IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2010 / 18TH POUSHA 1931 WA.No. 36 of 2010() ------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.372/2010 Dated 06/01/2010 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIOENR ------------------------ PRAVEEN.A.,AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.LATE ACHUTHAN, GURUKKALOTH HOUSE, NEAR DISTRICT COURT, THALASSERY. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN SRI.T.V.JAYAKUMAR NAMBOODIRI RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. HIGH COURT OF KERALA, REP.BY REGISTRAR, (SUB-JUDICIARY),HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, MUNSIF-MAGISTRATE RECRUITMENT COMMITTEE, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 3. STATE OF KERALA, TO BE REP.BY SECRETARY, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SRI.K.R.B.KAIMAL(SENIOR ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/01/2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.R. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- W.A. No.36 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 8th January, 2010. J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. The writ petitioner is the appellant. He was a candidate, who applied for the post of Munsiff-Magistrate under the Kerala Judicial Service, when applications were invited for the same by the High Court, as per Ext.P2 notification. He is a physically handicapped person, suffering from 40% disability. His date of birth is 24.5.1968. The upper age limit prescribed for the candidates is 35 years as on 1.1.2009. Going by his date of birth, he has completed 40 years as on 1.1.2009. But, the said notification granted age relaxation of five years to the members of SC/ST and three years to the members of Other Backward Classes, apart from the age relaxation of three years, granted to the physically handicapped persons. The appellant/petitioner is a member of Other Backward Classes and also a physically handicapped person. 2. Though, the appellant submitted his application in WA NO.36/2010 2 time, the same was rejected by Ext.P3 communication, on the ground that he is over-aged. Challenging Ext.P3 and claiming consequential reliefs, the writ petition was filed. According to the appellant, as a member of the OBC, he is entitled to get age relaxation of three years, over and above the relaxation of three years granted to the physically handicapped persons. Thus, totally, six years' age relaxation is to be granted and so, he is entitled to be considered for appointment. This was the claim raised in the writ petition. 3. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the writ petitioner and the learned senior counsel for respondents 1 and 2, dismissed the writ petition. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment, this appeal is preferred. 4. Though the appellant produced Annexure I order and claimed age relaxation of ten years as a physically handicapped person, we find that the said order has already been repealed. Some of the subsequent orders also provide for similar benefit of relaxation for physically handicapped persons. But, the last of the orders issued by the Government on the subject (G.O. (P)No.46/2008/SWD dated 19.7.2008) provides that in the case of WA NO.36/2010 3 recruitment of physically handicapped persons to Class I, Class II, Class III and Class IV posts, age relaxation will be available, as provided in the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules (for short “K.S.&S.S.R”). But, we find that in the K.S. & S.S.R., there is no age relaxation provided for physically handicapped persons. Whatever be that, we notice that the claim of the appellant/ petitioner in the writ petition is founded, based on the interpretation given to Clause 5 (wrongly numbered as Clause 4) of Ext.P2 notification, which reads as follows :- “5. Qualifications : 1. Direct recruitment : A candidate for appointment as Munsiff-Magistrate by direct recruitment shall satisfy the following general conditions, namely : a) He shall be a citizen of India. b) He shall be holder of a degree in Law recognised by the Bar Council of India for the purpose of enrolment as an Advocate. c) He shall not have completed 35 years of age on the first day of January, 2009. Note (1) Upper age limit shall be raised by five years in the case of candidates belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes or adult members of such castes and their children when such adult members are converted to other religions, or Scheduled Tribes, and by three years in the case of candidates belonging to any of the Other Backward Classes and physically handicapped candidates. (2) For further relaxation of age limit for other categories of persons, provision in Rule 10 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 may be seen. Anyone WA NO.36/2010 4 coming within the description in the rule and who satisfies the other conditions can also apply. x x x x x x x x x x x x x x” 5. Going by Note (1) quoted above, members of OBC and physically challenged persons are entitled to get three years' relaxation. There is no specific stipulation that a physically handicapped person, if he is a member of OBC, is entitled to get six years’ relaxation. We find that in Ext.P4 notification issued by the Staff Selection Commission, there is a specific provision to give relaxation to the physically handicapped persons, over and above the relaxation available to them as members of OBC. There is no such specific stipulation in Ext.P2. The first respondent is the author of Ext.P2. The said respondent has taken a view that the appellant cannot get the benefits under both heads; either he can claim three years' relaxation as a member of the OBC or three years' relaxation as a physically handicapped person. We think that the said view taken by the first respondent is a plausible view, having regard to the relevant terms of Ext.P2, which we have already extracted above. No one else has been granted the benefit claimed by the appellant. So, it is the WA NO.36/2010 5 consistent stand of the first respondent that persons like the appellant are entitled only to get three years' age relaxation. Going by the well settled principles governing judicial review, this Court is not justified in interfering with the said stand of the first respondent, which is based on a plausible view of the terms of Ext.P2. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment under appeal. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE. tgs C.R. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- W.A. No.36 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T Dated 8th January, 2010.