IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 31ST MAY 2010 / 10TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 15773 of 2010(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MOHAMED ASHARAF.C., AGED 41 YEARS, CHIRAKKAL HOUSE, MEENADATHUR POST, VIA TANALUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.MAJEED SRI.P.FAIZAL SRI.K.H.ASIF RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SPL.SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. CHIEF ENGINEER (ADMN), LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, CHIEF ENGINEER'S OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY IT'S SECRETARY. BY G.P.SRI.ARAVINDKUMAR BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.15773 of 2010 (V) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 31st day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is working as an Overseer Gr.II in Public Works Department. By Ext.P3 notification issued by the Public Service Commission, applications have been invited for the post of Assistant Engineer/Assistant Town Planning Officer in the direct recruitment category. In Clause 6 of Ext.P3, age limit has been prescribed as “must have completed 18 years and must not have completed 35 years of age as on 01/01/2009 with usual relaxation to SC/ST/OBC.” The fixation of age limit in Ext.P3 is in terms of Ext.P5, the Special Rules for the Kerala Local Self Government Engineering Services, 2007. Rule (6) of the Special Rules reads as under:- “6. Qualification regarding age:- No person shall be eligible for appointment by direct recruitment unless he has completed 18 years of age or if he has completed 35 years of age on the first day of January of the year in which applications for appointment are invited. Usual relaxation in upper age limit shall be allowed to candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes. In the case of candidate who is an Ex- Serviceman, the period of his service in the Defense Forces and the period of unemployment on discharge up to a maximum period of five years shall be excluded in computing his age for appointment WP(C) No.15773/2010 -2- by direct recruitment. The candidates for direct recruitment from service shall be exempted from the upper age limit for direct recruitment.” Though in response to Ext.P3, the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 application, since he is over aged, challenging the fixation of age limit as above in the Special Rules and the notification, the writ petition has been filed. 2. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that insofar as the Special Rules, namely Kerala Engineering Service Rules governing the employees of PWD and Irrigation Department, are concerned, the age limit prescribed for recruitment is in between 21 to 39. Therefore, fixation of age as reflected in Ext.P5 Special Rules incorporated in Ext.P3 notification, is discriminatory and illegal. 3. I am not persuaded to agree with the learned counsel. First of all, discrimination can be pleaded only among employees forming a class. The Special Rules, namely Ext.P5 concerns the employees in the Local Self Government Department, whereas the petitioner is drawing salary comparison with the employees in the Engineering Service. Employees, who are covered by these two WP(C) No.15773/2010 -3- Rules, do not form members of the same class and since as they belong to different classes of employees, one cannot complain discrimination, vis-a-vis, the members of other class of employees. 4. Fixation of age limit in the matter of recruitment is entirely within the domain of the appointing authority and exercising that power, if the appointing authority has fixed age limit in the matter of recruitment unless any arbitrariness or other form of illegality is found, this Court will not be justified in interfering with the same. The petitioner has not succeeded in establishing any illegality or arbitrariness in Rule 6 of Ext.P5 Special Rules. If so, the Special Rules as also Ext.P3 deserve to be upheld and I do so. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg