Dr. B. Unnikrishnan v. State of Kerala & Ors

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** # **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS ``` ``` & ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 18TH SRAVANA, 1945 OP(KAT) NO. 312 OF 2023 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26.06.2023 IN OA NO.2147/2022 OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ``` ## **`PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN OA:`** ``` DR. B. UNNIKRISHNAN, AGED 56 YEARS S/O. K.G. BHASKARAN NAIR, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES / DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT, DMH PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695005, RESIDING AT 15/283, VALIYAMEDAYIL, KRISHNANKOVIL JUNCTION, FORT, NEYYATINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA - 695121 BY ADVS. P.NANDAKUMAR AMRUTHA SANJEEV VIVEK VIJAYAKUMAR RIYA TOMY INDU C. SREEKUMAR ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN OA:`** ``` 1STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001 2THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH SERVICE OFFICE, GENERAL HOSPITAL JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695035 ``` ``` BY SHRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL(B/O) ``` ``` THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` **(CR)** # **ALEXANDER THOMAS & C.JAYACHANDRAN, JJ.** **========================================** O.P(KAT) No.312 of 2023 _[arising out of the impugned final order dated 26.06.2023 in O.A. No.2147/2022 on the file of the KAT, Tvm. Bench]_ **=================================** Dated this the 09[th] day of August, 2023 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Alexander Thomas, J.** This original petition is directed against the impugned Ext.P1 final order, rendered by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram Bench, on 26.06.2023, dismissing the instant original application, O.A. No.2147/2022, for the reasons stated therein. The sole petitioner herein is the sole applicant in the original application and the respondents herein are the respondents in the original application. 2. Heard Sri.P. Nandakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Asok M. Cherian, learned Additional Advocate General, instructed and assisted by Smt.Sabeena P. Ismail, learned Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents. 3. The prayers in the instant Ext.P2 original application, O.A. **O.P(KAT) No.312 of 2023** **2** ## No.2147/2022, are as follows:- - _“a. Direct the 1st respondent to withdraw the baseless and vexatious order, order No. G.O. (Rt) No.2854/2022/H&FWD dated 02.12.2022, Annexure A15 which is against the previous Government Order G.O. (P) No.5/2022/SJD dated 15.07.2022, various Honourable Supreme Court Judgments, Honourable High Court of Kerala Judgments and The Order of the Honourable Kerala Administrative Tribunal and give strict direction to promote the applicant to Deputy Director / Additional Director of Health Services._ - _b. Direct the 1st respondent to pay the costs to the applicant for his mental stress and intentionally frustrating the rights of disabled person by blatantly ignoring the provisions of the relevant statutory enactment, Various Honourable Supreme Court Judgments, Honourable High Court of Kerala Judgments and Order of the Honourable Kerala Administrative Tribunal._ - _c. To grant such other reliefs as may be prayed for in the circumstances of the case.”_ 4. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, has rendered the impugned Ext.P1 final verdict dismissing the O.A. on the ground that Sub-clause (ii) of Clause 8 of Anx.A6 G.O.(P) No.5/22/SJD dated 15.07.2022, categorically provides that persons with disabilities shall be provided reservation for promotion in those posts, where appointments to the post is not only by direct recruitment but also by promotion (from the feeder category). That, in the instant case, the method of appointments to the post of Deputy Director of Health Services is solely by promotion and therefore, it will not fulfill the norms as per Clause 8 (ii) of Anx.A6 G.O., and hence the claim of the petitioner for promotion on the basis of lateral reservation in the **O.P(KAT) No.312 of 2023** **3** differently abled quota, in terms of Sec.34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 cannot be granted. It is on this basis that the O.A. has been dismissed. 