IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2009 / 14TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 15328 of 2009(I) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- K. MOHAMMED MOOSA, S/O.KIDER MOHAMMED, AGED 39 YEARS, PEON (LAST GRADE), EXCISE DIVISION OFFICE, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. MR.N.UNNIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES (F) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, K.P.S.C., DISTRICT OFFICE, PALAKKAD. R1 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN R2 & R3 BY ADV. MR.ALEXANDER THOMAS, SC, KPSC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P.(C) No. 15328 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 4th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT In this writ petition the petitioner challenges Ext.P4 letter dated 12-5-2009 sent by the State Public Information Officer and District Officer, Kerala Public Service Commission District Office, Palakkad informing him that the upper age limit for appointment by transfer as Excise Guard is 35 years. The petitioner along with three others has filed W.P (C) No.8979 of 2009 challenging the holding of physical efficiency test and the said writ petition is pending. Pursuant to the interim order passed in the said case, the petitioner participated in the physical efficiency test subject to further orders passed by this Court. It is stated that the petitioner has failed to pass the physical efficiency test. 2. A learned Single Judge of this Court has in Ext.P5 judgment held that no upper age limit is prescribed for W.P.(C) No. 15328/09 2 appointment by transfer as Excise Guard. In view of Ext.P5 judgment, the stand taken in Ext.P4 letter, cannot be sustained. However, as the petitioner has failed to pass the physical efficiency test, he can succeed only if W.P(C) No.8979 of 2009 is allowed. Therefore, without prejudice to the petitioner's right to prosecute W.P(C) No.8979 of 2009 and the right of the Commission to challenge Ext.P5 judgment in appeal, if they are so advised, this writ petition is closed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. mn.