IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2010 / 16TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 372 of 2010(R) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- PRAVEEN.A, AGED 41,S/O.LATE ACHUTHAN, GURUKKALOTH HOUSE,NEAR DISTRICT COURT, THALASSERY. BY ADVS. MR.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN, MR.T.V.JAYAKUMAR NAMBOODIRI, MR.THUSHAR NIRMAL SARATHY, MR.M.M.VINOD KUMAR, SMT.K.M.RAMYA. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. HIGH COURT OF KERALA, REP.BY REGISTRAR (SUBORDINATE JUDICIARY), HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SECRETARY,MUNSIFF-MAGISTRATE RECRUITMENT COMMITTEE,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 3. STATE OF KERALA TO BE REP.BY SECRETARY, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR. K.R.B.KAIMAL, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO.372 OF 2010 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner was an applicant for selection and appointment to the post of Munsiff-Magistrate in Kerala Judicial Service. He belongs to the OBC category. He is also a physically handicapped person, who has allegedly suffered 40% disability by losing a portion of his leg in a motor accident. His complaint is against the rejection of his application on the ground that he was over-aged. He is a person aged 41 years at present. 2. The counsel for the petitioner relies on clause(4) of Ext.P2 notification. A note appended to the said clause provides that the upper age limit shall be raised by five years in the case of candidates belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes or adult members of such castes and their children when such adult members are converted to other religions, or Scheduled Tribes, and by three years in the case of candidates belonging to any of the Other Backward Classes(OBC) and physically handicapped candidates. For others, the upper age limit is Wpc 372/2010 2 stipulated to be 35 years as on the first date of January, 2009. According to the counsel for the petitioner, since the petitioner is a person who is not only an OBC, but also a physically handicapped person, he is entitled to relaxation of his age cumulatively on both the counts, thus entitling him to an age relaxation for a period of six years. The contention is opposed by the learned senior counsel who appears for the respondent. According to him, the upper age limit is prescribed to be 35 years, which could be relaxed in the case of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribe by a period of five years. In the case of persons belonging to Other Backward Classes and physically handicapped candidates, the age relaxation prescribed is limited to three years. 3. I have heard Adv.K.S.Madhusoodhanan, counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.R.B.Kaimal, learned senior counsel for the respondents. 4. Clause (4) of Ext.P2 notification prescribes the upper age limit of candidates applying under the said notification as 35 years. The same is permitted to be relaxed by a note appended to such clause. The relaxation stipulated is by five years in the case of candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe. In the case of persons Wpc 372/2010 3 belonging to Other Backward Classes and physically handicapped candidates, the relaxation is limited to three years. There is no provision in the notification to cumulatively relax the age limit for a period of six years, firstly on the ground that petitioner is a person belonging to other backward classes and secondly on the ground that he is a physically handicapped person. The counsel for the petitioner placed strong reliance on Ext.P4 where relaxation upto ten years had been granted to physically handicapped persons by the Staff Selection Commission. It is pointed out that Government is also granting similar relaxation of age. However, in the absence of any such relaxation provided in Ext.P2, no such provision could be read into the said notification. The upper age limit being 35 years, even on age limit being relaxed by three years, the petitioner is over-aged. Therefore, the rejection of his application is perfectly in order. The writ petition fails. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Issue copy urgently. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE lgk