IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 2ND MARCH 2010 / 11TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 15991 of 2009(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.SARASWATHY,JOINT DIRECTOR(SELECTION GRADE) AND CHIEF-IN-CHARGE, EVALUATION DIVISION, STATE PLANNING BOARD,PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.FIROZ SRI.GEORGE MACHERIL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,PLANNING AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE MEMBER SECRETARY,STATE PLANNING BOARD,PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,REP.BY ITS SECRETARY. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH FOR R1,R2 SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/03/2010 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.C.NO.15991/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER's EXHIBITS: Ext.P1: True copy of the G.O.(Rt) No.463/07/Plg dated 2.11.2007. Ext.P2: True copy of the proceedings No.E1 3239/07/SPB dated 12.11.07 of the 2nd respondent. Ext.P3: True copy of the order dated 31.3.2008 of the State Planning Board. Ext.P4: True copy of the representation dated 10.3.2008. Ext.P5: True copy of the judgment dated 23.03.2009 in W.P.(C). No.34776/08. Ext.P6: True copy of the order dated 18.05.2009. Ext.P7: True copy of the Gazette notification dated 29.05.2009 down loaded from internet. Ext.P8: True copy of the G.O(Rt).No.99/81/Plg/dated 25.2.1981. Ext.P9: True copy of the G.O(Rt).No.53/83/Plg/dated 19.7.1983. Ext.P10: True copy of the G.O.(MS).No.35/2000/Plg dated 7.8.2000. Ext.P11: True copy of the G.O.(RT).No.327/09/Plg. dt.29.08.2009. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: Ext.R1(a): Copy of the G.O.(Rt).No.327/09/plg Dated 29.8.2009. C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 15991 OF 2009 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a Joint Director (Selection Grade) and Chief-in- charge, Evaluation Division of the State Planning Board. This Writ Petition has been filed mainly with the following prayers: i) declare that Rule 2(e) and note(2) to Rule 2(e) of the Special Rules to the Kerala State Planning Service is arbitrary illegal and unconstitutional. ii) direct the respondents not to resort to the direct recruitment method of appointment to the post of Chief, Evaluation Division of the Planning Board pending decision on the amendment proposal to the Special Rules. iii) direct the respondents to pay the petitioner the pay scale applicable to the post of Chief of Divisions of Kerala State Planning Service. 2. The Petitioner joined the service of the State Planning Board as Research Officer on 22.2.1984. After various promotions, she reached the post of Joint Director on 28.9.2004. As per Ext.P1 dated 2.11.2007, she was granted Selection Grade. It is evident from Ext.P2 dated 12.11.2007 that the petitioner was given Full additional Charge as Chief, Evaluation Division. W.P.(C) NO.15991/2009 2 Ext.P3 dated 31.3.2008 would reveal that the petitioner was given charge allowance for holding the aforesaid post. On 21.11.2007, the Government reported a vacancy of the post of Chief, Evaluation Division to the Public Service Commission pursuant to which Ext.P7 notification was issued by the P.S.C. Earlier, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C). No.34776/2008. The said Writ Petition was disposed of as per Ext.P5 judgment dated 23.3.2009 with a direction to the first respondent to consider Ext.P7 representation produced therein and to take suitable action thereon. In terms of the direction in Ext.P5, the said representation therein was considered and rejected by the Government as per Ext.P6. It is mainly challenging the said order as also Ext.P7 notification that this Writ Petition has been filed. 3. Admittedly, the Special Rules for selection to the aforesaid post and various other posts under the Board were framed in the year 1975. As per the aforesaid rules, the age limit is prescribed for recruitment to the aforesaid post. As the petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Cast community, she is eligible to apply for the aforesaid post provided she has not crossed the age of 50 years. Admittedly, the petitioner has crossed the said upper age limit on the date of occurrence of the vacancy. In this case, the crucial W.P.(C) NO.15991/2009 3 date is the last date for submission of application in terms of Ext.P7 notification. There is no dispute that on that date she has crossed the said upper age limit. In short, going by the Special Rules as also the notification, the petitioner was not entitled to apply for the said post pursuant to the said notification on the ground that she had crossed the upper age limit. 4. The contention of the petitioner is that since she is fully qualified for holding the aforesaid post and has been holding the said post as full additional Chief, Evaluation, the appointment of the petitioner on temporary basis in terms of Rule 9(a)(i) of the Kerala State Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 (for short 'KS & SSR'), should have been considered by the respondents. The further claim of the petitioner is that on earlier occasions, such orders were issued by invoking power under Rule 9(a)(i) of the KS & SSR. Obviously, all those contentions were considered while passing Ext.P6 order and the government thought it not fit to invoke the said power on account of the fact that there is no exigency of service warranting invocation of the said power and also the fact that there is no reason to overlook the rule position. The fact that the said vacancy was already been reported to the P.S.C was also taken note of. It was in the said circumstances that the aforesaid claim of the petitioner was rejected as per Ext.P6. W.P.(C) NO.15991/2009 4 5. The respondents have filed counter affidavits in this Writ Petition. It has been specifically stated therein that on the date of occurrence of the vacancy, the petitioner has crossed the upper age limit prescribed for appointment to the aforesaid post. The claim of the petitioner for upper age relaxation was considered by the respondents and Ext.R1(a) dated 29.8.2009 was the order passed on such consideration. A perusal of Ext.R1(a) would reveal that the aforesaid claim of the petitioner was specifically considered by the respondents in the light of relevant rule position. Admittedly, the maximum age limit for applying to the aforesaid post is 45. Being a scheduled caste candidate, the petitioner was entitled to age relaxation by five years. However, even the said relaxation was not enough to bring the petitioner within the upper age limit. In view of the said position thus obtained in this case, the petitioner cannot, as a matter of fact, claim that she is eligible for applying to the post of Chief, Evaluation Division. It was held in Ext.R1(a) that granting relaxation for any particular person without any valid reason would lead to bad precedents. That apart, it is observed therein that P.S.C being a general recruitment agency, a direction to relax age limit for a particular person would entail unnecessary adverse criticism from the public. Thus, the reason assigned in Ext.R1(a) for rejecting the petitioner's claim for upper age relaxation cannot be said to be illegal or W.P.(C) NO.15991/2009 5 irrational warranting interference by this Court. The petitioner had failed to make out any sustainable reason warranting interference with the aforesaid finding of the Government in Ext.R1(a). As already noticed hereinbefore, the decision in Ext.R1(a) is strictly in terms of the relevant rules. When the Government declined to exercise the power of relaxation of the rigour of rules on finding that there are no valuable grounds for doing so and deciding the question in terms of the relevant rules, the same calls for no judicial review. Though the petitioner raised grounds challenging Rule 2(e) and note (2) to Rule 2(e) of the Special Rules to the Kerala State Planning Service, they were not pressed into service. Therefore, I am not adverting to them. In short, the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs sought for in the Writ Petition. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.15991/2009 6 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. W.P.(C). NO.15991/2010 JUDGMENT 2nd March, 2010