Muralee Krishna, J.

1. The 5th respondent in O.A.No.2295 of 2023 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram (the ‘Tribunal’ for short) filed this original petition, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging Ext.P4 order dated 08.04.2025 passed by the Tribunal in that original application.

2. The 1st respondent-applicant is a differently abled person with 80% permanent locomotor disability. As per the pleadings in the original application, he has the qualifications of B.Tech in Electronics and Communication Engineering and M.Tech in Digital Communication. He was appointed as Engineering Assistant (Electronics) in the Public Works Department (‘PWD’ for short) on contract basis as per order dated 03.03.2020 of the 5th respondent Chief Engineer, Administration of PWD with effect from 11.03.2020 and was discharged from service on 27.06.2023. In the meanwhile, the petitioner Kerala Public Service Commission (‘KPSC’ for short), by Annexure A4 notification dated 15.11.2019, invited applications for the post of Engineering Assistants (Electronics)/Overseer Grade-I (Electronics) in PWD. The 1st respondent-applicant who applied for the post appeared for the objective type test conducted on 28.12.2021, and he claimed reservation benefits under the quota of differently abled persons. But in Annexure A5 short list dated 12.10.2022 and Annexure A6 ranked list dated 09.03.2023 published by the KPSC, the 1st respondent is not included.

                  2.1. The 1st respondent then sought the reasons for his non-inclusion in the select list and ranked list under the quota of differently abled persons from the petitioner under the Right to Information Act by submitting Annexure A7 application dated 04.02.2023. By Annexure A8 letter dated 22.02.2023, the appellate authority of the petitioner informed the 1st respondent that the post of Engineering Assistant/Overseer Grade I (Electronics) in PWD is not identified as suitable for D.A. Reservation. The 1st respondent pleads that the 4th respondent Director, Social Justice Department, after conducting a functionality assessment, decided to identify the post of Engineering Assistant/Overseer Grade I (Electronics) in PWD as suitable for D.A. Reservation and accordingly called for the opinion of the public and organisations as per Annexure A9 press release dated 20.09.2023. In that press release, the post of Engineering Assistant/Overseer Grade I (Electronics) is shown as Sub Engineer (Electronics). At present, there is no post named Sub Engineer in the PWD. But the 11th Pay Commission in its report recommended to redesignate the post of Engineering Assistant (Electronics) in PWD as Sub Engineer (Electronics).

                  2.2. Aggrieved by the non-identification of the post of Engineering Assistant/Overseer Grade I (Electronics) in PWD as suitable for Differently Abled candidates, the 1st respondent submitted Annexure A10 representation dated 04.10.2023 before the 4th respondent, the Director, Social Justice Department. It was pointed out in Annexure A10 that since the post was already occupied by the 1st respondent, who is a person with a benchmark disability, in view of Annexure A11 notification No.38-16/2020-DD-III dated 14.01.2021 issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India, the post shall be deemed to be identified. It is also pleaded by the 1st respondent that in Annexure A11 it is stipulated that if a post is identified in the feeder category all the posts in the promotional grade should also stand identified and if a post having identical nature and place of job with respect to any identified post, the post should be construed to be identified even if the post has a different nomenclature and/or is placed in a different group. Being aggrieved by the non-consideration of appointment as Engineering Assistant/Overseer Grade I (Electronics) in PWD by granting reservation as provided under the provisions of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act 1995 and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, the 1st respondent filed the original applicaiton under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:

                  “1. declare that the applicant is entitled to be appointed as Engineering Assistant/Overseer Gr.I (Electronics) in PWD, in terms of Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Act, 2016.

                  2. declare that the post of Engineering Assistant/Overseer Gr.I (Electronics) in PWD is to be identified as suitable for appointment of persons with locomotor disability in view of Annexure A11 notification.

                  3. direct the respondents 2 and 3 to identify the post of Engineering Assistant/Overseer Gr.I (Electronics) in PWD as suitable for appointment of the persons with locomotor disability forthwith.

                  4. Direct the 5th respondent to include the name of the applicant in Annexure A6 ranked list considering the post of Engineering Assistant/Overseer Gr.I (Electronics) in PWD is identified as suitable for appointment of persons with locomotor disability and advise him for appointment based on the position to be assigned to him in the ranked list within a time limit to be fixed by this Hon'ble Tribunal.

                  5. Direct the 5th respondent to conduct selection in order to fill up the existing and the back log vacancies reserved for differently abled persons considering the post of Engineering Assistant/Overseer Gr.I (Electronics) in PWD identified as suitable for appointment of differently abled persons with locomotor disability within a time limit to be fixed by this Hon'ble tribunal.

                  6. Direct the respondents 1 and 4 to appoint the applicant as Engineering Assistant/Overseer Gr.I (Electronics) under the quota reserved for differently abled persons within a time limit to be fixed by this Hon'ble Tribunal”.

                  2.3. On behalf of the petitioner-5th respondent a reply statement dated 08.04.2025 was filed in the original application opposing the reliefs sought for. Paragraphs 8 to 19 of that reply statement read thus;

                  “8. As the State Government is the authority to identify a post for DA reservation, it is up to the State Govt to issue orders so as to initiate either 3% or 4% reservation to DA candidates as per the directions in Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

                  9. As the impugned post was not yet identified as suitable for any of the DA categories in PWD Department at the time of notification, advice and appointment for DA candidates under 3%/4% reservation list cannot be made.

                  10.Vide IO dated 21.12.2023, the direction is to the Director, Social Justice Dept to take steps to identify the post of Engineering Assistant ( Electronics) for the appointment of differently abled candidateSection But so far the impugned post is not identified for DA reservation.

                  11.Vide IO dated 20/06/2024, Respondents 1 and 4 (State of Kerala , (PWD) & Chief Engineer Administration, PWD) are directed to communicate the identification of the post to PSC and also that the post of Engineering Assistant is same as that of Sub Engineer (Electronics) in PWD and the identification would apply to the post notified in Annexure A4 notification within a week.

                  12. In compliance with the direction in IO dated 20.06.2024, the chief Engineer , PWD vide letter dated 25.06.2024 informed that on perusing the pay revision order dated 10.02.2021, in the pages pertaining to PWD (pages from 307 to 311) the post Engineering Assistant (Electronics) is not renamed as Sub Engineer (Electronics). Moreover, in the page no.309 where the pay scale is mentioned, the designation Engineering Assistant (Electronics) is given.

                  13. However vide the above-mentioned letter, the Chief Engineer PWD 4 informed that the post of Draftsman Gr l/Overseer Gr l (Electrical and Electronics) in PWD, which is included as Sl.No 241 for 4% DA reservation in GO(P)No. 5/2024 is equivalent to the post in question. It deserves notice that Respondents 1 and 4 have not intimated PSC that post of Engineering Assistant is same as that of Sub Engineer (Electronics) in PWD and the identification would apply to the post notified in Annexure A4 notification within a week as directed by the court. It can be seen that the post is so far not identified for DA reservation.

                  14.As per GO(P) 5/2024/ SJD dated 07.02.2024., Government identified the sub engineer (electronics) and overseer Gr I as suitable for 4% DA reservation including the categories of Deaf/Hard of hearing, LD/CP, Mental Illness and for Multiple Disabilities involving above combinations. However the impugned post has not been identified for DA reservation upto this time. In connection with the above matter, it is further submitted that the Social Justice Department itself had earlier issued general direction with regard to effecting DA reservation in selections, vide G.O(P)No.15/2020/SJD dated 14.08.2020, wherein it was ordered that if a post is identified for DA reservation on or before the date of issuance of Notification for that post, reservation shall be made applicable to the selection for that post. Even if the identification is done after the date of notification, DA reservation shall be made applicable only to the subsequent notifications issued by the Commission. As the post was not identified as suitable for any DA categories either in accordance with Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 or with Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 during the entire selection process, advice and appointment cannot be made for the impugned post by the Commission, which is in order. It may also be noted that the impugned post, Engineering assistant is neither included in this GO nor renamed as Sub Engineer (Electronics)/Overseer Gr.l (Electircal & Electronics).

                  15. It is submitted that PWD authorities have not intimated that the post of Engineering Assistant/Overseer Gr. I (Electronics) in PWD for which notification has been published as per cat.No. 192/2019 is the same as that with nomenclature as Sub Engineer (Electronics). Despite this, PWD authorities have intimated that the post of Draftsman Gr I/Overseer Gr I (Electrical & Electronics) in PWD is equivalent to the post in question, which cannot be accepted. PSC can grant DA benefit to a post only, if that particular post is identified for DA reservation.

