IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 19TH JUNE 2009 / 29TH JYAISHTA 1931 WA.No. 1407 of 2006(A) --------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.12005/2005 Dated 21/03/2006 .................... APPELLANT(S)//PETITIONER: --------------------- M. VENUGOPALAN NAMBIAR, S/O. KUKNHIRAMAN NAIR, LOWER DIVISION CLERK, COLLECTORATE, KANNUR, MANIKKOTH HOUSE, ODAYAMMADOM, P.O. CHERUKUNNU, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 310. BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O., THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-673 635, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. 2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-673 635. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 & R2 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.E.S.ASHRAF. R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.R. BINDU. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------------ W.A. No.1407 of 2006 ------------------------------------ Dated, this the 19th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The writ petitioner is the appellant. Dissatisfied with the direction issued by the learned Single Judge he has preferred the appeal. The brief facts of the case are the following: 2. The appellant is a physically challenged person. He is having all requisite qualifications for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Zoology. He has passed M.Sc.(Zoology) with more than 60% marks. He has cleared National Eligibility Test and he is also a Ph.D degree holder. When the Calicut University invited applications for the post of Lecturer in various departments including Zoology by Ext.P9 notification, no reservation was provided for physically challenged persons as contemplated under Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). W.A.No.1407/06 - 2 - According to the appellant, in view of Annexure B order dated 17.9.2003 of the Calicut University, produced in this writ appeal, 3% reservation for the disabled persons in the employment of the University should have been made. While making appointments by the University, the roster point Nos.1, 34, 67, taking the unit as 100 vacancies, should have been reserved as per Annexure A order of the University dated 20.7.2005. For the above purpose, as per Annexure A order dated 20.7.2005, all the vacancies of teaching posts in various departments should be pooled together. Even in the face of Annexure A and B, the University failed to provide for reservation to physically challenged persons in Ext.P9 notification. Therefore, the writ petition was filed seeking appropriate reliefs. Learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition directing the University to consider the claim of the appellant. Feeling dissatisfied with the said direction, the Writ Appeal is filed. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it was mandatory for the University to make provision for reservation to physically challenged persons to the extent W.A.No.1407/06 - 3 - provided in Section 33 of the Act. Hitherto, the University has not reserved any posts to be filled up by physically challenged persons in the recruitments made after 2003 or before that date. Therefore, the appellant prayed that appropriate directions may be issued to the University to make reservation in teaching posts in future recruitments and also to compensate the vacancies lost by physically challenged persons for want of reservation after the issuance of Annexure-B order. 4. We heard the learned Standing Counsel for the University, who submitted that now the roster point has been changed as 33, 66 and 99. It is also admitted that the University was bound to make provisions for reservation. Going by the files, it cannot be found why reservation was not made in Ext.P9 and other notifications, it is submitted. 5. The provisions of Section 33 of the Act are mandatory in nature. Once the University has decided to implement the reservation for physically challenged persons by Annexure B order, it was bound to reserve vacancies whenever notifications were issued inviting applications for W.A.No.1407/06 - 4 - various posts. For not providing reservation, Ext.P9 notification is vitiated. Since none of the candidates selected is before us, we are not interfering with the selections hitherto made. But it is made clear that in all selections in future, whether on going or proposed, there shall be 3% reservation for physically challenged persons. In the case of ongoing selections, erratum notifications should be issued providing reservation and also a chance for physically challenged persons to apply for the post. While making appointments in future, steps shall also be taken to compensate the physically challenged persons for the vacancies lost by them earlier. The Writ Appeal is disposed of as above. Sd/- K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. Sd/- C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE. DK. (True copy)