Dismissed

Sudarsanadasan a. v. Kerala Public Services Commission

Kerala HC4 Nov 2011WP(C)/14289/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged the rejection of his candidature for a Sales Tax Officer post due to age. The court rejected his claims for age relaxation based on OBC status and previous service, dismissing the petition as devoid of merit and relying on precedent.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is dismissed with no merit found in the grounds raised.

Sudarsanadasan a. Vs Kerala Public Services… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 14289 of 2007(A)

¶6

--------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

¶9

MR. SUDARASANADASAN.A., AGED 40,S/O.ANOSE,KARKKALA PUTHEN VEEDU, PARASUVAIKKAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 508.

¶10

BY ADV. MR. R.T.PRADEEP MR. V.VIJULAL

¶11

RESPONDENT:

¶12

¶13

THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF K.P.S.C.,PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

ADV. MR. P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

W.P.(C) NO. 14289 OF 2007

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :

¶19

EXT. P1	:	TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION DATED 28.02.2006 PUBLISHED IN THE KERALA GAZETTED DATED 06.03.2006
EXT. P2	:	TRUE COPY OF EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE DATED 25.03.2006
EXT. P3	:	TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGE OF SECONDARY SCHOOL CERTIFICATE OF PETITIONER.
EXT. P4	:	COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 01.04.2006
EXT.P5	:	TRUE COPY OF ADMISSION TICKER DATED 26.08.2006
EXT. P6	:	TRUE COPY OF SHORT LIST PUBLISHED AS PER NOTIFICATION DATED 09.03.2007
EXT. P7	:	TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 19.03.2006
EXT. P8	:	TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 18.04.2006
EXT. P9	:	TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 23.4.2004

¶20

/TRUE COPY/

¶21

P.A. TO JUDGE

¶22

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.

¶23

¶24

W.P (C) No. 14289 of 2007

¶25

¶26

Dated, this the 4^th day of November, 2011

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

The petitioner was a contestant to the post of sales tax officer, which was notified to be filled up by the PSC issuing Ext. P1 notification. However, the candidature of the petitioner was rejected, stating that, he was over aged, which made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing the present Writ Petition.

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner belongs to a backward class and as such, he is eligible for age relaxation to an extent of three years as provided under the relevant Rules. That apart, the petitioner having served under the Bharat Sevak Samaj, he is entitled to have further relaxation in respect of the said period as well. The cut off date prescribed was 01.01.2006. Going by the norms for age relaxation available to OBC, it can be a maximum of 39 years, whereas in the case petitioner, as on 01.06.2006, he was 39 years 7 months and 24 days. If the period served under Bharat Sevak Samaj is reckoned, the candidature of the petitioner is liable to be considered positively, which hence is sought for in this Writ Petition.

¶30

W.P. (C) No. 14289 of 2009

¶31

: 2 :

¶32

The learned standing counsel appearing for the PSC with reference to the counter affidavit and documents produced before this Court submits that, the petitioner himself was conceded in Ext. P4 application, particularly against column No. 10, that he was claiming age relaxation, where particulars have been given as, “Yes, SIUC Nadar - other backward class”. The learned standing counsel submits that the said claim was considered and the benefit could be given only to the maximum term of 'three years'. But the petitioner turned to be a candidate having the age of 39 years, 7 months and 24 days as on 01.01.2006, who hence was over aged could not be considered under any circumstances.

¶33

However, the learned counsel sought to place reliance on the decision rendered by this Court in Satheesh Vs Kerala Public Service Commission (2003 (1) KLT 976), wherein some observation has been made in support of the case of the petitioner to the effect that the contents as given in application could be sought to be substantiated in the circumstances mentioned therein. But, coming to the factual position in the instant case, it is not in respect of a fact which disclosed in Ext. P4 application. The present claim for relaxation of age with reference to the service under Bharat Sevak Samaj was never made in

¶34

W.P. (C) No. 14289 of 2009

¶35

: 3 :

¶36

Ext. P4 application; particularly in column No. 10 and as such, the decision (cited supra) is not applicable. On the other hand, the decision in Shaji Vs. Kerala Public Service Commission (2011 (1) KLT 99) stands in favour of the PSC.

¶37

The Writ Petition is devoid of any merit and none of the grounds raised does support the same. It is dismissed accordingly.

¶38

Sd/

¶39

P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE

¶40

kmd

Sudarsanadasan a. v. Kerala Public Services Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudarsanadasan a. v. Kerala Public Services Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shaji and Others Vs State of Kerala and Others

Leela.M. Vs State of Kerala

K.G.Rugmani Amma Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

T.Ambika Vs Kseb

Dr.Deepthi Chandran Vs State of Kerala and Others

John Mathew Vs State of Kerala