                  16. As the notified post of Engineering Assistant (Electronics)/Overseer Grade I (Electronics) in PWD ((Electronics Wing) under Cat No. 192/2019 as submitted as Annexure A4 in the OA has not yet been identified as suitable for DA reservation, PSC could not notify the post as suitable for DA reservation.

                  17.The Commission have conducted selection process to the impugned post strictly in adherence with the Special rules, Circulars, and relevant GOs existing at the time. That is, at the time of publication of Notification for the impugned post and also during the finalization of selection by PSC, there was no Government Order existing with regard to the implementation of 4% reservation. There is no illegality or impropriety on the part of the Commission in conducting selection process to a notified post in accordance with the existing Rules and relevant Govt Order.

                  18.It is submitted that 4% reservation can be given to DA candidates only after the framing of the rules for implementation by the State Government followed by intimation of the same to PSC. Only if the Government issue an order identifying the post as eligible for DA reservation for differently abled candidates in appointment to the Government service, then only the Commission can notify for the same in future notifications As such, publication of list of 4% reservation for DA candidates in the impugned ranked list, is not possible in the prevailing circumstances.

                  19.The Commission is a constitutional functionary conducting selections to various posts as and when vacancies are reported, in accordance with the rules in vogue. All the action taken by the Commission with regard to selection of impugned post is in order. As far as this respondent is concerned, this OA is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed accordingly”.

                  2.4. On behalf of the 4th respondent Director of Social Justice Department, a reply statement dated 20.03.2024 was filed in the original application opposing the reliefs sought for. Paragraphs 4 to 8 of that reply statement read thus;

                  “4. It is submitted that the report of the 11th pay revision Commission on the re designation of the post of Engineering Assistant/Overseer Grade II is as follows; “The posts of Overseer Gr.I/Draftsman Grade I, Overseer Grade ll/Draftsman Grade II and Overseer Gr lll/Tracer may be re-designated as Sub Engineer, Overseer Gr,I/Draftsman Gr.I and Overseer Gr.II/Tracer respectively. The post of Engineering Assistant (Electronics) may also be re-designated as Sub Engineer (Electronics) Delegation of more powers and entrustment of more duties to Sub Engineers may be considered".

                  5. Since the qualification for the posts of overseer Gr ll/ Draftsman Gr II and Overseer Grade Ill/ Draftsman Gr Ill (re-designated as Overseer Gr I/ Draftsman Gr I and Overseer Grade II/ Draftsman Gr II respectively) are same, direct recruitment to the post of Overseer Gr II/ Draftsman Gr II (re-designated as Overseer Gr I/ Draftsman Gr I) may be discontinued and the posts may be filled up by promotion from Overseer Grade Ill/ Draftsman Gr Ill (re-designated as Overseer Gr II/ Draftsman Gr II) only."

                  6. It is submitted that the minimum functional requirement accepted by the Monitoring Committee meeting held on 07.07.2023 to the post of Sub Engineer/Engineering Assistant in Public Works Department which is approved by the Expert committee meeting held on 22.01.2024 is as follows:

                  Sub Engineer: Sitting, Standing, Writing, Bending, Jumping, Climbing, Lifting, Manipulation by fingers, Reading &Writing, Seeing, Communication, pulling & Pushing, Kneeling & Crouching.

                  Draftsman Gr I : Same functionalists identified for Draftsman Gr II/ Overseer Gr II in GO(P) No. 7/2022/SID dated 28.10.2022 and subsequently in GO(P) No.5/2023 dated 01.10.2023 (ie; Sitting, Standing, Writing, Bending, Lifting, Manipulation by fingers, Seeing, Communication, Kneeling & Crouching , Reading & Writing).

                  7. It is submitted that even though the 11th Pay Revision Committee has redesignated the Post of Engineering Assistant as Sub Engineer (Electronics), it has been decided in the Monitoring Committee meeting held on 08.12.2023 to retain both the names of Engineering Assistant (Electronics)/Sub Engineer (Electronics), since the department concerned, i.e, Public Works Department has not renamed the post so far.

                  8. It ls also humbly submitted that after considering the recommendation of the Expert Committee meeting held on 22.01.2024, Government will issue necessary orders by including both the above said Posts in Public works Department if identified as being suitable for Persons with Benchmark Disabilities reservation”.

