IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2009 / 25TH POUSHA 1930 WA.No. 1257 of 2008(A) ---------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.15727/2008 Dated 02/06/2008 .................... APPELLANT(S): -------------- ROY VARGHESE, SON OF O.E. VARGHESE, AGED 33, ADVOCATE, PIPELINE, THAMMANAM, PULLEPPADY ROAD, KATHRIKKADAVU, KALOOR P.O., KOCHI 17 BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE SRI.P.PRIJITH SRI.S.VAIDYANATHAN SRI.G.KRISHNAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI 682 031, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. COMMISSIONER FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES, O/O. THE COMMISSIONER FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILSITIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.KRB.KAIMAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL FOR R1 R2 TO R4 BY G.P. SMT. SMITHA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. -------------------------------------------- W.A. No. 1257 OF 2008 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair,J. Appellant was an applicant for selection to the post of Munsiff- Magistrate. Even though concession in fees was granted to disabled persons for writing the examination, no reservation was provided for disability under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. Based on the merit list, appellant was called for interview, but he did not get selected. The first batch of judicial officers selected are undergoing training. In between appellant challenged the selection by stating that reservation under the above Act is mandatory and selection made without providing for reservation is illegal. In the Writ Petition filed by the appellant the learned single Judge directed the Government to frame rules. However, no favourable orders were given to consider appellant for selection to the post to which he applied. The time fixed by the learned single Judge for complying with the direction was six months. It is against this judgment that the appellant has filed this Writ 2 Appeal. We have heard counsel appearing for the appellant and Government Pleader, and senior counsel Sri. K.R.B. Kaimal appearing for the High Court. 2. This Court issued several interim orders directing the Government to make rules in consultation with the High Court. However, Government Pleader submitted that High Court has not so far forwarded it's recommendations. Senior counsel submitted that considering the nature of issue, it takes time for the High Court to decide the matter. Of course what is to be decided is disability that could be permitted for judicial officers to function as such. This obviously requires deliberations, some time involving experts. Therefore the time granted by the learned single Judge appears to be quite reasonable. In the circumstances, there is no ground to interfere with the judgment of the learned single Judge. W.A. is consequently dismissed. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (C.K. ABDUL REHIM) Judge. kk 3