Krishnaiyer H. v. The Secretary to Government Higher Education Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram; Kerala Public Service Commission; State of Kerala; The Director, Directorate of Collegiate Education
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- A. M. Shaffique
- Gopinath P.
- Judgment Date
- 2020-08-07
- Court Decision / Holding
- OP(KAT) No.167/2020 is dismissed.
- Final Disposition
- Dismissed
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Krishnaiyer H.
Respondents
- The Secretary to Government Higher Education Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram
- The Kerala Public Service Commission, represented by the Secretary, Pattom P.O., Thiruvananthapuram
- State of Kerala, represented by the Secretary, Department of Social Justice, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram
- The Director, Directorate of Collegiate Education, Thiruvananthapuram
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Sri S. Mohammed Al Rafi
- • Sri J. M. Deepak
Counsels for Respondents
- • Sri. T. Rajasekharan Nair (Sr. Counsel)
- • Sri. P. C. Sasidharan (Sr. Counsel)
Case Synopsis & Summary
Krishnaiyer H., a person with 71% permanent disability due to bilateral hearing impairment, sought appointment as a Supporting Artist in Mridangam for Kerala Natanam under the 2015 notification (Category 212/2015) issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission. A 3% reservation for differently abled candidates was specified, with an addendum later clarifying eligibility for hearing impairment. In the same recruitment cycle, a concurrent selection (Category 508/2013) for Mridangam for Bharatanatyam in the Kerala Collegiate Education Department was conducted, producing two separate rank lists—one for blindness/low vision and another for hearing impairment. Rakend T., who had blindness, was selected and joined the post for the blindness category and relinquished the Mridangam for Dance (Kerala Natanam); he did not join the other post, and the vacancy was treated as Non Joining Duty (NJD). The petitioner’s claim to be considered in the hearing impairment vacancy was rejected on grounds of inter-category carry-forward rules. OA 1950/2019 before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal was dismissed. The High Court, examining the interplay of the Persons with Disabilities Acts (1995 and 2016) and the carry-forward/interchange provisions, held that carry-forward governs vacancy filling and interchange is permissible only when a vacancy is carried forward and no eligible candidate remains in any year. The petition is dismissed, upholding the Tribunal’s order.
Provisions of Law Cited
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioner contends that when a notification identifies differently abled candidates and only a single vacancy exists, if the selected candidate does not join, the vacancy should be offered to the next eligible differently abled candidate from the same roster. Reliance is placed on Union of India and Another v. National Federation of the Blind and Others (2013) 10 SCC 772 and a Division Bench decision in Kerala Public Service Commission and Another v. E. Dineshan and Others (DB) to argue that carry-forward and interchange principles apply to fill vacancies in subsequent years. The petitioner asserts that Rakend T.’s non-join would entitle him to the vacancy, and the Tribunal’s dismissal of OA 1950/2019 misapplied the statutory framework.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents contend that the vacancy was correctly treated as Non Joining Duty and that, under the statutory scheme, a vacancy which cannot be filled in a given recruitment year is carried forward to the next year, and only if no suitable candidate is available in the next year can an interchange between categories occur. They argue that Rakend T. joined the other post in the visually impaired category or did not become available for interchange; the roster and the 1995 Act’s carry-forward provisions, reinforced by the 2016 Act’s benchmark disability framework, govern the filling of such vacancies. The Tribunal’s approach was correct, and the petition should be dismissed.
Cited Precedents (2)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Union of India and Another v. National Federation of the Blind and Others | (2013) 10 SCC 772 | Mentioned Only | Cited for persuasive authority by petitioner; the judgment's ratio is not expressly adopted or applied in the High Court's reasoning. |
| Kerala Public Service Commission and Another v. E. Dineshan and Others | 2016 (2) KHC 910 (DB) | Mentioned Only | Cited as persuasive authority; no explicit application or distinction made in the High Court's analysis. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Krishnaiyer H. v. The Secretary to Government Higher Education Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram; Kerala Public Service Commission; State of Kerala; The Director, Directorate of Collegiate Education and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.