                  2.5. After hearing both sides, by the impugned Ext.P4 order, the Tribunal allowed the original application. Paragraphs 7 to 9 and the last paragraph of that order read thus;

                  “7. In the reply statement filed by the PSC, it is stated that the post is not identified as suitable for any of the DA categories. But pursuant to the interim order dated 20.06,2024, the Chief Engineer had informed that the post of Engineering Assistant (Electronics) is not renamed as Sub Engineer (Electronics). However, it is informed that the post of Draftsman Gr.I/Overseer Gr.I(Electrical and Electronics) in PWD, which is included as Sl.No.241 for 4% DA reservation in G.O(P)No.5 of 2024, is equivalent to the post in question and that respondents 1 and 4 have not intimated the PSC that the post of Engineering Assistant is same as that of Sub Engineer (Electronics) in PWD. It is also stated that as per G.O(P)5/2024/SJD, dated 07.02.2024, the Government identified the post of Sub Engineer (Electronics) and Overseer Gr.I as suitable for 4% DA reservation including the categories of Deaf/Hard of hearing, LD/CP, Mental Illness and for Multiple Disabilities involving above combinations. It is further stated that the impugned post has not been identified for DA reservation and that general directions were issued with regard to DA reservation through G.O(P)No.15/2020/SJD dated 14.08.2020, wherein it was ordered that in the event of identification being done after the date of notification. The DA reservation shall be made applicable only to the next selection based on a subsequent notification issued by the Commission .

                  8. Apparently, the Government Order dated 21.02.2025, identifying the post for DA candidates has not been taken note of by the PSC or otherwise it was not brought to the notice of the PSC at the time of filing the reply statement. In view of the order passed on 21.02.2025, there cannot be any impediment in implementing 4% reservation to the post of Engineering Assistant (Electronics). The Government Order dated 14.08.2020 cannot stand in the way of respondents in view of the order of this Tribunal in O.A.(Ekm) No. 1218 of 2020, as affirmed in O.P(KAT) No. 304 of 2023, etc.

                  9. Therefore there shall be a direction to the PSC to issue an Addendum List of candidates belonging to DA categories for appointment to the post of Engineering Assistant (Electronics) from among the candidates who have applied for selection pursuant to Annexure A4 notification, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The PSC shall thereafter advise candidates in that list against the vacancies in the 4% quota, in accordance with the rules, without any further delay. It is made clear that the candidates who are already advised and appointed shall not be disturbed in this process.

                  The Original Application is allowed accordingly”.

3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid Ext.P4 order of the Tribunal, the petitioner is now before this Court with this original petition. Along with I.A. No.1 of 2025, the petitioner produced Ext.P5 copy of the order dated 21.02.2025 issued by the Government and Ext.P6 circular dated 18.02.2021 issued by the petitioner which were referred to in Ext.P4 impugned order.

4. The 1st respondent-applicant has filed a counter-affidavit dated 25.02.2026 in the original petition. Paragraphs 5 to 7 of that counter affidavit read thus;

                  “5. In Kerala Public Service Commission v. Sheethal C. V. [2025 KHC 850] and Kerala Public Service Commission v. Sheethal C. V. [2025 (7) KHC 108], this Honourable Court (Division Bench) rejected the said contention of the Public Service Commission based on Ext.P6 circular. Thus the present original petition is squarely covered by the said Division Bench decisions and is liable to be dismissed for the very reason.

                  6. On 29.01.2026, my Counsel made submission before this Honourable Court that the original petition is covered by the said decision. This Honourable Court was pleased to record the submission made by my Counsel and posted on 02.02.2026 for hearing. On 02.02.2026 the Standing Counsel for the petitioner, PSC sought for adjournment. Accordingly this Honourable Court posted the matter on 10.02.2026. The Standing Counsel for the petitioner, PSC on 10.02.2026 submitted that an affidavit on behalf of the petitioner would be placed on record before 23.02.2026. Accordingly this Honourable Court was pleased to post the original petition on 23.02.2026 for disposal. On 23.02.2026, the Standing Counsel for the petitioner again sought adjournment. I reasonably apprehend that the Standing Counsel for the PSC has been causing delay inordinately by seeking repeated adjournments

                  7. Annexure A6 ranked list in Ext.P1 original application is in force till 09.03.2026. Ext.P4 order dated 08.04.2025 stands stayed by this Honourable Court in this original petition. In case it is found that Annexure A6 ranked list is to be in force till the competition of selection process to be done pursuant to Exhibit P4 order through the Addendum ranked list directed to be issued by Ext.P4 order, it is necessary to keep Annexure A6 ranked list in force for the sole purpose of completion of selection process to be done through Addendum ranked list directed to be issued by Ext.P4 order by excluding the period of stay of Ext.P4 order passed by this Honourable Court so as to extend the validity of Annexure A6 ranked list at least for such period for which Ext.P4 order is stayed by this Honourable Court in the interest of justice and for proper and effective adjudication of the case. Otherwise I would be put to irreparable injury, loss and hardships”.

