IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2010 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 16228 of 2010(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. S.RAVI, SANKARA VILASAM, PONMANA P.O., CHAVARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. VIJAYAKUMAR T.G., THEKKEDATHU HOUSE, CHITTOOR, PONMANA P.O., CHAVARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. S.MOHANAKUMAR, PANDAKASALA KUNNEL, PONMANA P.O., CHAVARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.SUKUMARAN SRI.S.SHYAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- KERALA MINERALS AND METALS LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SANKARAMANGALAM P.O., CHAVARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. MR.U.K.DEVIDAS, SC FOR RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.16228 of 2010 (C) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 27th day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioners submit that they are dependents of land acquisition evictees, and are eligible for preference in the matter of employment in the services of the Company. Ext.P1 is said to be minutes of understanding, where the Company has agreed to give them preference in the matter of employment. 2. The company has now published Ext.P2 advertisement inviting applications to the post of Junior Technicians. In Ext.P2, an upper age limit of 38 has been fixed. The petitioners submit that neither in Ext.P1 minutes of understanding nor when recruitment was conducted in the past, did the company insist on an upper age limit for categories such as their's, and therefore the fixation of upper age limit as done in Ext.P2 is illegal. It is on this basis, the writ petition has been filed. 3. Fixation of upper age limit and other terms of eligibility for employment in the Company is a matter, which is fully within the domain of the company. In Ext.P1 minutes all that the Company WP(C) No.16228/2010 -2- agreed is to give preference in the matter of employment to the land acquisition evictees or their dependents, as the case may be. Preference offered is subject to the eligibility that is laid down by the Company and if so, having regard to the fact that the Company is competent to fix the upper age limit, the fixation of age limit in Ext.P2 cannot be faulted. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the past when recruitment was made the Company did not insist on any upper age limit and that persons who have completed more than 40 years were appointed. However, the petitioners have no case that at that stage the Company had fixed an upper age limit and that the same was not insisted in the case of land acquisition evictees. Even if the Company has appointed persons elder to them in the earlier recruitment, that does not prevent the Company in fixing upper age limit when recruitments are held at subsequent stages. Therefore, I see nothing objectionable in Ext.P2. The writ petition fails and is therefore dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg