High Court Kerala High Court

Dr.G.Geethakumari vs State Of Kerala on 20 March, 2009

Kerala High Court
Dr.G.Geethakumari vs State Of Kerala on 20 March, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA.No. 2265 of 2007()


1. DR.G.GEETHAKUMARI, KOLLAMVILAKOM,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL
                       ...       Respondent

2. NAIR SERVICE SOCIETY (NSS), REP. BY

3. N.S.S.COLLEGE CENTRAL COMMITTEE,

4. THE SECRETARY,

5. DR.SHEELA T.NAIR, PADINJARA KOTHOOR

6. DR.JAYASREE S.R., THEMPRAVILA ULIYANADU,

7. THE KERALA UNIVERSITY,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH

                For Respondent  :SRI.P.G.PARAMESWARA PANICKER (SR.)

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS

 Dated :20/03/2009

 O R D E R
  K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
                     ------------------------------
                     W.A.No.2265 OF 2007
                     -------------------------------
            Dated this the 20th day of March, 2009

                         J U D G M E N T

~~~~~~~~~~~

Balakrishnan Nair, J.

The petitioner was a candidate for appointment to the post

of Lecturer in Hindi under the colleges managed by the 2nd

respondent. Though she was fully qualified, she was not

selected, it is submitted. Feeling aggrieved by her non-

selection, the writ petition was filed seeking appropriate reliefs.

The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Hence,

this appeal. It is common case that the applicant was over aged,

going by Ext.P2 notification, on the last date for receipt of

applications stipulated therein. If that be so, the petitioner is

ineligible to be considered for appointment. But, the learned

counsel for the appellant pointed out that she is entitled to get

the benefit of Ext.P10 order enhancing the maximum age limit

from 35 to 40 years. But, that order was issued in 2004 and it

had effect only from 1.1.2004. So, the benefit of that order cannot

be claimed in the selection notified as per Ext.P2 on 12.12.2001.

W.A. No.2265/2007 2

Since the petitioner is not qualified to be considered for

selection, it is unnecessary for us to refer to the detailed facts of

the case or other contentions. Accordingly, the writ appeal is

dismissed.

(K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE)

(M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE)

ps