the petitioner to move the 3rd respondent and in which case he shall deal with the same properly.” 3. In view of the fact that identically situated employee had been given certain benefits by this Court, as per the above judgment, I am satisfied that the petitioners are also entitled to the very same relief. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of in terms of the above judgment. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE. Mn.