IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2009 / 13TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 36845 of 2008(J) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- P.K.JAYARAJAN THOOVAKUNNU, 4 CENT COLONY THAMARASSERY PO., KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. MR.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE EMPLOYMENT DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF EMPLOYMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EMPLOYMENT OFFICER TOWN EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE, THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE DIVISIONAL EMPLOYMENT OFFICER COACHING AND GUIDANCE CENTRE(FOR SC/ST), DIVISIONAL EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE, KOZHIKODE. 4. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R4 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.P. NANDAKUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/08/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P.(C) No. 36845 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 4th August, 2009 JUDGMENT Heard Sri.T.G.Rajendran, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.P.Nandakumar, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner who belongs to Vannan Community, which is a Scheduled Caste in the State of Kerala, has filed this writ petition seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to provide employment assistance to him. The petitioner's grievance is that though he had registered with the Town Employment Exchange, Thamarassery way back in the year 1975, till date his name has not been sponsored for appointment to any post. A statement has been filed on behalf of the second respondent wherein it is stated that the name of the petitioner was sponsored on ten occasions for appointment against temporary and regular vacancies and that the petitioner was not selected. It is also stated that the petitioner had not furnished the change of his address, after his name was registered with the Town Employment Exchange and that the petitioner alone can be blamed, if he has not received the intimation. The second respondent has W.P.(C) No. 36845/08 2 also stated that as the petitioner had crossed the upper age limit of 50 years, he is not entitled to be considered for appointment. In view of the admitted fact that the petitioner has crossed the upper age limit of 50 years, the reliefs sought for by him cannot be granted. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. mn.