5. According to the petitioner, he is a person who is suffering from disability, as understood in the above Central Act, with locomotor disability of 40%, and is now holding the post of Deputy Superintendent in the cadre of Assistant Director of Health Services. His next promotion post is the Deputy Director of Health Services and the method of appointment is solely by promotion from the feeder category of Assistant Director, etc. That, the Apex Court has already held, in unambiguous and categorical terms, that the action on the part of the authorities of the State of Kerala, in not granting lateral reservation to persons with disabilities, in accordance with Sec.34 of the Central Act, is illegal and ultravires, etc. This position of the matter has been laid down by the Apex Court in decisions as in _**State of Kerala & Others** v._ _**Leesamma Joseph**_ [(2021) 9 SCC 208]. It is profitable to refer to para Nos.30 & 31 of _**Leesamma**_ ’s case supra, which read as follows:- _“30. Mr Gaurav Agrawal, learned Amicus Curiae through the note also pointed out different views of the High Court: 30.1. Poonam Manchanda v. Union of India [Poonam Manchanda v. Union of India, 2019 SCC OnLine P&H 2710]—The Punjab and Haryana High Court while dealing with the case of the petitioner having 70%_ **O.P(KAT) No.312 of 2023** **4** _disability noticed that she had been appointed as Assistant Accounts Officer in 1999 and promoted as Accounts Officer in 2007. On both occasions she did not claim reservation but was considered in general category. The next post was that of Senior Accounts Officer and she claimed promotion on Roster No. 1 earmarked for PwD. The Rules did not provide for reservation for PwD in promotion to Group A and Group B posts. The High Court granted relief relying upon Rajeev Kumar Gupta case [Rajeev Kumar Gupta v. Union of India, (2016)13 SCC 153:(2017) 2 SCC (L&S) 605] and directed that the petitioner be considered for promotion under 3% reservation provided for PwD._ _30.2. Union of India v. Poonam Manchanda [Union of India v. Poonam Manchanda, Civil Appeal No. 6092 of 2019] — An appeal was filed before this Court was dealt with along with a batch of matters of which judgment was delivered in Siddaraju case [Siddaraju v. State of Karnataka, (2020) 19 SCC 572 : 2020 SCC OnLine SC 45] ._ _30.3. Kamla Chanyal v. State of Uttarakhand [Kamla Chanyal v. State of Uttarakhand, 2016 SCC OnLine Utt 2496] — The Uttarakhand High Court once again relying upon the judgment in Rajeev Kumar Gupta case [Rajeev Kumar Gupta v. Union of India, (2016) 13 SCC 153 : (2017) 2 SCC (L&S) 605] quashed an OM to the extent that it ruled out reservation for PwD in Group A and B posts and directed the Government to consider the issue relating to the availability of benefit of reservation to the petitioner therein in the capacity as PwD. We may note that as per the solution of the learned Amicus Curiae, the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (Divyangjan), Government of India receives a number of complaints regarding non-grant of promotion to PwD in Group A and B posts by denying them benefit of reservation in promotion. In B. Uma Prasad v. EPFO [B. Uma Prasad v. EPFO, A case before the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (Divyangjan), Government of India.] , the Chief Commissioner noticed that the complainant was not being given reservation in promotion to Group B post and recommended that the respondent may give promotion to persons with benchmark disabilities in all posts, including Group A and Group B posts._ _31. We are of the view that the course of action followed by the High Court in the impugned order is salutary and does not call for any interference. We have also answered various questions which have arisen in the present proceedings assisted by the learned Amicus Curiae. In fact, what seems to emerge is that the appellant State has not implemented the judgment of this Court in Rajeev Kumar Gupta [Rajeev Kumar Gupta v. Union of India, (2016) 13 SCC 153 : (2017) 2 SCC (L&S) 605] and Siddaraju [Siddaraju v. State of Karnataka, (2020) 19 SCC 572 : 2020 SCC OnLine SC 45] cases. Thus, we consider it appropriate to issue directions to the State of Kerala to implement these judgments and provide for reservation in promotion in all posts after identifying said posts. This exercise should be completed within a period of three months. We are making it time-bound so that the mandate of the Act is not again frustrated by making Section 32 as an excuse for not having identified the post.”_ **O.P(KAT) No.312 of 2023** **5** 6. Further, the Apex Court has also reiterated the above legal position in a recent verdict rendered on 04.07.2023 in Civil Appeal, C.A. No.530/2023 of the decision in _**Reserve Bank of India & Ors.