Petitioners, originally appointed as outdoor servants within the age limit, challenged their exclusion from a new appointment process where the upper age limit is 36. The court held that their previous service was based on a cancelled rank list and thus ineligible for relaxation, dismissing their writ petition.
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 SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA
WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 30TH PHALGUNA, 1939
WP(C).No. 8354 of 2018
PETITIONER(S):
BY ADV.SRI.P.T.ABHILASH
RESPONDENT(S):
1. STATE OF KERALA, REVENUE (DEVASWOM) BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. SREE THRICHERUMANNA @ KOTTIYOOR DEVASWOM, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670 651,
3. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
4. MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD,
R2 & R3 BY SRI.K.LAKSHMINARAYANAN,SC
SRI.KRISHNAMOORTHY
SMT.SATHYA SHREEPRIYA R4 BY SMT.P.K.RADHIKA, SC,
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
sts/28/3/2018
WP(C).No. 8354 of 2018 (T)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:
| EXHIBIT P1 |
TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 20.11.2013 PUBLISHED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY. |
|---|---|
| EXHIBIT P2 |
TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN VIDE NO. TKD/EST/3/2014 DATED 01.02.2014 TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. |
| EXHIBIT P2(a) |
TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN VIDE NO. TKD/EST/3/2014 DATED 01.02.2014 TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. |
| EXHIBIT P2(b) |
TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN VIDE NO. TKD/EST/3/2014 DATED 01.02.2014 TO THE 3RD PETITIONER. |
| EXHIBIT P3 |
TRUE COPIES OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE SERVICE BOOK OF THE 1ST PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. |
| EXHIBIT P3(a) |
TRUE COPIES OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE SERVICE BOOK OF THE 2ND PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. |
| EXHIBIT P3(b) |
TRUE COPIES OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE SERVICE BOOK OF THE 3RD PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. |
| EXHIBIT P4 |
JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN W.P(C) NO.37493/2016 DATED 17.08.2017. |
| EXHIBIT P5 |
TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 01.12.2017 TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. |
| EXHIBIT P5(a) |
TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 01.12.2017 TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. |
| EXHIBIT P5(b) |
TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 01.12.2017 TO THE 3RD PETITIONER. |
| EXHIBIT P6 |
TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 15.02.2018 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY. |
| EXHIBIT P7 |
TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 09.03.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. |
2/-
-2-
WP(C).No. 8354 of 2018 (T)
| EXHIBIT P7(a) |
TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 09.03.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. |
|---|---|
| EXHIBIT P7(b) |
TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 09.03.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD PETITIONER. |
| EXHIBIT P8 |
TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR BEARING NO.J7-2412/2015/MDB DATED 10.04.2014, ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. |
| EXHIBIT P9 |
TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION DATED 13.03.2013 OBTAINED FROM THE 4TH RESPONDENT. |
| EXHIBIT P10 | TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16/03/2018 FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT |
| EXHIBIT P11 | TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF 2ND RESPONDENT DEVASOM TRUSTEES DATED 23/11/2017 |
| EXHIBIT P12 | TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE CONDITIONS FOR APPOINTMENT PUBLISHED BY THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION IN THEIR WEBSITE |
| EXHIBIT P13 | TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF 2ND RESPONDENT DEVASOM TRUSTEES DATED 23/01/2018 |
| EXHIBIT P14 | TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 14/07/2017 ISSUED BY THE KAITHIRUR SREE SOORYANARAYANA TEMPLE. |
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:
NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO JUDGE
sts 28/3/2018
P.V.ASHA J.
-------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.8354 of 2018
------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of March, 2018
JUDGMENT
The petitioners who had been working in
various posts under the 2nd respondent Devaswom filed this writ petition seeking a direction to allow them to appear in the written examination held pursuant to Ext.P6 notification on the ground that they were originally appointed under the Devaswom on 01.02.2014 at the time when they were within the age limit.
By Ext.P6 notification, the 2nd respondent invited application for appointment against various posts fixing upper age limit as 36. The said notification was issued pursuant to Ext.P4 judgment dated 17.08.2017 of the Division Bench in W.P.(C).
2
W.P.(C).No.8354 of 2018
No.37493/2016 which was filed for regularisation of some persons, who was working under the 2nd respondent. This Court cancelled the rank list dated 03.02.2014 in which the petitioners herein were included and based on which they had been working.
the 2nd respondent pointed out that the selection is
made pursuant to Ext.P4 judgment in which this Court
3
W.P.(C).No.8354 of 2018
held that the trustees shall follow Rule 9 framed under Section 100(2)(y) of the Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act,1951. As per Rule 9 under Section 100(2)(y), no person shall be appointed to the post of outdoor servant unless he is qualified for entry in to public service, under the notification for the time being in force relating to entry into public service.
4
W.P.(C).No.8354 of 2018
specifical provides that one should have all all the qualifications which are required for entry into public service, and petitioner who has crossed the age of 36 is not eligible for entry into public service, the contention that petitioners are entitled to be considered for appointment is unsustainable. It is also relevant to note that the 2nd respondent had issued two notifications prior to Ext.P6 and subsequent to the judgment. Both those notifications issued pursuant to Ext.P4 judgment, were interdicted by this Court on different grounds. It is pointed out that written test is over, based on the notification in question.
5
W.P.(C).No.8354 of 2018
But I do not find any substance in it since
the rank list itself based on which the petitioners worked in the Devaswom was cancelled. Such service rendered under the 2nd respondent on the basis of cancelled rank list cannot have any relevance and that service cannot be reckoned for the purpose of age relaxation, at an rate, in the absence of any such direction by the Division Bench, in Ext P4 judgment.
In the above circumstances, I find that petitioners are not eligible for submitting applications for the selection for appointment against the posts notified in Ext P6.
Accordingly, this writ petition is
dismissed.
Sd/-
P.V.ASHA, JUDGE.
ww
3 issues framed by the court
Whether petitioners who crossed the age of 36 can claim age relaxation based on their original appointment date to be eligible for fresh appointment.
Whether service rendered under a cancelled rank list can be reckoned for age relaxation purposes.
Whether the petitioners are eligible to apply for posts notified under a new notification requiring entry into public service qualifications.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
W.P.(C).No.37493/2016Referred¶54
W.P.(C).No.37493/2016
2 provisions across 2 enactments
SANATH T.V.
PRASANTH K.C.
BINESH KUMAR T.
STATE OF KERALA
SREE THRICHERUMANNA @ KOTTIYOOR DEVASWOM
THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER
P.V.ASHA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
