IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2009 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 33858 of 2009(B) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- A.T. SHAJI, ARACKAL HOUSE, KANNAMBRA.P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 686. BY ADV. MR.ASOK M.CHERIAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER (HR), KERALA ZONAL OFFICE, KALOOR TOWERS, KALOOR - KADAVANTHRA ROAD, COCHIN- 682 017. 2. THE DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT OFFICER, DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE, PALAKKAD. R1 BY ADVS. MR.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, MR.K.M.ANEESH, MR.SANTHOSH KUMAR K. R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. P.NANDAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P.(C) No. 33858 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 10th day of December, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner is an Other Backward Classes candidate, aged 28 years. The first respondents sent requisition to the second respondent for sponsoring candidates to fill up two vacancies of Safai Karmachari in their branches within Palakkad district. Petitioner's name was sponsored. According to him, he has undergone selection process and was also selected. However, without making appointment, the bank again sent a requisition for sponsoring candidates in respect of the very same vacancies. It is thereupon this writ petition is filed. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent bank points out that though the maximum age limit prescribed under the rules is 26, in the requisition it was shown as 24 and that when this mistake was pointed out, the bank cancelled the requisition. If as stated by the learned counsel, on realizing the mistake, the requisition itself was cancelled by the appointing authority, the petitioner cannot have any objection to such a course of action. 3. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner points out that in W.P.(C) No. 33858/09 2 response to the fresh requisition that is made, he is entitled to be sponsored. Since the first requisition was cancelled, such sponsoring cannot stand in the way of the petitioner from being sponsored pursuant to the fresh requisition. 4. It is also the case of the petitioner that even though maximum age prescribed is 26, as the petitioner is eligible for relaxation by three years, he should be sponsored. If as stated, petitioner is an OBC, he is entitled for relaxation in age as prescribed in the rules. This shall be taken into account as and when the second respondent sponsors candidates, if candidates are not sponsored so far. On the other hand, ignoring his aforesaid eligibility, candidates have already sponsored, the second respondent shall sponsor the petitioner on the production of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the second respondent. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. mn.