IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2010 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 15170 of 2010(U) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ BADARUDHEEN.C.M., S/O.C.M.BAVOO, ASST.SURGEON, DISTRICT HOSPITAL, MANJERI. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH SERVICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, MALAPPURAM. 4. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 15170 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a postgraduate degree holder in Medicine. He is an employee of the Health Service Department. He is aggrieved by allegedly discriminatory provision in Ext.P2 prospectus for admission to Post Graduate Super Specialty Courses in Medicine, whereby the upper age limit for Medical Education Service employees have been fixed as 52, whereas that of Health Service Employees is 47 years. According to the petitioner, during the last year, as evidenced by Ext.P1 prospectus, for admission to Post Graduate Super Specialty Courses there were only two categories viz. General Merit candidates and Service Candidates. For General Merit candidates, the upper age limit fixed for applying for the course was 45 years and that for Service candidates was 47 years, which was irrespective of whether they were Health Service W.P.(C)No. 15170 of 2010 -2- Employees or Medical Education Service Employees. However this year by Ext.P2 it has been divided into three candidates. One is General merit candidates, Health Service Employees and Medical Education Service Employees. While the upper age limit fixed for the general merit candidates and Health Service candidates remains the same, as for last year, for the Medical Education employees it has been raised to 52. According to the petitioner, this is unsustainable and discriminatory in so far as both Health Service Employees and Medical Education Service Employees stand on the same footing for the purpose of admission. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. I do not find any discrimination in the prescription of separate upper age limit for the two categories. During the last year, the retirement age was same for both Health Service Employees and Medical Education Service Employees. But this year, the retirement age of Medical Education Service Employees has been raised to 60 years W.P.(C)No. 15170 of 2010 -3- whereas that of Health Service Employees remains 55 years. Correspondingly the upper age limit for Medical Education Service Employees has been raised to 52 years. That being so, there is a reasonable classification as such and the same is not hit by the vice of discrimination. In fact, a Division Bench of this court had upheld such difference in respect of fixation of balance period required for retirement as a condition for applying for Super Specialty courses. I had also dismissed a writ petition challenging the age limit which is the same issue as in this case. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE shg/