IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI FRIDAY, THE 23RD OCTOBER 2009 / 1ST KARTHIKA 1931 W.A.No. 14 of 2007 -------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.4988/2006 Dated 25/07/2006 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER: ---------------------- K.M. SINI, AGED 24 YEARS, D/O. MATHAI, KARUTHEDATH HOUSE, EZHUPRAM KARA, KADAYIRUPPU P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN & SMT.RESHMI POULOSE RESPONDENT(S)//RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE SREE SANKARACHARYA SANSKRIT UNIVERSITY, KALADY, REP.BY REGISTRAR. 2. SATHEESAN P., AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. P.R. AMMINI AMMA, PARAPPURATH HOUSE, MANICKAMANGALAM P.O., KALADY. R1 BY ADV. SRI.B.S.KRISHNAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.K.ANAND (A.201) & SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN R2 BY ADV. SMT.JEENA JOSEPH THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------ W.A. No.14 of 2007 ------------------------------ Dated this, the 23rd day of October, 2009 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The first respondent University invited applications for appointment to the post of Class IV employees. The appellant was one of the candidates. She was not included in the rank list published pursuant to the said selection. Therefore, she was not appointed. Being a physically challenged person with more than 40% disability, claiming appointment in the 3% quota ear marked for such candidates, the Writ Petition was filed. The University filed a counter affidavit stating that a physically challenged person, who was included in the rank list was appointed, while they made appointments to 30 vacancies. Since the appellant was not included in the rank list, she could not be considered for appointment. Accepting the said contention, the learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition. Feeling aggrieved W.A. No.14 of 2007 - 2 - by the same, the writ appeal is preferred. 2. Going by the facts of the case, it would appear that the notification was made for selection of general candidates. There was no reservation provided in the said notification for physically challenged persons. But, the University has chosen to appoint one physically challenged person, who found a place in the rank list. From the said submission, it would appear that, though his turn as per merit has not arisen, a candidate included in the rank list was appointed in the quota earmarked for physically challenged persons. 3. Normally, for filling up the 3% quota for physically challenged persons, separate notification and selection are made. In this case, as evident from he pleadings and materials, there was no reservation for physically challenged persons in the notification. The appellant has not chosen to challenge the notification or the W.A. No.14 of 2007 - 3 - action of the University in not providing any reservation for physically challenged persons. In the absence of such a challenge, no relief could be granted to the appellant, who did not find a place in the rank list. Therefore, though for a different reason, we dismiss the Writ Appeal. Sd/- K. Balakrishnan Nair, Judge. Sd/- P. Q. Barkath Ali, Judge. DK. (True copy)