High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-06-10Disposed of with directions as stated above

P.V. Bharathy v. Disciplinary Authority Kalpetta, Wayanad District & Gopi M s/o Velii (WP(C) Nos. 25000 of 2012 and 3629 of 2014)

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) Nos. 25000 of 2012 and 3629 of 2014

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P.V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date: 2024-06-10
Court Decision / Holding: WP( C) Nos. 25000 of 2012 & 3629 of 2014 disposed of by common judgment with directions: (i) forward the disability certificate to the disciplinary authority forthwith; (ii) the disciplinary authority to proceed with Ext. P3 based on the disability certificate after providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner in WP( C) No.25000/2012, with liberty to challenge the validity of the certificate; (iii) WP(C) No.3629/2014 disposed by directing the 1st respondent to ensure there is no illegal appointment in the post earmarked for physically handicapped persons; (iv) the 1st respondent to follow due process in all actions arising from the disability/appointment issues; (v) the court notes a related judgment in W.P.(C). No. 6566/2014 (Omana’s case). The court’s directions emphasize due process, validity of disability certification, and appointment propriety, while keeping contentions open for final adjudication.
Final Disposition: Disposed of with directions as stated above

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

P.V. Bharathy
Gopi M s/o VelIi

Respondents

Disciplinary Authority Kalpetta, Wayanad District
Enquiry Officer, Judge Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kalpetta, Wayanad District
State of Kerala represented by Secretary to Government, Law Department, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram
Registrar, Subordinate Judiciary, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
Superintendent (Chairman, Appellate Medical Board, Kerala), Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram
State of Kerala represented by Chief Secretary to Government, Government of Kerala
Secretary to Government Department of P&ARD, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram
District Collector, Wayanad
District Judge, Wayanad
Chief Engineer HRM, Kerala State Electricity Board, Thiruvananthapuram
Bharathi Process Server, District Court, Kalpetta
Omana Typist, KSEB, Padinjarethara, Wayanad

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri S. Sreekumar (Sr.)
• Sri Manoj Ramaswamy
• Sri Kaleeswaram Raj

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri Elvin Peter P.J., Government Pleader
• Sri K.R. Ganesh
• Sri T.G. Sunil Pranavam
• Sri M.K. Thankappan
• Sri Manoj Ramaswamy
• Sri M. Sasindran
• Sri V.K. Sunil

Case Synopsis & Summary

Connected writ petitions challenge disciplinary actions and disability-certification procedures affecting a Head Clerk (P.V. Bharathy) and a physically handicapped applicant (Gopi M). The court records that Bharathy was issued a memo of charge (Ext. P1) and was directed to appear before an appellate Medical Board for disability assessment (Ext. P3), with Exts. P4 and P6 critical in the challenge. WP(C) No.3629/2014, filed by the physically disabled applicant, seeks termination of certain respondents related to appointments and advocates appointment of more physically disabled candidates. In 2024, the court suo motu impleaded the Chairman of the Appellate Medical Board and directed the Board to furnish the disability certificate to the court, while keeping all contentions open for adjudication at final disposal. The judgments for both petitions dispose with directions: (i) forward the disability certificate to the disciplinary authority; (ii) the disciplinary authority to proceed under Ext. P3 after providing hearing, while petitioner may challenge the certificate’s validity; (iii) ensure no illegal appointments to posts earmarked for physically handicapped persons; and (iv) the matter may refer to a related judgment (W.P.(C). No. 6566/2014) in Omana’s case. Overall, the decision emphasizes due process, validity of disability certification, and appointment propriety, with final orders framed to balance right to challenge and administrative fairness.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

In WP( C) No.25000/2012, the petitioner contends that Ext. P3 (disability assessment) and Exts. P4 and P6 were issued without due process and seeks quashing and a mandamus to reconsider the action, with stay on further proceedings and a challenge to the disability certificate’s validity; she also seeks relief to have the disciplinary process stayed until proper hearing. In WP( C) No.3629/2014, the petitioner contends for termination of particular respondents in the light of Ext. P4 and seeks appointment of physically disabled persons to suitable posts; she also prays for any necessary direction to secure relief for similarly situated individuals.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argue that the disability assessment was properly ordered and that the disciplinary process should proceed with Ext. P3 after due notice and opportunity; they seek to uphold appointments where legally valid and to ensure no illegality in appointments to physically disabled posts; they contend that the court may direct proper action in accordance with law and that the Board’s findings should be considered in final adjudication.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

