IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2009 / 1ST ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 15066 of 2009(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHELMY GEORGE, ST.TERESA'S CONVENT ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-11. BY ADV. SRI.BABY ISSAC ILLICKAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMNET, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HIGHER EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. ST.TERESA'S COLLEGE, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 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/