IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2008 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 9123 of 2008(J) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ RATHEESAN M., S/O.LATE KRISHNAN T., KARIYILAVAYAL, KADAVU ROAD, KULAM BAZAR MUZHAPPILANGADU, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.TOJAN J. VATHIKULAM RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE CHAIRMAN KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 4. THE DISTRICT OFFICER PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, DISTRICT OFFICE KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).9123/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 26th day of May, 2008 JUDGMENT By Ext.P1 notification, PSC invited application from the interested persons for the post of Electricity Worker (Mazdoor). The age limit fixed therein is 18 to 35 with relaxation in favour of those persons who had rendered provisional service in the Electricity Board. In such cases, the period during which they had rendered provisional service would be taken into account for determining the age limit of the employees. Petitioner’s date of birth is 10.5.1965 and he was aged 41 years on the date of Ext.P1 notification. He is entitled to normal relaxation of age limit by three years as he is an OBC candidate. But nevertheless, he was still beyond the prescribed age on the date of Ext.P1 notification. Petitioner claims the benefit of the note in Ext.P1 notification on the ground that he had rendered service as a contract employee for six years. Ext.P4 is the certificate issued in this regard and the same reads as follows:- W.P.(C).9123/2008 2 Certified that Sri.M.Ratheesan S/o Krishnan, Muzhappilangad, Kannur District, had worked as contract worker under this office during last six years. He was engaged for construction and maintenance of 11KV and LT lines, transformer structers etc., works on contract basis. His conduct and character were good during the period. 2. On instructions, learned Standing counsel for the PSC submits that the petitioner had provisional service in the department for a period of six months, but the remaining part of the services was contractual. There is difference between the services rendered as a provisional employee and a contract employee and the former alone is treated as eligible for the purpose of Ext.P1 notification. 3. Having heard learned counsel on both sides and having perused Ext.P1 notification, I am of the view that there is no error in the stand taken by the PSC. After all W.P.(C).9123/2008 3 the petitioner has claimed the benefit of a concession, which normally should be construed strictly in terms of the notification. Further there is a clear difference between the services as a provisional employee and engagement as a contract worker. In the result, writ petition is bereft of merit and the same is dismissed. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs