IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 18970 of 2011(U) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- RETHIKUTTAN.L., S/O.LEKSHMANAN PILLAI, AGED 39, THEKKEDATH, PALLIPPURAM VILLAGE AND MURI, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688 541. BY ADV. DR.V.N.SANKARJEE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY IT'S SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PIN - 695 001. 2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688 501. 3. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, CHERTHALA - PIN: 688 524. 4. PALLIPPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NO.1308, PALLIPPURAM VILLAGE AND MURI, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688 541, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. ANITHA RAVEENDRAN, R4 BY ADVS. SRI.V.G.ARUN, SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/11/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).NO.18970/2011-U: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DTD. 30/05/2011 ISSUED BY THE R.4. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED ON 08/07/2011 BEFORE THE R.2. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO. CRP (1) 3320/2011 DTD. 08/07/2011 ISSUED BY THE R.2. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S REPRESENTATON SUBMITTED ON 08/07/2011 BEFORE THE R.3. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.1094/2011 DTD. 08/07/2011 ISSUED BY THE R.3. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- EXT.R4.A: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE AUDITED BALANCE SHEET DTD. 31/03/2009. EXT.R4.B: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE AUDIT CERTIFICATE FOR THE YEAR 2008-2009. EXT.R4.C: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 14/07/2011. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Prv. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 18970 OF 2011 -------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T Ext.P1 notification dated 30.5.2011 issued by the fourth respondent society and published in the Kerala Kaumudi daily dated 1.6.2011 is under challenge in this writ petition. By that notification, the fourth respondent society invited applications from eligible persons for appointment to one post of Attender and one post of Peon. It was stated that candidates who have attained 18 years of age as on 1.4.2011 and have not crossed 37 years of age are eligible to apply. The main contention raised in the writ petition is that Ext.P1 notification offends rule 183(1) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the rules' for short). It is stated that though as per rule 183(1), candidates who have completed 18 years of age and have not completed 40 years of age on the first day of January of the year in which applications for appointment are invited are eligible to apply, such persons were denied an opportunity to apply since the upper age limit was stipulated as 37 years on the 1st day of April. Rule 183(1) reads as follows: WPC No.18970/2011 2 “183. Age Limit:- (1) A candidate for appointment by direct recruitment must have completed 18 years and must not have completed 40 years of age on the first day of January of the year in which the applications for appointment are invited; Provided that the upper age limit shall be raised by 5 years in the case of candidates belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribe or adult member of such caste/tribes and their children when such adult members are converted to other religions and by three years in the case of candidates belonging to any of the Other Backward Classes and by three years in the case of candidates who are ex-service men. Provided further that in the case of applicants who are employees of Co-operative Societies for appointment in the Apex Societies and other Societies having one or more districts as area of operation, the maximum age limit shall be 50 years. 2. Initially the upper age limit stipulated was 37 years of age as on 1st day of April of the year in which the applications for appointment are invited. By an amendment to the said rule with effect from 2.11.2010, the upper age limit was raised to 40 years of age as on the first day of January of the year in which applications are invited. Ext.P1 was issued long after the amendment which prescribed the upper age limit as 40 years came into force. Ext.P1 is therefore not in tune with rule 183(1) of the rules. Therefore on that short ground itself Ext.P1 is liable to be quashed. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent WPC No.18970/2011 3 however submitted that the petitioner who belongs to a backward class community was eligible for relaxation of the upper age limit by three years, that as he had attained only 39 years of age as on January, 2011 he was eligible to apply even on the terms of Ext.P1 notification, but he did not apply and therefore no interference is called for at the instance of the petitioner. I am afraid the said contention is without any merit. The petitioner, who belongs to a backward class community, could have applied in view of the relaxation available to him. But many others belonging to the general category who had completed 37 years of age as on 1.1.2011 but had not attained 40 years of age would not have applied pursuant to Ext.P1 in view of the wrong upper age limit mentioned therein. Eligible persons belonging to the backward classes also may not have applied in view of the upper age limit mentioned in Ext.P1. Therefore the mere fact that the petitioner could have applied as he was entitled to age relaxation is not a reason to uphold Ext.P1. That apart, Ext.P1 does not state in express terms that candidates belonging to the scheduled castes or the scheduled tribes or other backward classes are WPC No.18970/2011 4 eligible for relaxation of the upper age limit. Ext.P1 cannot therefore be sustained. I accordingly allow the writ petition and set aside Ext.P1. Needless to say it will be open to the fourth respondent society to invite fresh applications by issuing a fresh notification in tune with rule 183(1) of the rules and the circulars issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies from time to time. In that notification it will be open to the fourth respondent bank to stipulate that those candidates who have already applied pursuant to Ext.P1 notification need not apply afresh and their applications will also be considered along with the applications received pursuant to the new notification. P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps WPC No.18970/2011 5