IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2009 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 21108 of 2006(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- JOBY T.T. S/O.THOMAS T.R., THALIKULAM HOUSE, MUTTITHADI (P.O.),ALANGAD, ALAGAPPA NAGAR P.O., THRISSUR - 680 317. BY ADV. SRI.V.B.UNNIRAJ RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETERIATE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY IT'S CHIEF SECRETARY. 2. THE KERLA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY IT'S SECRETARY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.21108/06 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE DISABILITY CERTIFICATE DT 3.7.06. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF HGIHER SECONDARY COURSE IN AGRICULTURE. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FORM FOR THE POST OF AGRICULTURAL ASSISTANT DT 1.1.04. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE HALL TICKET. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF ATTENDANCE. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE MAIN LIST DT 5.6.06. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE P.S.C. DT 11.7.06. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER DT 5.3.98. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, CADA DIVISION DT 9.10.98. EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT 7.12.2001. EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DT 31.12.2002. EXT.P12: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT 15.6.05. EXT.P13: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE P.S.C. EXT.P14: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT 12.4.2005. EXTS. OF R2 EXT.R2(a): TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 21108 OF 2006 (K) ===================== Dated this the 27th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner has passed Vocational Higher Secondary Examination conducted by the State Board of Vocational Higher Secondary Examination. Ext.P2 is the certificate. 2. Ext.P13 is a notification issued by the Public Service Commission inviting applications for the post of Agricultural Assistant Grade II. Though an endurance test is also prescribed in Ext.P13, in so far as VHSC certificate holders like the petitioner are concerned, they are exempted from the endurance test as per Ext.P14 Government Order. 3. Although the petitioner is a physically handicapped person with 45% disability, he submitted Ext.P3 application in response to Ext.P13. He participated in the selection process and finally was included in Ext.P6 probability list. Thereafter, by Ext.P7, his candidature was rejected by the PSC on the ground that physically handicapped persons were ineligible, as according to the PSC, good physique is one of the eligibility criteria prescribed in Ext.P13 itself. It was thereupon that this writ WPC 21108/06 :2 : petition was filed. 4. The contention raised by the petitioner is that physically handicapped candidates are eligible in terms of the vacancy notification itself and that physically handicapped persons have already been appointed as Agricultural Assistant Grade II, as is evident from Exts.P11 and P12 orders. 5. Standing counsel appearing for the PSC invited my attention to the counter affidavit filed. According to them, in view of the physical disability of candidates like the petitioner, it was decided to reject the application of all such candidates. According to the PSC, good physique being one of the eligibility criteria, they are justified in doing so. However, learned counsel also submitted that subsequently on receipt of representations from various candidates like the petitioner, the PSC reconsidered the issue and resolved on 9/10/2006 to conduct an interview for those physically handicapped persons, who have secured sufficient marks to be included in the probability list. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not been interviewed so far. 6. In view of the specifications in Ext.P13 notification, PSC is entitled to assess the physical suitability of a candidate and the competence of the PSC in this behalf cannot be faulted. If that be WPC 21108/06 :3 : so, I feel the resolution of the PSC dated 9/10/06 to interview the physically handicapped candidates to assess their suitability for the post is perfectly justified. 7. Having regard to the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has not so far been interviewed, I feel the grievance of the petitioner will be redressed if the PSC interviews the petitioner also and assess his physical fitness, to be appointed for the post in question. However, at this distance of time, such interview is necessary only if any candidate who had secured marks lower than that of the petitioner has been advised for appointment. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition directing the 2nd respondent to interview the petitioner, assess his physical eligibility to be appointed and decide on the eligibility of the petitioner on that basis, applying the standard as adopted in the case of others similarly situated. It is clarified that such exercise need be undertaken only if any candidate who had secured marks lower than that of the petitioner has been advised for appointment. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp