IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 12TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 23RD MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 24119 of 2008(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- C.MANOHARI, CHADAYAN HOUSE, WEST STREET, VENGAD.P.O., ANCHARAKKANDI, KANNUR - 670612. BY ADV. SRI.UNNI. K.K. (EZHUMATTOOR) RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. EMPLOYMENT DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF EMPLOYMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. EMPLOYMENT OFFICER, TOWN EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI ANTONY MUKKATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 6/02/2009, THE COURT ON 12/2/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 24119 of 2008-U - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 12th day of February, 2009. JUDGMENT This is a case of a 51 years old spinster who had failed to get any employment irrespective of having registration in the local Employment Exchange from the year 1982 onwards. She has approached this court seeking to quash Ext.P3 by which she was told that she has become over aged for sponsorship by the Employment Exchange. 2. The initial registration of the petitioner was in the year 1982. Due to non-renewal it became lapsed, but it was renewed on 22.1.1987 which is evidenced by Ext.P1 employment registration card. Her date of birth is 7.11.1957 and she belongs to Saliya (Hindu) community which comes within OBC category. 3. Her claim was rejected by Ext.P3 when she sought for an appointment as a Part-time Sweeper. In para 3 the petitioner alleges that other persons who had crossed the age of 50, have been sponsored by the Employment Exchange and therefore her claim should have been considered. 4. In the statement filed by the second respondent, it is pointed out WPC 24119/2008 2 that as per G.O.(P) No.10/2002/P & ARD dated 14.3.2002 of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Rules) Department, the maximum age limit to consider for part-time contingent vacancies through Employment Exchange is 50 years. The age has to be reckoned as on 1st January of every year. So, as on 1.1.2008, the age of petitioner exceeds 50 years and hence she is not eligible for any notified vacancies by the respective employers on or after 1.1.2008. 5. Regarding the sponsorship of other candidates who have crossed the age of 50, the situation is explained in para 3. It is pointed out that at the time of appointment of a person above 50 years as part-time sweeper in District Medical (Homoeo) Department, the relevant Govt. Order applicable was G.O.(P) No.183/83/GAD dated 22.7.1983, according to which the upper age limit of an applicant was enhanced from 50 to 55 years. It is pointed out that as per Ext.R2(b) the upper age limit to consider for part- time contingent vacancies was reduced to 50 except in the case of widow/widower who were dependents of Government servants died in harness. It is further pointed out that even though the petitioner is entitled to get priority for recruitment vide G.O.(Rt) No.2026/04/Lab.Tvm. dated 29.10.2004 as she remained as an unmarried woman, since her age exceeds 50 years as on 1.1.2008, she cannot be considered for selection. WPC 24119/2008 3 6. Along with the reply affidavit, learned counsel for the petitioner has produced as Ext.P7, the Govt. Order dated 29.10.2004 by which the Government has granted 10 years relaxation for unmarried women who have crossed the age of 35. The contention is that going by the proviso to Rule 5(a) of the Special Rules for Part-time Contingent Service, a maximum age limit of 50 is given in the case of persons who were within the age limit at the time of registration of their names in the Employment Exchange, and as the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of the said clause and that of Ext.P7, she is entitled to be considered up to the age of 60 years. 7. Rule 5(a) of the above Rules fixes the minimum age of 18 years and upper limit of 35 years for appointment. There is a provision for relaxation of five years in the case of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and three years in the case of Other Backward Classes. The proviso is extracted below: “Provided that the maximum age limit shall be 50 years in the case of persons who were within the age limit at the time of registration of their names in the Employment Exchange and whose names remain in the live Registers of the Employment Exchange on the said date by virtue of such registration or renewal of such registration.” That applies only in the case of persons who were within the age limit at the time of registration. That means, in the case of such persons the upper age WPC 24119/2008 4 will be 50 years. 8. The scope of Ext.P7 is only that unmarried women who, in spite of registration, have not obtained any appointment, are given 10 years relaxation from the maximum age, if they have completed 35 years. The same only shows that a person who remained unmarried, will get the maximum relaxation up to the age of 45. As far as the benefit of the said Government Order is concerned, the petitioner has crossed the age of 45 already. Therefore, even if the said benefit was allowable to her, since she has crossed the age of 45, she cannot have any claim based on that. Learned counsel submitted that the relaxation of 10 years as provided in Ext.P7 should be added to the relaxation up to the age of 50 years provided by the proviso to Rule 5(a). According to me, no such exercise can be made, since the proviso and the Govt. Order have to be interpreted harmoniously. Ten years relaxation in Ext.P7 is not in addition to the relaxation up to the age of 50 years in Rule 5(a) of the Rules. It is well settled that a statutory rule WPC 24119/2008 5 cannot be amended by the executive order. Therefore, the argument fails. I do not find any reason to hold that Ext.P3 is illegal. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/