** v._ _**A.K. Nair & Ors.**_ [2023 SCC online SC 801] (in paras 13, 16 & 40), which reads as follows:- _“_ _**para 13** . The law relating to grant of equal opportunities, protection of rights, and full participation of persons with disabilities was codified by the PwD Act, 1995. Chapter VI of the PwD Act, 1995, titled ‘EMPLOYMENT’, containing sections 32 to 41, inter alia, mandated identification of posts which could be reserved for persons with disabilities for appointment, the extent of reservation and the procedure to be followed in the matter of recruitment. Significantly,Chapter VI did not contain any express provision mandating an‘employer’ or an ‘establishment’ as defined in clauses (j) and (k) of section 2, respectively, to reserve any percentage of posts for promotion to persons with disabilities serving in the feeder cadre. However, Chapter VIII titled ‘NON-DISCRIMINATION’ in sub-section (2) of section 47 ordained that no promotion shall be denied to a person merely on the ground of his disability. Sections 44 to 47, under Chapter VIII, envisaged that persons with disabilities should not face any discrimination in any of the fields specified therein, with section 47 particularly dealing with nondiscrimination in Government employment. It is true that sub-section (2) of section 47 does not contain any mandate requiring the employer or establishment to make reservation in promotional posts; on the contrary, it is a command to the employer or establishment that merely because an employee is suffering from a disability, as defined in section 2(i) of the PwD Act, 1995, he is not to be denied promotion._ _**16.** Be that as it may, mere absence of an express mandate in Chapter VI of the PwD Act, 1995 requiring reservation in promotion for persons with disabilities could not have been construed as not obliging the appropriate Government not to keep reserved vacancies on promotional posts for those answering clauses (i) to (iii) of section 33. Though the language used in section 33 could admit of a little bit of confusion, the crucial words there are “shall appoint in every establishment”. Paraphrased, it implies that while the appropriate Government is making appointment in every establishment, it ought to reserve a minimum of 3 (three) per cent vacancies for persons or class of persons with disability, of which 1 (one) per cent each shall be reserved for those persons with disabilities of the nature mentioned in the clauses therein, i.e., (I) blindness or low vision, (ii) hearing impairment, and (iii) locomotor disability or cerebral palsy, and that appointments shall be made on the posts identified for each such disability as in the said clauses. The proviso which permits exemption is not relevant_ **O.P(KAT) No.312 of 2023** **6** _in the present case; hence, its effect is not considered. It is, therefore, the statutory duty enjoined by section 33 that there must be appointment of persons with disabilities in every establishment which ought not to be less than 3 (three) per cent but a minimum of 1 (one) percent of vacancies, available on identified posts for each disability, has to be reserved. The confusion, to our mind, mighthave stemmed from the narrow interpretation of the word “appoint”, without realizing that “promotion” is also included within “appointment”. The term “appointment” is quite broad and includes appointment by ‘direct recruitment’ as well as appointment by way 14 of ‘promotion’. Prior to Rajiv Kumar Gupta (supra), there was no authoritative pronouncement on the aspect of reservation in promotion. The interpretation of section 33 of the PwD Act, 1995 made by Rajiv Kumar Gupta (supra) finds its resonance in Siddaraju (supra)._ _**40** . There is, therefore, no dearth of authority for the proposition that the PwD Act, 1995 not only mandated reservation in appointment but also contemplated reservation in promotion.”_ 7. The claim of the petitioner for lateral reservation has been rejected mainly by citing Sub-Clause (ii) of Clause 8 of Anx.A6 G.O.(P) No.5/22/SJD dated 15.07.2022. The aforesaid Clause 8 of Anx.A6 G.O. reads as follows (see page No.28 of the paper book of this original petition):- _"8. Government after having examined the matter in detail are pleased to order as follows to provide reservation in promotion to employees who are Persons with Disabilities thereby complying with the directions in various judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court._ _i) Reservation in promotion shall be provided to employees who are Persons with Disabilities thereby complying with the various judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court._ _ii) Persons with Disabilities shall be provided reservation in promotion in those posts where appointment to the post is not only by direct recruitment but also by promotion(from feeder category)_ _(emphasis supplied)_ _iii) The Guidelines furnished by Director, Social Justice Department for providing reservation in promotion on the basis of Office Memorandum, issued by Central Government is approved (Guidelines for providing reservation in promaton to employees who are persons with disables in State Service is attached as Annexure)._ **O.P(KAT) No.312 of 2023** **7** _iv) Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department shall issue specific directions to amend the special rules and roster system of various departments._ _v) Director, Social Justice Department is directed to complete the fuctionality assessment, identity the posts suitable for Persons with Disabilities and place before the expert committee formed as per the order read as 3-paper above."_ 8. The main plea of the respondents before the Tribunal was that, in the instant case, appointment to the post of Deputy Director of Health Services, is solely by the method of promotion from the feeder category of Assistant Director. So, the specific finding of the Tribunal is that, since the method of appointment to the claimed post of Deputy Director is not by both the methods of appointment by direct recruitment and promotion, the claim for lateral reservation is only to be repelled. In other words, the plea is that lateral reservation for promotion to disabled candidates can be entertained in view of the abovesaid G.O., only if the method of appointment to the claimed promotion post is by both direct recruitment and by promotion and where the method of appointment is solely by promotion, etc., then such benefit of lateral reservation cannot be granted. The substratum of the argument is that the appropriate Government, like the State Government in the case of State Services, is authorised by the 1 st proviso to Sec.34 of the above said Central Act. Sec. 34 of the Rights of **O.P(KAT) No.312 of 2023** **8** ## Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 to give instructions and its 1[st] proviso reads as follows:- _“Sec.34._ _**Reservation** .—(1) Every appropriate Government shall appoint in every Government establishment, not less than four per cent. of the total number of vacancies in the cadre strength in each group of posts meant to be filled with persons with benchmark disabilities of which, one per cent. Each shall be reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities under clauses (a), (b) and (c) and one per cent for persons with benchmark disabilities under clauses (d) and (e), namely:—_ _(a) blindness and low vision;_ _(b) deaf and hard of hearing;_ _(c) locomotor disability including cerebral palsy, leprosy cured, dwarfism, acid attack victims and muscular dystrophy;_ _(d) autism, intellectual disability, specific learning disability and mental illness;_ _(e) multiple disabilities from amongst persons under clauses (a) to (d) including deaf-blindness in the posts identified for each disabilities:_ _Provided that the reservation in promotion shall be in accordance with such instructions as are issued by the appropriate Government from time to time:”_ _(emphasis supplied)_ 9. So, in other words, the argument of the respondents is that the first proviso to Sec.34 authorises the appropriate Government, like the State Government, to issue necessary instructions and that Clause 8 of Anx.A6 G.O., is one such directive or instruction of the State Government, which is the appropriate Government and that there should be strict compliance of the norms, which, according to the respondent-State authorities, which would be mandatory in view of the above said 1st proviso. The said pleas of the respondents are strongly **O.P(KAT) No.312 of 2023** **9** contended by Sri.P. Nandakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 10. After hearing both sides, the above said argument of the respondent-authrority is without any substance. It appears that, the case of the respondents may be that where the method of appointment to the claimed post in question is solely by the method of direct recruitment, then promotion norms may not be maintainable at all and therefore, claims for lateral reservation in such claimed promotion may also not be legally feasible. Presumably, it is in this perspective that the respondent authorities have framed Sub-clause (ii) of Clause 8 of Anx.A6 G.O., which intends to convey that, in a case where the method of appointment to the claimed promotion post is both by direct recruitment and promotion, then there may not be any inhibition or embargo for lateral reservation for promotion at least in the promotion quota. The said Clause 8(ii) of Anx.A6 cannot be even remotely meant to have the meaning that, where the method of appointment is solely by promotion, then also the claim of lateral reservation promotion is only to be denied on the specific ground that Clause 8(ii) supra is not fulfilled. The said argument is too hyper-technical to be countenanced, in the light of the radical jurisprudential perspectives rendered by the **O.P(KAT) No.312 of 2023** **10** Apex Court in a host of decisions, which are referred to in _**Leesamma**_ ’s case supra [(2021) 9 SCC 208], _**A.K. Nair**_ ’s case supra [2023 SCC online SC 801], etc. 11. It is to be borne in mind that, where the method of appointment is solely by promotion, then there is no question of denying the claim for lateral reservation in promotion, unless on the ground of non-suitability of DA candidates to hold such promotion post. It is also now the settled approach that, where the feeder category of the post in the promotion line is already identified as suitable for lateral reservation in the DA quota, then separate identification in the promotion post may not be required. We need not go in to those aspects, for the simple reason that the respondents have a case in Anx.A15 rejection order, that disabled persons, like the petitioner, is indeed otherwise eligible for holding the claimed post in question. Therefore, the above said interpretation, sought to be projected by the respondents before the Tribunal is to, say the least, palpably perverse and manifestly unreasonable. 12. The Tribunal has overlooked the above said crucial aspect of the matter and therefore, the impugned verdict of the Tribunal would deserve interdiction at the hands of this Court, in exercise of the **O.P(KAT) No.312 of 2023** **11** jurisdiction of judicial superintendence and supervision. In that view of the matter, it is ordered that the impugned Ext.P1 final order dated 26.06.2023, rendered by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram Bench in O.A. No.2147/2022 will stand set aside. Consequently, it is ordered that the impugned rejection order at Anx.A15 G.O.(Rt) No.2854/2022/H&FWD dated 02.12.2022, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for lateral reservation for promotion to the post of Deputy Director of Health Services, will stand set aside. 13. The claim of the petitioner for lateral reservation in promotion to the abovesaid post of Deputy Director of Health Services will stand remitted to the respondents for consideration and decision, in accordance with the directives already issued by the Tribunal in the previous round of litigation, as per Anx.A7 final order dated 02.08.2022 in O.A. No.1113/2020. Orders in that regard shall be duly passed by the competent authority among the respondents without much delay, preferably within a period of two months and at any rate, within an outer time limit of three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. If there is any undue delay in convening the DPC process, then the respondents will immediately consider the case of the petitioner for temporary/provisional promotion to the post **O.P(KAT) No.312 of 2023** **12** of Deputy Director of Health Services, in accordance with Rule 31 (a) - (i) of KS & SSR (Part-II). 14. However, it is also ordered that, the respondent will take all expeditious steps to ensure that the case of the petitioner, for regular promotion to the above said post, by lateral reservation, should be immediately placed before the DPC and the time limit of three months is inclusive of the time to be taken by the DPC decision making process as well. With these observations and directions, the above original petition will stand disposed of. Sd/- ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE** Sd/- **C. JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE** Skk//16082023 **O.P(KAT) No.312 of 2023** **13** ## **`APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 312/2023`** |`PETITIONER ANNEXURES`|`PETITIONER ANNEXURES`| |---|---| |`ANNEXURE A1`|`COPY OF THE PSC ADVISE LETTER NO. RIA (3)`| ||`24454/99/G.W. DT. 12.06.2003 ISSUED BY`| ||`THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.