Sunil Kumar B. and Shiji Francis v. Cochin University of Science and Technology and others
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- P.V.ASHA
- Judgment Date
- 2020-08-24
- Court Decision / Holding
- The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be a direction to the University to compute the 1% vacancies available for the candidates with locomotor disability reckoning the vacancies for the period from 07.02.1996 and to make appointments from Ext.P3 rank list within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.
- Final Disposition
- Writ Petition disposed of in terms of the directions issued by the court directing the University to compute and fill 1% locomotor disability vacancies from 07.02.1996 via Ext.P3 within two months.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Sunil Kumar B.
- Shiji Francis
Respondents
- Cochin University of Science and Technology
- The Vice Chancellor, Cochin University of Science and Technology
- Kerala Public Service Commission
- State of Kerala
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Ameer K. M.
- • O. A. Nuriya
- • M. J. Jesna
Counsels for Respondents
- • P. M. Manoj
- • P. C. Sasidharan
Case Synopsis & Summary
The petitioners, Sunil Kumar B. and Shiji Francis, are differently abled and seek appointment to the post of Sweeper cum Cleaner in the Cochin University. They are included in Ext.P3, which lists four candidates with locomotor disability and one with hearing impairment as eligible for special reservation under Government Orders dated 06.05.2017 (G.O. (P) No.8/17/S.J.D) and an addendum to Ext.P2 published on 28.12.2018, based on a 2008 notification. Due to a history of litigation, appointments could not be made, and the University asserted that 43 vacancies arising after 01.01.2008 were allotted, with 1 vacancy reserved for blind/low vision and 34 for hearing impairment; a further vacancy remained unfilled per an interim order in a separate matter. The University claimed backlog vacancies for differently abled could not be filled under Government Orders in force and urged special recruitment, while citing that PSC does not govern the Sweeper cum Cleaner post. It relied on Ext.R1 and Ext.P6 to show governmental directions to fill backlog vacancies. The petition argues that the 3% quota under the 1995 Act and the 4% quota under the 2016 Act mandate filling vacancies for differently abled, with Supreme Court precedents directing prompt compliance. The court directs filling of backlog and mandates computation of 1% locomotor disability vacancies from 07.02.1996, with appointments from Ext.P3 to be made within two months, disposing of the petition accordingly.
Provisions of Law Cited
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- Obligation of authorities to fill up vacancies earmarked for the disabled under the 1995 Act and the 2016 Act
- Directives to compute vacancies for disabled persons and implement them promptly, with compliance reporting
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioners, as differently abled individuals included in Ext.P3, contend they are entitled to appointment on the basis of the 3% quota under the 1995 Act and the 4% quota under the RPWD Act, and that backlog vacancies arising since 1996 should be filled from the rank lists Ext.P2 and Ext.P3. They rely on government circulars/Orders (Ext.P6) directing fill-up of vacancies for differently abled and on Supreme Court precedents that mandate compliance with disability reservation and prompt implementation, including directives to identify eligible posts and fill them within a defined period. They allege the University failed to appoint eligible candidates and attempted to circumvent by relying on Government Orders that allegedly constrain filling backlog vacancies.
Contentions of Respondents
The University asserts that Ext.P2 and Ext.P3 have filled 43 vacancies since 2008, with one vacancy for blind/low vision unavailable and 34 filled by hearing-impaired candidates from Ext.P3; one vacancy remains unfilled per an interim order. It argues backlog vacancies require special recruitment and cannot be filled under existing orders, and that PSC does not govern the Sweeper cum Cleaner post. It cites the 1995 and 2016 Acts to justify quotas but contends that the University must follow statutory prescriptions via proper channels and that without government permission, filling backlog would contravene the orders. It also references government circulars and directives to show compliance is a State obligation.
Cited Precedents (8)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Govt. of India v. Ravi Prakash Gupta | (2010) 7 SCC 626 | Positive | Used to emphasize the duty of the state to fill vacancies earmarked for disabled persons and the requirement to implement disability reservations. |
| Union of India v. National Federation of the Blind | (2013) 10 SCC 772 | Positive | Cited for directing computation and implementation of vacancies and compliance with disability reservations. |
| Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation v. Union of India | (2014) 14 SCC 383 | Positive | Cited as authority reinforcing prompt compliance with disability provisions. |
| Rajeev Kumar Gupta v. Union of India | (2016) 13 SCC 153 | Positive | Cited to support obligations to fill disabled vacancies under statutory acts. |
| Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation v. Union of India | (2017) 14 SCC 1 | Positive | Used to underscore duty of states to comply with the 2016 Act and related directives. |
| National Federation of the Blind v. Union of India | (2013) 10 SCC 772 | Positive | Directs timely identification and filling of posts for disabled persons. |
| Dineshan E. v. State of Kerala and Others | 2014(4)KHC 988 | Positive | Affirms fill-up of backlog vacancies in government-related bodies. |
| Kerala Public Service Commission v. E. Dineshan and Others | 2016(2) KHC 910 | Positive | Supports the principle that backlog vacancies for disabled should be filled in compliance with disability statutes. |
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 Sunil Kumar B. and Shiji Francis v. Cochin University of Science and Technology and others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.