IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 20TH MARCH 2009 / 29TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 22893 of 2007(A) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- OMANA, AGED 45 YEARS, D/O.DEVAKI, CHAKKANATTUVADAKKATHIL, PUTHIYAVILA MURI, KANADALOOR VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. mr.B.RENJITHKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH - FAMILY WELFARE (F W), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE STATE MISSION DIRECTOR, N R H M, DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH SERVICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 35. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA. 4. THE DISTRICT PROGRAMME MANAGER, DISTRICT HEALTH - FAMILY WELFARE SOCIETY (DH & FWS), ALAPPUZHA. 5. THE KANDALOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KANDALOOR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.TEKCHAND BY ADVS.MR.M.AJAY,SC,NATIONAL RURAL HEALTH MIS FOR R2 & 4 BY ADVS. MR.K.HARILAL FOR R5 MR.R.GOPAN FOR R5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.22893/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DT. 24.2.07 ISSEUD BY THE IST RESPONDENT. P2:- COPY OF THE SELECTION LIST. R4:- COPY OF THE OPRIGINAL LIST OF AAROGYA SAHAYEE FOR KANDALLOOR PANCHAYATH FROM THE OFFICE OF ZILLA PANCHAYATH ALAPPUZHA. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE TSS P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ........................................................................ W.P.(C) No. 22893 OF 2007 ......................................................................... Dated this the 20th March, 2009 J U D G M E N T Selection and appointment of 'ASHA' (Accredited Social Health Activist) for the service under the 5th respondent, allegedly without considering the claim of the petitioner, is the issue involved in the present Writ Petition. The petitioner also contends that the stipulation fixing the maximum age limit as 45 years in Ext.P1 Scheme is arbitrary, which hence is sought to be set aside. 2. The petitioner submits that the selection and engagement as 'ASHA', as contemplated under Ext.P1 Scheme is rather a service oriented aspect, for which no salary, honorarium or such remuneration is prescribed and hence there should have been no age restriction, particularly at the maximum level. 3. Respondents 2 to 4 have filed a counter affidavit stating that selection of 'ASHA' in the 5th respondent Panchayat is yet to be initiated by the 4th respondent and that the document W.P.(C) No. 22893 OF 2007 2 produced by the petitioner as Ext.P2 does not pertain to the selection of 'ASHA' in the 5th respondent Panchayat, but it is a list of 'Aarogya Sahayees', a project of the Alappuzha Zilla Panchayath for 2006-08 and that the said list has nothing to do with 'AHSA'. Contending further that Ext.P2 has been tampered with, the above respondents have produced a copy of the 'original Ext.P2' maintained in the Alappuzha Zilla Panchayat, as Ext.R4. It is contended that the reliefs prayed for are not liable to be entertained, particularly since the apprehension and cause of action are rather premature. 4. With regard to the contention of the petitioner that prescription of the age limit as 45 years in Ext.P1 is arbitrary, discriminatory and malafide, absolutely, no tenable ground has been raised in the Writ Petition seeking to sustain the interference called for. 5. Referring to the various duties to be performed by 'AHSA' in connection with the service envisaged under Ext.P1 Scheme, it has been stipulated that such persons shall be a resident of the area concerned and shall be either a married W.P.(C) No. 22893 OF 2007 3 woman or a divorcee between the age group of 25 and 45 years. It has been stated by the respondents 2 to 4 in their counter affidavit that the guidelines for selection as well as upper age limit have been formulated by the Government of India and Government of Kerala and the same have been finalised taking into account of various aspects related to the programme. Obviously this appears to be a matter of policy with intent to achieve the desired objects contemplated under the Scheme and no palatable ground has been projected to justify any interference showing that such policy is wrong , defective or perverse in any manner. In the above circumstance, no interference is warranted. The Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed accordingly. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk