IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2009 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 34776 of 2008(M) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- K.SARASWATHY, JOINT DIRECTOR (SELECTION GRADE) AND CHIEF-IN-CHARGE, EVALUATION DIVISION, STATE PLANNING BOARD, PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.GEORGE MECHERIL. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PLANNING AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE MEMEBER SECRETARY, STATE PLANNING BOARD PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SUDHA DEVI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/03/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.34776/2008-M: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE G.O.(RT).NO.463/07/PLG DTD.02/11/2007 OF THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO. E1.3239/07/SPB DTD. 12/11/07 OF THE R.2. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 31/03/2008 OF THE STATE PLANNING BOARD. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE G.O.(RT).NO.99/81/PLG DTD. 25/02/1981 OF THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE G.O.(RT).NO.53/83/PLG/DTD. 19/07/1983 OF THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE G.O.(MS).NO.35/2000/PLG DTD. 07/08/2000 OF THE GOVT. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENTS ON 10/03/2008. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).34776/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner who is the Joint Director in the State Planning Board, has been put in charge of the Chief of Evaluation Division of the Board, as per Ext.P2 dated 12.11.2007. She has been continuing theirin. 2. Rule 2(e) of the Special Rules for the Kerala State Planning Service, provides the qualifications and method of appointment to the post of Chief (Evaluation Division). Appointment is by direct recruitment. The maximum age limit prescribed for the aspirant is 45 years. In the case of SC/ST candidates, maximum age limit is 50 years. Petitioner has crossed the age of 50. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the post is such that there must also be a W.P.(C).34776/2008 2 provision to fill it up by promotion from among suitable persons in the same Department. Fixation of the method of appointment should be left to the wisdom of the Government. Therefore, unless there is violation of fundamental rights or the provision is ultravires of a plenary statute, of a provision, this Court will not interfere with the same. Going by the contentions taken up in paragraph 2 of the counter affidavit, there seems to be a reason behind prescribing Direct recruitment as the method of appointment to the said post. Of course, it is open to the Government, at any point of time, to provide for an alternate method of appointment. 4. It seems that the vacancy has been reported to the PSC and the PSC has taken steps, to effect appointment by direct recruitment. The process has not been completed. Petitioner continues in the said W.P.(C).34776/2008 3 post as in charge. It is upto the Government to consider the claim made by the petitioner, firstly, for a change in the method of appointment by at least providing for an alternate source of recruitment in the absence of direct recruitment, or to appoint the petitioner on a temporary basis pending direct recruitment. Ext.P7 representation is filed by the petitioner before the Government. 5. Having heard learned Government Pleader also, writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider Ext.P7 and take suitable action thereon within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs