IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 27TH MARCH 2009 / 6TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 8884 of 2009(E) ------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------ 1. DR.CYRIAC ANTONY P CIVIL SURGEON, COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE, PERIYE, KASARAGODE. 2. DR.VIMAL RAJ.M.C,ASSISTANT SURGEON, PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE,PUTHIGE, KASARAGODE. BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA ,REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, DIRECTORATE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES, DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH SERVICES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. DR.DEEPA S.NAIR, ASSISTANT SURGEON C.D.H.PULAYANARKOTTAH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. DR.P.V.SEETHAMONY, CIVIL SURGEON KERALA RAJBHAVAN DISPENSARY,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. DR.SUNITHA NANDAN, ASSISTANT SURGEON P.H.CENTRE,ANGADIMOGAR, KASARAGODE. 7. DR.SREEKUMAR N., CIVIL SURGEON DISTRICT HOSPITAL , KANHANGAD. WPC NO.8884/09 -2- 8. DR.RAJALEKSHMY E.,ASSISTANT SURGEON P.H.CENTRE, POZHUTHANA, WAYANAD. 9. DR.V.M.VIJAYAKUMARY, ASSISTANT SURGEON, P.H.CENTRE, VALLARPADAM, ERNAKULAM. 10. DR.SREELEKHA C.P., ASSISTANT SURGEON, P.H.CENTRE, PADINJARETHARA, WAYANAD. 11. DR.SACHINKUMAR M.U, ASSISTAN SURGEON TRIBAL MOBILE UNIT, KALPETTA. 12. DR.SUNNY MATHEW P, ASSISTANT SURGEON P.H.CENTRE, MAUCODE, PERIMPATTA, KASARAGODE. 13. DR.MANOJ A.T, ASSISTANT SURGEON TALUK HEADQUARTERS HOSPITAL, KASARAGODE. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.SANDESH RAJA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 8884 OF 2009 (E) ===================== Dated this the 27th day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Clause IV(c) of Ext.P3, the Prospectus for Medical Post Graduate Degree/Diploma Courses, 2009, Clause 4(c), reads as under. (c) Age: Upper age limit for general merit candidates will be 45 years as on 30.4.2009. For service Quota candidates, upper age limit will be 47 years for Post Graduate Degree Courses and 48 years for Post Graduate Diploma Courses as on 30.4.2009, subject to relaxation mentioned in Clause VII (a) below. 2. Impugning this Clause, two submissions are made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. First is that in Ext.P2 prospectus issued for the year 2008, the upper age limit for general merit candidates was 45 years and for service candidates 50 years for PG Degree Course and 51 years for PG Diploma Course. In Clause 4(c) of Ext.P3, this year's prospectus, the upper age limit for general merit candidates is retained at 45, but for service quota candidates, it has been reduced to 47 years for PG Degree Courses and 48 years for PG Diploma Courses. Counsel submits that this reduction in age, though was suggested by the Prospectus Committee, has not been accepted by the WPC 8884/09 :2 : Government and therefore, the reduction in age is illegal. 3. However, this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is denied by the learned Government Pleader on instructions. Referring to the fist page of Ext.P3 Prospectus itself, where it is stated that “Approved by Government as per GO(Rt) No.4019/08/H&FWD Thiruvananthapuram dated 3/12/2008” and it is submitted that the contention of the petitioners is incorrect. In view of the aforesaid provision in the Prospectus itself, I have no reason to accept the contention now raised by the counsel for the petitioner. Hence, the first contention will stand rejected 4. Next, it is contended that there cannot be a classification based on the age of service candidates. In my view, this contention is also devoid of any substance. Even in the previous years, the classification based on age has been made, for determining eligibility for admission. However, in this year, all that has been done is that the upper age limit has been reduced for service quota candidates. Therefore, it was always the policy of the Government to fix an upper age limit for service quota candidates. Even otherwise, in my view, there is absolutely nothing illegal in the Government specifying the upper age limit WPC 8884/09 :3 : for admission in order to ensure that a minimum service to the Government is ensured prior to their retirement. With the reduction in the age, it is ensured that the length of service rendered by the service quota candidates, who have acquired higher qualification while in service is longer than in the past and I see nothing objectionable in the fixation of age limit. Therefore, both these grounds are unsustainable and writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp