IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 34103 of 2003(I) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- SADANANDAN K., PEON, K.M.M.WOMEN'S COLLEGE, KANNUR, KUNDATHIL HOUSE, UMMERCHIRA THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. 3. THE PRINCIPAL, KRISHNA MENON MEMORIAL WOMEN'S COLLEGE, KANNUR. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.DILIP MOHANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.34103/2003 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE DISABILITY CERTIFICATE DTD. 25.6.99 ISSUED BY THE MEDICAL BOARD, SUPERINTENDENT, DISTRICT HOSPITAL, KANNUR. P2:- COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DTD. 3.12.01 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P3:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 29.11.02 IN OP. NO.36001/02 OF THE HON. HIGH COURT OF KERALA. P4:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 16.6.03 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P5:- COPY OF THE DISCHARGE CERTIFICATE DT. 18.6.03 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.34103 of 2003-I - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 18th day of November, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner is a physically handicapped person who was working as a Peon in the third respondent's college. It is on the basis of contract engagement as per Ext.P2. This was for a period of one year from the date of joining or till regular hands join duty, whichever is earlier. 2. The petitioner claims the benefit of the Central Act, viz. Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Protection of Right and Full Participation) Act, 1955. Earlier, the petitioner had approached this Court against the proposal to terminate his service. This Court by Ext.P3 judgment, directed the second respondent to consider the claim for regularisation of the petitioner. It was directed that till orders are passed in the matter, he will be allowed to continue. Ext.P4 is the resultant order passed by the authority concerned wherein his claim for continuance was rejected. This is under challenge in this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is a failure on the part of the respondents to consider the claim in terms of the direction issued in Ext.P3. In Ext.P4, the claim was considered and it was found that wpc 34103/2003 2 in terms of the special scheme for appointment of physically handicapped candidates, when the names of eligible candidates are sponsored, the appointment will be given based on the result of the written test and interview. The petitioner was appointed on a temporary basis and therefore his claim for regularisation cannot be accepted. 4. True that the petitioner is right in contending that the Act confers the benefit of appointment in 3% of various posts to the physically handicapped candidates. But, for getting the same, the Government will have to identify the posts and provide various methods for filling up them. Going by Ext.P4, there is a scheme in existence. For making appointment of physically handicapped persons, the District Employment Officer will have to sponsor the names of eligible candidates and they will have to undergo the written test and interview and thereafter the appointment will be offered. Hence, there cannot be any automatic regularisation of the petitioner in service as the initial appointment was only for a period of one year. 5. Learned Govt. Pleader on getting instructions, submitted that the petitioner was terminated from service on 18.6.2003. Whatever that be, if the name of the petitioner is sponsored by the District Employment Officer in terms of the scheme mentioned in Ext.P4, the same will be considered in wpc 34103/2003 3 accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/