THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: Frustrated over the alleged insensitive approach of the state government in ensuring priority for physically handicapped (PH) people in government jobs, the affected candidates have approached the Union Government seeking justice.
Though the Union Government has enacted a new legislation - Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPD) Act (2016) - to empower the physically-challenged people, the state government has been dilly dallying on the implementation of the Persons with Disabilities (PWD) Act of 1995, said a candidate.
The candidates have submitted a memorandum to K V S Rao, director, Department for Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, pointing out the orders issued by the Kerala Government on reservation for physically-challenged persons are highly irrelevant.
“While the state still follows the 33 - 66 - 99 roster system in a block of 100 vacancies, the new legislation has raised the job reservation to 4 per cent making it necessary to bring in a new roster system of 1 -26 - 51 - 76. But nothing concrete has been done in this regard,” K Madhu, a candidate ranked first in the PH category for the post of deputy collector, told Express.
He said only vacancies effective from 2008 are being considered under the roster system while vacancies from 1996 need to be considered. After a long struggle, the Social Justice Department has issued a GO revising the roster system. But, the revision of the roster system has become irrelevant with the implementation of the RPD Act, 2016.
As the RPD Act assures 4 per cent reservation for the physically challenged candidates, all government departments should be told to strictly follow the four-point roster system in a block of 100 vacancies.
He urged the Union Government to issue orders making it mandatory for all state governments to follow the notifications issued by the Centre.
The memorandum said Kerala is following the Class 1,2,3,4 nomenclature while the Centre follows the Class A,B,C, D system. Terminologies should not be a reason for confusion and the department should issue a clarification that both are factually the same.