IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2011 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 5366 of 2011(U) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- L.BABU, VAYALVARATHU HOUSE, CHERAVALLY, KAYAMKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.GOPAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.PIN- 695 001 2. KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR, AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, MANNUTHY, TRICHUR.PIN- 680 002 3. PROJECT DIRECTOR AND HEAD, ONATTUKARA REGIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH STATION, KAYAMKULAM.PIN-690 502 R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. NISHA BOSE R2 & R3 BY ADV.SRI. K.P.MUJEEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.5366 Of 2011 -------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 8th DAY OF MARCH, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner seeks for a direction to allow him to participate in the selection process for appointment to the post of casual labourers. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the University. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he is an agricultural labourer now working as a contract labourer under the 3rd respondent from 16.3.2002. The petitioner is aged 40 years. He happened to see Exhibit P2 notification whereby the 1st respondent invited application for employing casual labourers. Going by clause (2) of Exhibit P2, candidates having 35 years of age are entitled to apply for the post. It is the case of the petitioner that in the light of the said clause in Exhibit P2, he cannot file an application. He came to know that in respect of contract labourers and persons working on daily wages there is relaxation of age upto 55 years. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner approached this Court seeking for various W.P.(C)No.5366/11 -2- directions. 4. The petitioner has produced Exhibit P4, wherein at page No.5, it is provided that applicants who are working in the centres of the University as contract labourers and on daily wage basis can participate in the selection process after producing certificates from the concerned Station Officer. Exhibit P5 is the certificate relied upon by the petitioner, which has been produced along with I.A.No.4038/11. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the same will show that the petitioner was a contract labourer. 5. The learned Standing Counsel for the University submitted that Exhibit P5 will only show that the petitioner was engaged for certain contract works on the basis of the rate quoted by him and therefore, he will not be a contract labourer under the University. 6. Exhibit P5 shows that the petitioner was carrying out cattle rearing works on the basis of the rate quoted by him every year. Therefore, evidently, it is only a contract work entrusted to him based on the rate quoted by him and in these circumstances, he cannot be termed as a contract labourer engaged by the W.P.(C)No.5366/11 -3- University. 7. In that view of the matter, the petitioner cannot get the benefits of Exhibit P5 notification. Apart from that it is pointed out that the selection process has already started and the last date for submitting the application is over. Therefore the petitioner is not entitled for any reliefs in the Writ Petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. ( T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) dsn True copy P.A.to Judge