IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 13TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 22ND BHADRA 1932 WA.No. 907 of 2010(A) ------------------------------- [THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.5458/2010 DATED 17/05/2010] .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: -------------------------------------- ANILKUMAR.V, S/O.YASODHARAN, KOTTAPURATHUVEEDU, PONMANA (P.O), CHAVARA, KOLLAM. BY ADVS. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN, SRI.B.CHANDRA LAL. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA MINERALS AND METALS LTD (KMML) CHAVARA, KOLLAM. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, M.S.UNIT, KERALA MINERALS AND METALS LTD (KMML) CHAVARA, KOLLAM. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 & R2 BY SRI.B.S.KRISHNAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE, SRI.K.ANAND, SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN, R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BASANT BALAJI. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- Writ Appeal No.907 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th September, 2010 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. This writ appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge declining to interfere with the maximum age fixed by the company for recruitment to the post of Junior Equipment Operator. The appellant is about 37 years of age and he has all the required qualifications. However, the appellant says that he will not be considered for the reason that he has exceeded the age limit for selection to the post. The counsel contended that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of evictees who are given age relaxation up to three years. Further, the appellant is a member of the other backward community entitling him for age relaxation in accordance with the company's services rules. The last claim of the appellant is that he is already an operator of JCB in the work site of the company on contract employment under a contractor. The counsel has also referred to the notification dated 10.10.2009 for the post of Junior Technician wherein regular appointment is made from people who have the age of 38 years. However, the counsel for the first and W.A.No.907/2010 2 second respondents contended that the appellant has made an application against the post of trainee where the age limit fixed is 26 years. Since the appellant is already working under a contractor for the company, it is for the respondent to consider whether the appellant could be considered for regular recruitment and not as a trainee. If evictees have given age limit up to 38 years in the case of similar employment, we see no reason why in the case of an Equipment Operator, the age limit should be reduced to 26 years. Of course, the trainees normally appointed are young people and therefore, there is nothing wrong in fixing the age limit at 26 for recruiting trainees. Appellant's claim for absorption as a trainee is not tenable on account of overage. However, we direct the respondent to consider the appellant for employment under any other category or even as a regular equipment operator as he is an evictee eligible to be treated with compassion. W.A is disposed of as above. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE css/