Resmi Devi R vs State Of Kerala

Mohammed Nias.C.P., J.

This original petition is filed by the applicant in OA No.614 of 2022 challenging the dismissal of her application filed, inter alia, to declare that she is entitled to get appointment to the post of Lower Primary School Assistant (LPSA) under the quota earmarked to the dependants of the disabled defence personnel and also to direct the respondents to revive the practice of publishing a separate special list for the dependants of the defence personnel for appointment in Government service.

The applicant, the unmarried daughter of an ex-serviceman, had acquired the TTC qualification during the year 2000-2002 at the quota earmarked for the depandants of the defence personnel. She applied pursuant to the notification issued by the Public Service Commission for appointment to the post of LPSA and has been included in the supplementary list for Ezhava community with little chance for getting appointment. The applicant's case was that her father while working in the CRPF as Radio Operator sustained a fatal injury in a mine explosion following which he was invalidated from service from 1981. Though her name has been sponsored by the employment exchange and that she had participated in the test conducted by the PSC, because of the position of her rank , she will not be able to get employment on merit. It is her case that PSC is not publishing a special list for the candidates coming under the dependants of defence personnel. It is her further contention that Government Order No.915/2022/G.EDN , Anenxure A3 dated 18.2.2022 as well as Government Order dated 26.9.1999 and the order dated 24.9.2002 will come to the aid of the applicant in getting an employment going by the terms of the said Orders. She had approached the Tribunal on an earlier occasion by filing OA No.2328 of 2021 wherein there was a direction to consider her representation, but the same was rejected by the Government, that was challenged in the present O.A.

The Tribunal considered the matter and found that the applicant was claiming the benefit of G.O.(P) 110/2002/GAD dated 29.4.2022, Annexure A4 which formulated a scheme for providing employment assistance to the dependants of defence personnel and GREF/BSF personnel attached to military duty, killed/disabled/missing due to reasons attributable to military service at peace time and the said scheme provided for appointment of the dependants to the post in the Lowest Grade of III / IV subordinate service. The Tribunal found that the said scheme does not provide for any employment when recruitment for the public appointments is made by the PSC. It is also found that the beneficiaries of the Scheme were those persons coming under the defence ministry whereas, paramilitary force of CRPF was under the control of Home Ministry and the appellant cannot be termed as one coming under 'defence personnel'. It is also found that the clarification issued by the Government in G.O.(P) 450/1999/GAD, also cannot be made applicable to the applicant as the same envisaged only providing financial benefits under a welfare fund created for the dependants of the defence personnel. Since these schemes cannot have the effect of creating reserved quota for public employment, wherein selection and advise is made through PSC, the Tribunal found that the applicant cannot get any benefit from the said scheme. The Tribunal also found that the applicant cannot as a matter of right claim that the State should provide specified quota reserved of public employment to persons like her whose parents were disabled while working in the para-military force of CRPF. The Tribunal felt that such matters come within the realm of policy decisions of the Government, upon which the courts cannot compel the Government to formulate any policy. On these grounds, the Tribunal dismissed the application which is challenged in this original petition.

Before us, the learned counsel for the petitioner/ applicant reiterated the contentions taken before the Tribunal and made a further submission that the Government Orders referred above is to be followed by the PSC while making recruitment to the posts mentioned in the Government Orders and should carve out separate quota for them as otherwise the benefits conferred by the said Government Orders will not be effectuated. It is his further submission that the Government ought to give her employment as mandated by the above Orders, even if the applicant is not considered for recruitment by the PSC. We cannot agree to any of the above submissions. We are in complete agreement with the view of the Tribunal that the Government Orders referred above are not applicable to the applicant's case in as much as it pertains only to the defence personnel and it has nothing to do with the recruitment conducted by the PSC. Still further, the applicant does not belong to the category mentioned in the said orders as her father is stated to have worked in the para military force of CRPF, which comes under the Home ministry. Further prayer of the applicant that the Government should be directed to give the benefits of the orders to her also cannot be accepted as no right is provided under the said orders to order so. With respect to the prayer of the applicant that a separate quota should be reserved for public employment to persons like her, as rightly found by the Tribunal, it is a matter of policy which cannot be dictated by the Courts. We find nothing wrong in the order of the Tribunal dismissing the application preferred by the petitioner.

The Original Petition (KAT) lacks merits and the same is dismissed.