`| |`ANNEXURE A2`|`COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO. 738/2014/H&FWD`| ||`DT. 04.03.2014 ISSUED BY THE HEALTH AND`| ||`FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT AND COPY OF THE`| ||`G.O.(RT) NO. 1811/2022/H & FWD DT.`| ||`28.07.2022, POSTED AS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR`| ||`OF HEALTH SERVICES / DEPUTY`| ||`SUPERINTENDENT, DMH PEROORKADA.`| |`ANNEXURE A3`|`COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF MEDICAL BOARD`| ||`VIDE NO. 923/94 DT. 13.07.1994 OF THE`| ||`APPLICANT.`| |`ANNEXURE A4`|`COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE FOR THE PERSONS`| ||`WITH DISABILITIES NO. 11/05 DT.`| ||`16.03.2005 OF THE APPLICANT.`| |`ANNEXURE A5`|`COPY OF THE SALARY SLIP OF THE APPLICANT`| ||`FOR THE MONTH OF APRIL 2020 ISSUED BY THE`| ||`DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES.`| |`ANNEXURE A6`|`COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER ISSUED IN`| ||`G.O. (P) NO. 5/2022/SJD DATED 15/07/2022`| ||`PROVIDING RESERVATION IN PROMOTIONS TO`| ||`PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES IN STATE`| ||`SERVICES.`| |`ANNEXURE A7`|`COPY OF THE HON'BLE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE`| ||`TRIBUNAL'S ORDER IN OA1113/2020 DATED`| ||`02.08.2022.`| |`ANNEXURE A8`|`COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION AND THE COPY`| ||`OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT WHICH IS RECEIVED`| ||`FROM THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HEALTH AND`| ||`FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT FILE`| ||`NO.6420937, DATED 12.08.2022.`| |`ANNEXURE A9`|`COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO. RULES`| ||`1/136/2022/ P & ARD DATED 23.09.2022.`| |`ANNEXURE A10`|`COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O. NO.`| ||`222/2022/SJD DATED 27.09.2022.`| |`ANNEXURE A11`|`THE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO. G.O.`| ||`(P) NO. 54/2022/H&FWD DATED 13.10.2022.`| |`ANNEXURE A11(A)`|`THE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO. G.O.`| **O.P(KAT) No.312 of 2023** **14** - `NO. 2758/2022/H&FWD DATED 17.11.2022.` - `ANNEXURE A12 THE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT OA 1113/2020 MA 2237/2022 DATED 14.11.2022.` - `ANNEXURE A13 THE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT DATED 29.11.2022.` - `ANNEXURE A14 THE COPY OF THE HONOURABLE TRIBUNAL'S ORDER OA1113/20 MA2236/22, MA2237/22 DATED 29.11.2022.` - `ANNEXURE A15 COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO. G.O. (RT) NO. 2854/2022/H&FWD DATED 02.12.2022.` - `ANNEXURE A16 THE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN WP(C) NO. 5893 / 2022 DATED 15.09.2022` - `ANNEXURE A17 THE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN WP(C) NO. 3622 / 2021 DATED 10.05.2022.` - `ANNEXURE A18 THE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN RAJIV KUMAR GUPTA & OTHERS V. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. REPORTED IN 2016 (3) KLT 263.` - `ANNEXURE A19 THE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN UNION OF INDIA V. NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND REPORTED IN 2013 (4) ILR KERALA 279.` - `ANNEXURE A20 THE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN SARITHA S. BABU VS STATE OF KERALA ARISING OUT OF WP(C).NO.7932/2014 DATED 09.10.14` - `ANNEXURE A21 THE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM NO. 36012/1/2020-ESTT. (RES.-II), GOVN'T OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF PERSONAL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS DEPARTMENT OF PERSONAL AND TRAINING.` - `ANNEXURE A22 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN GOVERNMENT OF INDIA V. RAVI PRAKASH GUPTA REPORTED IN (2010) 7 SCC 626.` - `ANNEXURE A23 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN STATE OF KERALA AND ORS. VS. LEESAMMA JOSEPH, ARISING OUT OF CIVIL APPEAL NO. 59 OF 2021 DATED 28.06.2021` **O.P(KAT) No.312 of 2023** **15** ``` ANNEXURE A24COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN JOMY JOSEPH V. STATE OF KERALA IN WP(C) NO. 8126 / 2020 DATED 17/03/2022. ``` ``` ANNEXURE A25THE COPY OF GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O (P) NO. 69/10/H&FWD DATED 17.02.2010. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.06.2023 IN OA NO. 2147 OF 2022 ON THE FILE OF THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ``` ``` EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF TRUE COPY OF ORIGINAL APPLICATION OA NO. 2147 OF 2022. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 06.03.2023 ``` ``` EXHIBIT P4TRUE COPY OF REJOINDER FILED BY THE APPLICANT DATED 21.03.2023 ```