IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 372 of 2010(R)
1. PRAVEEN.A,AGED 41,S/O.LATE ACHUTHAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. HIGH COURT OF KERALAL REP.BY REGISTRAR,
... Respondent
2. THE SECRETARY,MUNSIFF-MAGISTRATE
3. STATE OF KERALA TO BE REP.BY SECRETARY,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN
Dated :06/01/2010
O R D E R
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J
...........................................
WP(C).NO.372 OF 2010
............................................
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioner was an applicant for selection and appointment to
the post of Munsiff-Magistrate in Kerala Judicial Service. He belongs
to the OBC category. He is also a physically handicapped person, who
has allegedly suffered 40% disability by losing a portion of his leg in a
motor accident. His complaint is against the rejection of his application
on the ground that he was over-aged. He is a person aged 41 years at
present.
2. The counsel for the petitioner relies on clause(4) of Ext.P2
notification. A note appended to the said clause provides that the upper
age limit shall be raised by five years in the case of candidates
belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes or adult members of such
castes and their children when such adult members are converted to
other religions, or Scheduled Tribes, and by three years in the case of
candidates belonging to any of the Other Backward Classes(OBC) and
physically handicapped candidates. For others, the upper age limit is
Wpc 372/2010 2
stipulated to be 35 years as on the first date of January, 2009.
According to the counsel for the petitioner, since the petitioner is a
person who is not only an OBC, but also a physically handicapped
person, he is entitled to relaxation of his age cumulatively on both the
counts, thus entitling him to an age relaxation for a period of six years.
The contention is opposed by the learned senior counsel who appears
for the respondent. According to him, the upper age limit is prescribed
to be 35 years, which could be relaxed in the case of Scheduled Castes
or Scheduled Tribe by a period of five years. In the case of persons
belonging to Other Backward Classes and physically handicapped
candidates, the age relaxation prescribed is limited to three years.
3. I have heard Adv.K.S.Madhusoodhanan, counsel for the
petitioner and Sri K.R.B.Kaimal, learned senior counsel for the
respondents.
4. Clause (4) of Ext.P2 notification prescribes the upper age limit
of candidates applying under the said notification as 35 years. The
same is permitted to be relaxed by a note appended to such clause. The
relaxation stipulated is by five years in the case of candidates belonging
to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe. In the case of persons
Wpc 372/2010 3
belonging to Other Backward Classes and physically handicapped
candidates, the relaxation is limited to three years. There is no
provision in the notification to cumulatively relax the age limit for a
period of six years, firstly on the ground that petitioner is a person
belonging to other backward classes and secondly on the ground that
he is a physically handicapped person. The counsel for the petitioner
placed strong reliance on Ext.P4 where relaxation upto ten years had
been granted to physically handicapped persons by the Staff Selection
Commission. It is pointed out that Government is also granting similar
relaxation of age. However, in the absence of any such relaxation
provided in Ext.P2, no such provision could be read into the said
notification. The upper age limit being 35 years, even on age limit
being relaxed by three years, the petitioner is over-aged. Therefore,
the rejection of his application is perfectly in order.
The writ petition fails. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Issue copy urgently.
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE
lgk