IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 15066 of 2009(C)
1. SHELMY GEORGE, ST.TERESA'S CONVENT
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
... Respondent
2. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
3. DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
4. ST.TERESA'S COLLEGE,
For Petitioner :SRI.BABY ISSAC ILLICKAL
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :22/06/2009
O R D E R
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No. 15066 of 2009-C
- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 22nd day of June, 2009.
JUDGMENT
The main prayer in the writ petition is for a direction to respondents 1
and 2 to extend the benefit of Ext.P1 Govt. Order to the petitioner to enable
her to apply for the post of non-teaching staff in the 4th respondent college.
2. The petitioner is an aspirant for the post of non-teaching staff in
the said college. She has passed SSLC, Typewriting and Secretariat
Course. She belongs to a backward class community. Ext.P1 is an order
passed in favour of applicants for the post of Lecturer, wherein after
considering various aspects the Government has enhanced the upper age
limit to 40 years. It is submitted by the petitioner that the upper age limit as
far as non-teaching staff in private and aided colleges is concerned, is also
35 as in the case of Lecturers. The Government had issued ban orders in
regard to the appointment in private colleges after delinking of Pre-degree
courses. Therefore, the 4th respondent also could not fill up the long
sanding vacancies of non-teaching staff. Ext.P2 is the representation stated
to have been filed by the petitioner before the second respondent to extend
the benefit of Ext.P1 Govt. Order to applicants to the post of non-teaching
wpc 15066/2009 2
staff also. By Ext.P3, the third respondent informed that since the
Government sanction is required, the request cannot be granted. Thereafter,
she filed Ext.P4 representation before the Government.
3. It is mainly contended that the action of the Government in
granting the benefit to Lecturers only is violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India.
4. This court in the judgment in Writ Petition No.31029/2007, has
considered the matter in detail and held as follows:
“The crucial aspect while examining the question of discrimination
is whether there is some difference as far as the two situations are
concerned or whether there is any distinguishing features as far as
the case of the two categories are concerned. Herein, practically
both these categories namely, teaching and non teaching categories
seek appointment to the very same institutions, viz. Arts and
Science Colleges etc. under the very same special rules. The upper
age limit was fixed as 35 for both categories. In respect of both
categories a general order regarding ban on appointment was in
force. Both of them formed a well defined homogeneous class.
Therefore, these two categories require equal treatment and equal
protection. One cannot distinguish the teaching staff from the rest
since plainly the ban order was the sole reason for restricting the
right of appointment in respect of both these categories. Lot of
candidates were waiting for a chance to submit application for
appointment, obviously.”
wpc 15066/2009 3
Finally this court has directed the Government to pass appropriate orders
within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the
judgment. The said direction will govern this writ petition also.
5. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner as raised in Ext.P4 will also
be considered by the Government in the light of the directions issued by this
court in Writ Petition No.31029/2009 and appropriate orders shall be passed
within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment.
The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)
kav/