5. Thereafter by filing I.A.No.1 of 2026, the petitioner produced Exts.P7 and P8 documents.

6. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner KPSC, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent and the learned Senior Government Pleader.

7. The learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the post of Engineering Assistant (Electronics) in PWD was identified as suitable for granting reservation to persons suffering from benchmark disability by the Government as per Ext.P7 notification dated 21.01.2026. But, as per Ext.P8 Government order dated 14.08.2020, it is ordered by the Government that if the identification of the post is after the last date after issuance of notification, the reservation shall be made applicable only to the subsequent notification. Since Annexure A6 ranked list was published as early as on 09.03.2023, and the candidates were advised as well, the benefit of reservation cannot be given to the 1st respondent. It is also the argument of the learned Standing Counsel that since all the vacancies reported are filled up from Annexure A6 ranked list, if the benefit of reservation is to be given to the 1st respondent, the same can be done only by creating a supernumerary post by the Government.

8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent-applicant would submit that Annexure A6 ranked list has validity till 09.03.2026. Since the post is now identified by virtue of Ext.P7 order dated 21.01.2026, on the strength of the law declared by this Court in Kerala Public Service Commission v. Sheethal C.V. [2025 (5) KHC SN 17] and [2025 (7) KHC 108], the 1st respondent is entitled to the relief granted by the Tribunal.

9. The learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that if a post is identified by the Government, it will have only a prospective operation.

10. Article 227 of the Constitution of India deals with the power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court. Under clause (1) of Article 227 of the Constitution, every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction.

11. In Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (Pvt.) Ltd [(2001) 8 SCC 97], the Apex Court held thus;

                  "The scope and ambit of exercise of power and jurisdiction by a High Court under Art.227 of the Constitution of India is examined and explained in number of decisions of this Court. The exercise of power under this Article involves a duty on the High Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do duty expected or required by them in a legal manner. The High Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the courts subordinate or tribunals. Exercise of this power and interfering with the orders of the courts or tribunal is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, where if High Court does not interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected. It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this Article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the fact of the record. The High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of facts of inferior court or tribunal, if there is no evidence at all to justify or the finding is so perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion, which the court or Tribunal has come to."

12. In Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil [(2010) 8 SCC 329] the Apex Court, while analysing the scope and ambit of the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution, held that the object of superintendence, both administrative and judicial, is to maintain efficiency, smooth and orderly functioning of the entire machinery of justice in such a way as it does not bring it into any disrepute. The power of interference under Article 227 is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and courts subordinate to the High Court.

13. In Jai Singh v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi [(2010) 9 SCC 385], while considering the nature and scope of the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Apex Court held that, undoubtedly the High Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution, has the jurisdiction to ensure that all subordinate courts, as well as statutory or quasi-judicial tribunals exercise the powers vested in them, within the bounds of their authority. The High Court has the power and the jurisdiction to ensure that they act in accordance with the well-established principles of law. The exercise of jurisdiction must be within the well-recognised constraints. It cannot be exercised like a 'bull in a china shop', to correct all errors of the judgment of a court or tribunal, acting within the limits of its jurisdiction. This correctional jurisdiction can be exercised in cases where orders have been passed in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice.

14. In K.V.S. Ram v. Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation [(2015) 12 SCC 39] the Apex Court held that, in exercise of the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court can interfere with the order of the court or tribunal only when there has been a patent perversity in the orders of the tribunal and courts subordinate to it or where there has been gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted.

15. In Sobhana Nair K.N. v. Shaji S.G. Nair [2016 (1) KHC 1] a Division Bench of this Court held that, the law is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court that in proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded by the lower court or tribunal and the jurisdiction of this Court is only supervisory in nature and not that of an appellate court. Therefore, no interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is called for, unless this Court finds that the lower court or tribunal has committed manifest error, or the reasoning is palpably perverse or patently unreasonable, or the decision of the lower court or tribunal is in direct conflict with settled principles of law.

