IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS FRIDAY, THE 20TH MARCH 2009 / 29TH PHALGUNA 1930 WA.No. 2265 of 2007() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.20702/2004 Dated 20/07/2007 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ------------------- DR.G.GEETHAKUMARI, KOLLAMVILAKOM, MARUTHANKUZHI, KANJIRAMPARA P.O. TRIVANDRUM - 30. BY ADV. SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA (HIGHER EDUCATION), SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. NAIR SERVICE SOCIETY (NSS), REP. BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, CHANGANACHERRY. 3. N.S.S.COLLEGE CENTRAL COMMITTEE, CHANGANACHERRY, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 4. THE SECRETARY, N.S.S.COLLEGE COMMITTEE, CHANGANACHERRY. 5. DR.SHEELA T.NAIR, PADINJARA KOTHOOR HOUSE, KURUMTHAR, KUZHIKALA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 644. 6. DR.JAYASREE S.R., THEMPRAVILA ULIYANADU, KARAMKODU P.O., KOLLAM. 7. THE KERALA UNIVERSITY, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, OFFICE OF THE KERALA UNIVERSITY, TRIVANDRUM. ADV. SRI.P.G.PARAMESWARA PANICKER, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R2TO4 SRI.P.GOPAL FOR R2TO4 SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SC, KERALA UTY. FOR R7 SRI.KRB.KAIMAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R5 & 6 SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL FOR R5 & 6 GOVERNMENT PLEADER , SMT.R.BINDU FOR R.1 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20.3.2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ------------------------------ W.A.No.2265 OF 2007 ------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner was a candidate for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Hindi under the colleges managed by the 2nd respondent. Though she was fully qualified, she was not selected, it is submitted. Feeling aggrieved by her non- selection, the writ petition was filed seeking appropriate reliefs. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Hence, this appeal. It is common case that the applicant was over aged, going by Ext.P2 notification, on the last date for receipt of applications stipulated therein. If that be so, the petitioner is ineligible to be considered for appointment. But, the learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that she is entitled to get the benefit of Ext.P10 order enhancing the maximum age limit from 35 to 40 years. But, that order was issued in 2004 and it had effect only from 1.1.2004. So, the benefit of that order cannot be claimed in the selection notified as per Ext.P2 on 12.12.2001. W.A. No.2265/2007 2 Since the petitioner is not qualified to be considered for selection, it is unnecessary for us to refer to the detailed facts of the case or other contentions. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE) ps