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 P.V. Bharathy v. Disciplinary Authority Kalpetta, Wayanad District & Gopi M s/o Velii (WP(C) Nos. 25000 of 2012 and 3629 of 2014) and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **MONDAY, THE 10[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 20TH JYAISHTA, 1946** ## **WP(C) NO. 25000 OF 2012** ## **PETITIONER:** **P.V.BHARATHY** **HEAD CLERK SUB COURT SULTHANBATHERY WAYANAD DISTRICT RESIDING AT PURAKKADY MEENANGADI P.O SULTHANBATHERI WAYANAD DISTRICT** **BY ADVS. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.) SRI.MANOJ RAMASWAMY** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY KALPETTA WAYANAD DISTRICT 673 101** - **2 THE ENQUIRY OFFICER JUDGE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL KALPETTA WAYANAD DISTRICT 673 001** - **3 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT LAW DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001** - **4 THE REGISTRAR SUBORDINATE JUDICIARY HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM 682031** - **5 THE SUPERINTENDENT (CHAIRMAN, APPELLATE MEDICAL BOARD, KERALA) , MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 011. *ADDL.R5 IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 14/02/2024 IN WP(C) 25000/2012.** **BY ADVS. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. SRI.K.R.GANESH SRI.T.G.SUNIL PRANAVAM** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SRI.V.K.SUNIL, SR.GP** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.06.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).3629/2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P (C) Nos.25000 of 2012 & 3629 of 2014 2 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **MONDAY, THE 10[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 20TH JYAISHTA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 3629 OF 2014** ## **PETITIONER:** **GOPI M S/O. VELLI, EKKAMUNDA HOUSE, NALLOORNADU P.O., MANANTHAVADY, WAYANAD-670 645.** ## **BY ADV SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** - **2 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF P & ARD, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.** - **3 DISTRICT COLLECTOR WAYANAD-670 001.** - **4 DISTRICT JUDGE WAYANAD-670 001.** - **5 CHIEF ENGINEER HRM KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** - **6 BHARATHI PROCESS SERVER, DISTRICT COURT, KALPETTA-673 121.** - **7 OMANA TYPIST, KSEB, PADINJARETHARA, WAYANAD-673 575.** **BY ADVS. SRI.M.K.THANKAPPAN, SC, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMIT SRI.MANOJ RAMASWAMY SRI.M.SASINDRAN** **SRI.V.K.SUNIL, SR.GP** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.06.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).25000/2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P (C) Nos.25000 of 2012 & 3629 of 2014 3 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -** W.P (C) Nos.25000 of 2012 & 3629 of 2014 **- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -** Dated this the 10[th] day of June, 2024 ## **JUDGMENT** These two writ petitions are connected and therefore, I am disposing of these two writ petitions by a common judgment. 2. I narrates the facts in WP(C) No.25000/2012. This writ petition is filed with the following prayers:- _“i) A writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order to call for the records leading to the issue of Exhibit P3 and set aside the same._ _ii. A writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order to call for the records leading to the issue of Exhibit P4 and Exhibit P6 and set aside the same._ _iii. A Writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order to direct the 1st respondent to reconsider Exhibit P6 and pass appropriate orders on Exhibit P3 within a time frame and keep in abeyance all further proceedings pursuant to Exhibit P3 till then._ _iv. Any other further relief or order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to meet the ends of justice._ _v. Award the cost of these proceedings._ _vi. Call for the records leading to the issue of Exhibit P1 and quash the same."._ W.P (C) Nos.25000 of 2012 & 3629 of 2014 4 3. The petitioner, who was working as a Bench Clerk (Grade I) at Additional District and Sessions Court (Adhoc)-I, Kalpetta, was working as Head Clerk, Sub Court, Sulthan Bathery, Wayanad at the time of filing this writ petition. She was served with Ext.P1 memo of charge. The same was issued in connection with the allegation raised by the Handicapped Association before the Kerala Legislative Assembly Committee alleging that there is illegality in appointing persons under the handicapped section. Consequent to Ext.P1, the petitioner was directed to appear before the appellate Medical Board, Thiruvananthapuram for assessment of her disability. The petitioner is aggrieved by the same. Hence, this writ petition is filed. 4. WP(C) No.3629/2014 is filed by a person, who is a physically handicapped with 40% disability. This writ petition is filed with the following prayers:- _i) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 5 to terminate the service of respondents 6 and 7 on the basis of the findings in Ext.P4 series and such other reports._ _ii) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents No.1 to 5 to take necessary steps/action to appoint persons like the petitioner who are the intended beneficiaries in the post earmarked for physically disabled persons._ W.P (C) Nos.25000 of 2012 & 3629 of 2014 5 _iii) To issue such other orders, directions or writs as may be prayed for and that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit on the facts and circumstances of the case.”_ 5. When W.P.(C) No.25000/2012 came up for consideration on 14.02.2024, this Court passed the following order:- _“The Superintendent, Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram (Chairman, Appellate Medical Board, Kerala) is Suo motu impleaded as additional 5[th] respondent._ _The 5[th] respondent is directed to issue notice to the petitioner to appear before the Medical Board to assess her disability._ _The 5[th] respondent will forward the report to this Court within three weeks. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. The admissibility of the report also can be decided at the time of deciding the matter finally._ _Post on 21/03/2024.”_ Based on the same, the petitioner appeared before the Medical Board and Medical Board forwarded a disability certificate. The petitioner in this writ petition is challenging Exts.P3, P4 and P6 proceedings of the disciplinary authority directing her to appear before the Medial Board. Now, the petitioner already appeared before the Medical Board and the Board submitted a report. In W.P (C) Nos.25000 of 2012 & 3629 of 2014 6 such circumstances, the disciplinary authority has to consider the matter with notice to the petitioner. The petitioner is free to raise her contention before the disciplinary authority, if she is aggrieved by the report of the Medical Board. All the contentions raised by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.25000/2012 are left open. 6. As far as W.P.(C) No.3629/2014 is concerned, the petitioner is challenging the appointment of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.25000/2012 and one Omana, Typist, Kerala State Electricity Board. As far as the Omana's case is concerned, this Court considered the matter in detail as per judgment dated 14.02.2024 in W.P.(C) No.6566/2014. As far as the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.25000/2012 is concerned, the disciplinary authority will do the needful in accordance with law. Moreover, the 1[st] respondent will also see that there is no illegal appointment is made in the post earmarked for physically disabled persons. Strict orders will be passed to that effect. 7. Therefore, W.P.(C) No.25000/2012 is disposed of with the following directions:- _1. The Registry will forward the disability certificate received from the Government Medical College Hospital to the disciplinary authority forthwith._ W.P (C) Nos.25000 of 2012 & 3629 of 2014 **==> picture [7 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** _2. The disciplinary authority will proceed with Ext.P3 based on the disability certificate now received and pass appropriate orders, after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.25000/2012. The petitioner is also free to challenge the validity of the disability certificate before the disciplinary authority._ W.P.(C) No.3629/2014 is disposed of directing the 1[st] respondent to see that there is no illegal appointment to the post earmarked for physically handicapped persons. Sd/- **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** bng W.P (C) Nos.25000 of 2012 & 3629 of 2014 8 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3629/2014** ## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF THE SSLC BOOK OF THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ID CARD ISSUED BY THE TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT PERTAINING TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DISABILITY CERTIFICATE PERTAINS TO THE PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT P4 TO TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.28.12.2010 P4(I) ALONG WITH MEDICAL REPORT PERTAINING TO RESPONDENT 6 AND OTHERS** **EXHIBIT P5 AND TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS PAPER REPORTS. P5(A) RESPONDENT EXHIBITS EXHIBIT R3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 04.04.2011 EXHIBIT R3(B) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20.03.2011 EXHIBIT R3(C) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT JUDGE TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR DATED 17.09.2012. EXHIBIT R3(D) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 04.07.2012 EXHIBIT R3(E) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER LETTER DATED 23.10.2013 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR EXHIBIT R3(F) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21.02.2014 EXHIBIT R4(A) TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ISSUED BY THIS RESPONDENT DATED 03.09.2012 EXHIBIT R4(B) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28.09.2012 ISSUED BY THE MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** W.P (C) Nos.25000 of 2012 & 3629 of 2014 9 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25000/2012** ## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** **EXHIBIT P-1 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO CHARGE NO.B14437/2011 DATED 23.09.2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P-2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 03.10.2011 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P-3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. B1-4437/2011 DATED 03.09.2012 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P- 4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.G2.8817/2012/MCH ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER ON 12.10.2012 EXHIBIT P-5 TRUE COPY OF THE SUBMISSION DATED 10.10.2012 (THROUGH PROPER CHANNEL) EXHIBIT P-6 TRUE COPY OF THE O.M.VIDE NO.B14437/2011 DATED 16.10.2012**