16. In view of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, the High Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded by a lower court or tribunal. The supervisory jurisdiction cannot be exercised to correct all errors of the order or judgment of a lower court or tribunal, acting within the limits of its jurisdiction. The correctional jurisdiction under Article 227 can be exercised only in a case where the order or judgment of a lower court or tribunal has been passed in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice. Therefore, no interference under Article 227 is called for, unless the High Court finds that the lower court or tribunal has committed manifest error, or the reasoning is palpably perverse or patently unreasonable, or the decision of the lower court or tribunal is in direct conflict with settled principles of law or where there has been gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted.

17. In Sheethal C.V. [2025 (5) KHC SN 17], the writ appeal was filed by the 2nd respondent in the writ petition challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The writ petition was one filed by the 1st respondent therein seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 3rd respondent Secretary to Government, Social Justice Department to identify and earmark posts under Section 34(1)(c) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, as stipulated under Section 32 and Section 33 of the said Act, and the relevant orders in this regard, in Ext.P4 ranked list published by KPSC, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court; a writ of mandamus commanding the 4th respondent Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department to identify and earmark the posts under Section 33 and Section 34 of the Act and to report the identified vacancies, with retrospective effect from the date on which Ext.P4 ranked list published by KPSC came into force, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court; and a writ of mandamus commanding KPSC to advice the petitioner for appointment against the first vacancy identified and earmarked for persons with locomotor disability, as stipulated under Section 34(1)(c) of the Act in the event of respondents 3 and 4 complying with the directions contained in the 1st and 2nd reliefs sought for in the writ petition.

18. In Sheethal C.V. [2025 (5) KHC SN 17], this Court considered the question, whether a person with disability should get reservation benefits when posts are identified as suitable for differently abled persons after publication of the ranked list. Paragraphs 40 and 41 of the said judgment read thus;

                  “40. In view of the mandatory requirements of the reservation provided under Section 34 of the 2016 Act, read with the provisions contained in Section 33 regarding identification of posts, the ratio of the decision of the Apex Court in Ravi Prakash Gupta ((2010) 7 SCC 626) and that of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in E. Dineshan (2016 (2) KHC 910), 4% vacancies for reservation provided under Section 34 of the said Act for differently abled candidates with benchmark disabilities, in the post of Professional Assistant Gr.II (Library) in the Universities in Kerala, identified vide Ext.P10 Government order dated 14.02.2024, have to be considered as having arisen during the currency of Ext.P4 ranked list, which came into force with effect from 17.06.2023. Such vacancies in the post of Professional Assistant Gr.II (Library) in the Universities in Kerala are to be filled up, during the currency of Ext.P4 ranked list, by differently abled candidates with benchmark disabilities available in the said ranked list (main list and supplementary lists for communal reservations), after preparing a separate ranked list for reservation of differently abled candidates with benchmark disabilities, based on their ranking in Ext.P4 ranked list, to comply with the mandatory requirements of the reservation provided under Section 34 of the 2016 Act. In that view of the matter, the direction contained in the impugned judgment dated 18.12.2024, whereby KPSC has been directed to advice the 1st respondent - petitioner, who is a candidate included in the supplementary list for communal reservation in Ext.P4 ranked list, for appointment as Professional Assistant Gr.II (Library) in the Universities in Kerala, against one vacancy identified for the category locomotor disability under Section 34(1)(c) of the 2016 Act, without preparing a separate ranked list for reservation of differently abled persons with benchmark disabilities, in the manner stated as above, cannot be sustained in law.

                  41. As per Note (3) of Ext.P4 notification, the ranked list published by KPSC will be in force till the publication of a new ranked list after the expiry of a minimum period of one year or till the expiry of three years, whichever is earlier. The candidates from the ranked list will be advised for the appointment, in accordance with the rules and orders regarding reservation and rotation, as amended from time to time, if applicable, against the vacancies reported to KPSC during the pendency of the ranked list. The ranked list for the post of Professional Assistant Gr.II (Library) in the Universities in Kerala, published vide Ext.P4 notification issued by KPSC, came into force with effect from 17.06.2023. The learned Standing Counsel for KPSC would submit that the said ranked list is still in force”.

                  (underline supplied)

19. Later, the judgment dated 23.07.2025 in Sheethal C.V. [2025 (5) KHC SN 17] was modified by this Court as per the Order dated 14.10.2025 in R.P.No.1291 of 2025 [2025 (7) KHC 108]. While disposing of that review petition, this Court held thus;

                  “11. In such circumstances, this review petition is disposed of by reviewing the judgment dated 23.07.2025 of this Court in W.A.No.221 of 2025 by modifying the findings in paragraph 40 of the said judgment as follows;

                  "In view of the mandatory requirements of the reservation provided under Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (the 2016 Act), read with the provisions contained in Section 33 regarding identification of posts, the ratio of the decision of the Apex Court in Ravi Prakash Gupta, 2010 (7) SCC 626 and that of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in E. Dineshan, 2016 (2) KHC 910, 4% vacancies for reservation provided under Section 34 of the said Act for differently abled candidates with benchmark disabilities, in the post of Professional Assistant Gr.II (Library) in the Universities in Kerala, identified vide Ext.P10 Government order dated 14.02.2024, have to be considered as having arisen during the currency of Ext.P4 ranked list, which came into force with effect from 17.06.2023. Such vacancies in the post of Professional Assistant Gr.II (Library) in the Universities in Kerala are to be filled up, during the currency of Ext.P4 ranked list, by considering the eligibility of 26 differently abled candidates with benchmark disabilities, who attended the online examination held on 21.07.2022, with relaxed standards, and after preparing a separate ranked list for reservation of differently abled candidates with benchmark disabilities, to comply with the mandatory requirements of the reservation provided under Section 34 of the 2016 Act."

                  12. Consequently, the direction contained in the last paragraph of the judgment dated 23.07.2025 in W.A.No.221 of 2025 of this Court is also modified as follows;

                  "The KPSC and the State of Kerala are directed to consider 4% vacancies for reservation provided under Section 34 of the 2016 Act for differently abled candidates with benchmark disabilities, in the post of Professional Assistant Gr.II (Library) in the Universities in Kerala, identified vide Ext.P10 Government order dated 14.02.2024, as having arisen during the currency of Ext.P4 ranked list, which came into force with effect from 17.06.2023. Such vacancies shall be filled up, during the currency of Ext.P4 ranked list, by considering the eligibility of 26 differently abled candidates with benchmark disabilities, who attended the online examination held on 21.07.2022, with relaxed standards, and after preparing a separate ranked list for reservation of differently abled candidates with benchmark disabilities, to comply with the mandatory requirements of the reservation provided under Section 34 of the 2016 Act."

                  A separate ranked list for reservation of differently abled candidates with benchmark disabilities, to comply with the mandatory requirements of the reservation provided under Section 34 of the 2016 Act, in terms of the above directions, shall be published by KPSC, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, and the eligible candidates, as per their position in the said ranked list, shall be advised for appointment, in accordance with the reservation provided under Section 34 of the 2016 Act, within a further period of one month”.

                  (underline supplied)

20. From the law declared in Sheethal C.V [2025 (7) KHC 108], it is clear that when a post is identified during the currency of the ranked list, the KPSC has to prepare a separate ranked list of the candidates with benchmark disabilities for that post, from among the candidates suffering from benchmark disabilities who have applied for the post. Though the Tribunal allowed the original application, it was taking the post of Engineering Assistant /Overseer Grade I (Electronics) as a comparable post of Sub Engineer (Electronics) and Overseer Grade I and by placing reliance on the government order dated 07.02.2024 and 21.02.2025. Since the post of Engineering Assistant (Electronics) and the post of Sub Engineer (Electronics) are not held as the same by any executive order of the Government, the aforesaid reasoning of the Tribunal cannot be accepted. At the same time, as discussed above, since the post of Engineering Assistant (Electronics) is identified by Ext.P7 order dated 21.01.2026 as suitable for granting reservation to persons suffering from bench mark disability, in view of the principles laid down in Sheethal C.V [2025 (7) KHC 108], we hold that Ext.P4 impugned order of the Tribunal will sustain, though on a different reasoning.

                  In the result, the original petition stands dismissed. We make it clear that if it is necessary to create any supernumerary posts for accommodating the differently abled persons who would be entitled to get appointment while preparing the supplementary ranked list of Engineering Assistant (Electronics) in PWD as directed, the Government shall pass appropriate orders for the same.