Dismissed

Jayaprakash P.P. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Nov 2023WP(C)/14777/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioner sought appointment as part-time sweeper noting his inclusion on the seniority list despite his age. The court held that crossing the statutory age limit bars nomination, dismissing the petition as the petitioner failed to establish a case for interference with departmental rules.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed on the ground that the petitioner crossed the age limit for appointment.

Jayaprakash P.P. Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶2

THEHONOURABLEMR.JUSTICERAJAVIJAYARAGHAVANV
FRIDAY,THE3RDDAYOFNOVEMBER2023/12THKARTHIKA,1945
WP(C)NO.14777OF2023

¶3

PETITIONER:

¶4

JAYAPRAKASHP.P.
AGED50YEARS
S/OKUNJIRAMANP.P.,PADINHARAPPURAYIL,KAKKENGADP.O.,
ULEPADY,KANNURDIST.,PIN-670673.

¶5

BYADVS.JUSTUS

¶6

RESPONDENTS:

¶7

1STATEOFKERALA
REPRESENTEDBYITSSECRETARYTOGOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENTOFEMPLOYMENT,GOVERNMENTSECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695001.
2THEDIRECTOR
DIRECTORATEOFEMPLOYMENT,THOZHILBHAVAN,
VIKASBHAVANP.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695011.
3THEDISTRICTEMPLOYMENTOFFICER
DISTRICTEMPLOYMENTEXCHANGE,KANNUR,PIN-670001.
4THEEMPLOYMENTOFFICER
TOWNEMPLOYMENTEXCHANGE,MATTANNUR,KANNUR,PIN-670702.
SMT.MARYBEENAJOSEPH,SR.GP

¶8

THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON
03.11.2023,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHEFOLLOWING:

¶9

WP(C)NO.14777OF2023

¶10

¶11

JUDGMENT

¶12

The petitioner states that he had registered himself with the Employment Exchange Mattannur in the year 1998 and has been renewing the same at proper intervals. He states that his name has now been included as Sl. No.187 in the seniority list for the appointment of part-time sweeper for the year 2021-23, as is borne out from Ext.P2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 4^th respondent is not recommending the petitioner for employment on the ground that the petitioner has crossed the age of 50 years. The case of the petitioner is that at the time of publishing Ext.P2 seniority list, the petitioner had not attained 50 years of age. In the said circumstances, the petitioner is stated to have preferred Ext.P3 representation before the 3^rd respondent and Ext.P4 representation before the 4^th respondent. It is on these assertions that this writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:-

¶13

i) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order directing the 4th respondent Employment Officer to recommend the petitioner for employment as per Ext.P2 Seniority List;

¶14

ii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order directing the 3rd and 4th respondent to Consider the Ext.P3 and Ext.P4 representations respectively within a time frame as fixed by this Hon’ble Court.

¶15

WP(C)NO.14777OF2023

¶16

¶17

A counter affidavit has been filed by the 3^rd respondent wherein,

¶18

after detailing the facts and circumstances, it is stated that the petitioner was sponsored for the vacancy of a worker on daily wages on 14.7.1995 and vacancy of jail warden on 5.8.2009 on a temporary basis. It is further stated that as per the Amendment to the Special Rule of Kerala Part Time Contingent Service, the maximum age limit for all categories for appointment to the Part-Time contingent service is 50 years. Since the petitioner has crossed the age of 50 years, he cannot be considered for jobs as he is overaged.

¶19

I have considered the submissions. As per the Special Rules for the Kerala Part-time Contingent Service, which has been made in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub Section (1) of the Kerala Public Service Act, 1968, the maximum age limit for all categories for appointment to the Part-time contingent service is 50 years. The seniority list of persons registered with the Employment Exchange is prepared for selected posts and only persons who do not cross the upper age limit are included. The mere inclusion of an individual in the seniority list does not mean that he should be nominated for a vacancy. The seniority, the satisfaction of the upper age limit and the relevant rules regarding reservation are the criteria adopted for nominating an individual for a particular vacancy. As the petitioner has crossed the age of 50, he is not entitled to be nominated as per the Special

¶20

WP(C)NO.14777OF2023

¶21

¶22

Rules.

¶23

In that view of the matter, the petitioner has not made out any case

¶24

for interference. This Writ Petition is dismissed.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE

¶27

Sru

¶28

WP(C)NO.14777OF2023

¶29

¶30

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14777/2023

¶31

PETITIONER’SEXHIBITS

¶32

Exhibit-P1TRUECOPYOFTHEIDENTITYCARDISSUEDBYTHE
4THRESPONDENTEMPLOYMENTOFFICER.

¶33

Exhibit-P2TRUECOPYOFTHERELEVANTPAGEOFTHESENIORITY
LISTFORPARTTIMESWEEPERFOR2021-23.

¶34

Exhibit-P3TRUECOPYOFTHEREPRESENTATIONDATED
25.02.2023SUBMITTEDBEFORETHE3RDRESPONDENT.
Exhibit-P4TRUECOPYOFTHEREPRESENTATIONDATED
01.03.2023SUBMITTEDBEFORETHE4THRESPONDENT.
RESPONDENTSEXHIBITS
ExhibitR3(a)Truecopyoftheletterissuedtothe
petitionerbythe3rdRespondentvideNo.
TEEMTNR/570/2023/C1dated03/04/2023.

Jayaprakash P.P. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayaprakash P.P. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramachandran Nair K.G. Vs State of Kerala

Vikraman R Vs the State of Kerala

Yeswantha.K., Vs 1. the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Santha.K.C. Vs State of Kerala

Sethumadhavan.T Vs Pranab Jyothi Nath.I.as

Biju.P.K, Secretary Vs the Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General), Office of the Joint Registrar of Co-Ope