IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2010 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 35671 of 2010() -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- N.MADHU, S/O. KRISHNAN NARAYANAN, TC 24/1584, VILAYIL HOUSE, METTUKKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.D.KISHORE SMT.MINI GOPINATH RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SPACE, NEW DELHI-110 001. 2. INDIAN SPACE RESEARCH ORGANIZATION, DEPARTMENT OF SPACE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, ANTARIKSH BHAVAN, NEW BEL ROAD, BANGALORE, PIN-560 094, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. 3. THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER (RECRUITMENT SECTION), VIKRAM SARABHAI SPACE CENTRE, DEPARTMENT OF SPACE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 022. 4. THE VIKRAM SARABHAI SPACE CENTRE, DEPARTMENT OF SPACE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 022, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. R1-4 BY ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/12/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs/ ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 35671 of 2010 H ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 7th day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T Challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P8. Petitioner seeks the benefit due to dependents of land evictees from the project site of respondents 2 to 4. The scheme provided for employment assistance and accordingly petitioner's name was also registered. Though he was called for interview and written tests on four occasions, he did not secure employment. Now by Ext.P8, he has been informed that he is aged 42, and, therefore, has crossed the age limit prescribed in government for employment. Petitioner submits that this is not a case of regular recruitment to apply the rules of recruitment applicable to the government service including the minimum age prescribed. According to him, therefore, the stand taken in Ext.P8 is not correct or legal. 2. In my view, whatever be the scheme, for employment purposes in an establishment, if age is W.P.(C) No.35671/10 : 2 : prescribed by them, there is nothing illegal or arbitrary in it. Therefore, if the petitioner has crossed the age of recruitment prescribed by the establishment, petitioner cannot compel this Court to require the establishment to treat him as eligible. In that view, I see nothing illegal in Ext.P8. Therefore, writ petition is dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since he is held to be ineligible, his dependent son should be ordered to be registered. This again is a matter for the respondents to consider and, therefore, I leave it open to the petitioner to pursue his claim before the respondents by moving them. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks // True Copy // P.A. To Judge