IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 28TH JUNE 2010 / 7TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 19774 of 2010(V) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. SUJILAL. S, S/O.SOMAN, LAL BHAVAN, CHERUSSERY BHAGOM VILLAGE, CHAVARA, KOLLAM. 2. SATHEESH. R, SATHEESH BHAVANAM, NETTIYADU, EDAPPALLYKOTTA P.O., KOLLAM. 3. ANSAR, KINARUVILAYIL HOUSE, PORUKKARA, EDAPPALLYKOTTA P.O., CHAVARA, KOLLAM. 4. SHIBU Y.PANICKER, NELLIVILA PANICKERS VIEW, IRUMADANANGADU P.O., EZHUKONE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. DR.K.P.KYLASANATHA PILLAY, SRI.B.MOHANLAL. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE KERALA MINERALS AND METALS LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, CHAVARA, KOLLAM. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.ARAVINDKUMAR BABU. R2 BY ADV. MR.E.K. MADHAVAN, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/06/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.19774 of 2010 (V) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 28th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioners are ex-apprentices of the respondent Company. In this writ petition, they are challenging Exts.P8, P11 & P12. 2. Ext.P8 is the communication issued by the respondent Company on 01/02/2008 to the 1st petitioner in pursuance to the directions of this Court in the judgment in WP(C) No.886/2008. By this communication, he was informed that there are no vacancies of Junior Technician-cum-Fitter Trainees to appoint him. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioners contends that the statement about the nonavailability of vacancies contained in Ext.P8 is incorrect. In support of this plea, the learned counsel relies on Ext.P6 dated 11/12/2007, an information obtained by them invoking the provisions of the Right to Information Act suggesting the existence of six vacancies. 3. Insofar as the challenge raised against Ext.P8 is WP(C) No.19774/2010 -2- concerned, in my view, it is highly belated in as much as Ext.P8 was issued way back on 01/02/2008 and therefore, at this distance of time, the petitioners cannot be allowed to challenge Ext.P8. 4. Insofar as Ext.P11 Government Order is concerned, in Ext.P10 judgment dated 19/03/2009 in WP(C) No.16722/2008 filed by the petitioners, after upholding the contention that the petitioners are entitled to preference in the matter of employment, this Court ordered that if they have any other grievances, they will be free to agitate the same before the Government by filing an appropriate representation. Accordingly, representation was made. The representation was considered and on the representation Ext.P11 order was issued. Copy of the representation has not been produced by the petitioners and therefore, this Court is not in a position to ascertain what were the grievances ventilated by the petitioners other than the issues covered by Ext.P10 judgment. However a reading of Ext.P11 order shows that the disputes raised by the petitioners are those which are already covered by Ext.P10 and the other judgments relied on by the petitioners. The order also says that the petitioners requested to consider them for WP(C) No.19774/2010 -3- appointment on humanitarian and sympathetic grounds as they are over aged. Ext.P11 shows that the Government found that in the best interest of the Company, no such consideration can be allowed. Therefore, their claim that condoning their ineligibility because of over age, they should be considered for employment was turned down by the Government. 5. Exts.P1 & P2 are the orders relied on by the petitioners for claiming preference. These orders show that relaxation of age by three years has been given to the preferential category candidates. Admittedly, the petitioners have become over aged and if the Government have declined to consider their claim to be considered for employment, this Court cannot find fault with the view taken in Ext.P11 order of the Government. Therefore, challenge against Ext.P11 also has to be rejected. Insofar as Ext.P12 is concerned, it is a vacancy notification issued by the Company inviting applications from preferential categories. Pleadings show that in response to Ext.P12 notification, the petitioners applied, and by Exts.P13 & P14, petitioners 1 & 3 alone have been called for interview. Evidently, petitioners 2 & 4 WP(C) No.19774/2010 -4- were not called for interview for the reason that they are over aged. Challenge against Ext.P12 is on the ground that this Court having already recognised the eligibility of the petitioners for preferential treatment and going by Ext.P6, there are vacancies available, and therefore, the Company ought not have gone for fresh recruitment. Now that this Court has already rejected the petitioners' challenge to Ext.P8, and as admittedly, petitioners 2 & 4 are ineligible as they are over aged and the Company has already called petitioners 1 & 3 for interview conceding their eligibility, challenge against Ext.P12 also lacks merit and is rejected. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg