IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2008 / 28TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 26961 of 2008(I) ------------------------------------ PETITIONERS: --------------------- SHAJI MON.K., FIREMAN (LRP), FIRE SERVICE, COCHIN PORT TRUST. BY ADV. SRI.H.BADARUDDIN RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR, COCHIN PORT TURST. 2. THE CHIEF FIRE OFFICER, COCHIN PORT TRUST. ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR FOR R1-2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.26961 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 20th October, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner who claims to be a Fireman (Leave Reserve Pool) in the service of Cochin Port Trust, has filed this writ petition for a direction to the first respondent, the Deputy Conservator, Cochin Port Trust, to consider Ext.P6 application submitted by him for regular appointment to the post of Fireman by giving him the benefit of age relaxation. According to the petitioner, he is working as Fireman (Leave Reserve Pool) with effect from 16.10.2003. His case is that though he had submitted Ext.P6 application on 24.7.2008 pursuant to Ext.P5 notification for regular appointment to the post of Fireman, he is likely to be denied regular employment on the ground that he is over aged. The petitioner claims that by virtue of his earlier provisional service, he is entitled to age relaxation. W.P.(C) No.26961 of 2008 2 2. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit contending inter alia that the petitioner is not an employee of the Cochin Port Trust and that he is only one among the drivers in the reserve pool, who will be engaged as and when occasion arises. It is further stated that the last date fixed by Ext.P5 notification, for submission of applications was 10.1.2008, that it was later extended upto 10.3.2008, that the petitioner submitted his application only on 25.8.2008 and that as it was belatedly made, it was rejected. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents also points out that even going by the averments in paragraph 4 of the writ petition, the application was belated and was liable to be rejected. 3. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing on either side. The petitioner has not produced any evidence to show that he is a regular employee of the Cochin Port Trust. Ext.P3 would at best show that he is one among the persons included in the Leave W.P.(C) No.26961 of 2008 3 Reserve Pool of Fireman to be engaged, if there is work, on payment of Rs.180/= per day as wages. Ext.P3 further discloses that the inclusion of the petitioner in the Leave Reserve Pool is purely on a contract basis and will not confer on him any claim for regular appointment. The Leave Reserve Pool list can also be cancelled at any time without prior notice. Since the petitioner is not a regular employee of the Cochin Port Trust, he cannot claim any benefit regarding relaxation of age, except the relaxation, if any, prescribed in the service rules of the Cochin Port Trust, if he is otherwise eligible for the same. 4. As regards the rejection of the petitioner's application, even going by the averments in the writ petition, the petitioner applied only on 24.7.2008. The last date for submission of applications was 10.1.2008 and it was later extended upto 10.3.2008. According to the respondents, the petitioner submitted his application only on 25.8.2008. Whether it be 24.7.2008 as claimed by the petitioner or 25.8.2008, as W.P.(C) No.26961 of 2008 4 stated by the respondents (which version I am inclined to believe), it is evident that the petitioner's application was highly belated. It was therefore liable to be rejected. The Writ Petition accordingly fails and is dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE nj.