The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the non-sponsorship of a petitioner for part-time vacancies. The Court held that the petitioner, having crossed the maximum age limit, was ineligible for sponsorship as per the Rules.
The writ petition was dismissed and no costs were awarded to the respondent.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017/22ND BHADRA, 1939
WP(C).No. 11655 of 2017 (F)
PETITIONER(S):
SUMATHI, W/O. BHASKARAN, AGED 52 YEARS, NEROTH THAZHATH HOUSE, ERANJIKKAL. P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 303.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.R.SREEJITH, SRI.M.PROMODH KUMAR, SRI.K.B.SAJEESH, SMT.MAYA CHANDRAN.
RESPONDENT(S):
THE DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT OFFICER, DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE, KOZHIKODE-673 001.
BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.K.R. DEEPA.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-09-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
rs.
WP(C).No. 11655 of 2017 (F)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RESPONDENT'S COMMUNICATION DATED 28.01.2017 TO THE PETITIONER.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
rs.
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
----------------------------------
W.P(C). No.11655 of 2017 [F]
----------------------------------
Dated this the 13th day of September, 2017
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is aggrieved with her name being not sponsored against the Part-Time vacancies by the Employment Exchange. The District Employment Officer, the sole respondent, has filed a detailed Counter Affidavit. It is submitted that the petitioner first registered her name with the Employment Exchange on 02.07.1981 at the age of 17 years
and her date of birth was declared as 01.07.1964. She has now crossed the age of 50, which, as per the Kerala Part-Time Contingent Rules, is the maximum age for sponsoring
W.P(C). No.11655 of 2017 [F]
2
candidates for Part-Time vacancies arising in
the various Departments/Organisations.
petitioner having attained the age of 50 on 31.06.2017 was eligible to be considered
against the Part-Time vacancies up to 31.12.2014 as per age reckoning procedures in force. In fact, the petitioner was not sponsored for any Part-Time vacancies, since the last date of seniority, considered at that point of time when the petitioner crossed 50 years age limit, was 28.06.1979 against Open Non Priority category and 05.06.1980 against SC Non Priority category. The petitioner having registered on 02.07.1981 was not entitled to be
considered and there was never an instance of her having been overlooked.
W.P(C). No.11655 of 2017 [F]
3
In such circumstances, this writ petition is
devoid of merit and the same is dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
K. VINOD CHANDRAN,
JUDGE.
//True Copy//
P.A. to Judge
sp/13/09/17
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a petitioner registered after the cutoff date can claim non-sponsorship when the age limit precludes consideration.
Whether the rejection of a sponsorship application due to the age limit is legally sustainable.
Whether the writ petitioner failed to show an instance of overlooking her since she was ineligible by date.
SUMATHI, W/O. BHASKARAN
THE DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT OFFICER, DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE, KOZHIKODE
K. VINOD CHANDRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
