IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2010 / 26TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 17211 of 2010(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- BEENA VARGHESE, CHAVARA HOUSE, VILLOONNI P.O., ARPOOKKARA, KOTTAYAM-686 008. BY ADV. SRI.S.JAYAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMNET PLEADER SRI DILIP MOHAN R1 TO R2 STANDING COUNSEL SRI ALEXANDER THOMAS R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P. (C) No. 17211 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 16th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner who is an unemployed lady aspiring employment approached this Court raising grievances against the action on the part of the respondents in rejecting her claim for enhancement of the upper age limit for applying to the post of Senior Lecturer under the Medical Education Department(Nursing Colleges), without affording her an opportunity of being heard. Ext.P1 is the notification issued by the 3rd respondent inviting application for appointment to the post of Senior Lecturer in Nursing under the Medical Education Department(Nursing Colleges). The upper age limit as per the said notification is 40 years. According to the petitioner the age limit in respect of Senior Lecturers under the Medical Education as per Ext.P2 notification issued by the Public Service Commission is 45. Since both the aforesaid posts are under the Medical Education Department and carry the same scale of pay and there is no reason for prescribing different upper age limits as per Exts.P1 and P2 notifications, it is submitted. Earlier, the petitioner had approached this WPC.17211/2010 : 2 : court by filing WP(C) No. 34057 of 2009 with a prayer for a direction to the 3rd respondent to accept the application submitted by the petitioner for selection to the post of Senior Lecturer in Nursing in the Medical Education Department (Nursing Colleges) as a valid application and to consider her for selection. The said writ petition was disposed of as per Ext.P3 judgment. The grievance of the petitioner is that there after as per Ext.P4 her representation was rejected, but without affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. In the meantime as per Ext.P5 her application submitted pursuant to Ext.P1 notification was also rejected. Feeling aggrieved by Ext.P4, the petitioner has filed a review petition against Ext.P4 order. However, no order was passed on the said review petition. It is in the said circumstances that this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. 2. The petitioner has no case that the upper age limit was so fixed by the respondents as per Ext.P1 notification ignoring any statutory provision or in violation of any statutory provision. The fact that Exts.P1 and P2 prescribe different age as the upper age limits cannot be a ground for interfering with Ext.P1. Admittedly, the petitioner had crossed the upper WPC.17211/2010 : 3 : age limit fixed as per Ext.P1 notification and thus became ineligible to apply pursuant to Ext.P1 application. In Ext.P3 judgment, the representation submitted by the petitioner was only directed to be considered and after such consideration it was rejected as per Ext.P4 order. No sustainable grounds have been raised in the writ petition warranting interference with the said order passed in Ext.P4. Ext.P5 is only a natural consequence of her being ineligible in terms of Ext.P1 notification. Thus there is no reason to interfere with Exts.P4 and P5. No legal right of the petitioner was infringed as per Exts.P4 and P5. That apart, no specific provision has been brought to my attention to enable this court to command the first respondent to review Ext.P4 order. In the absence of such power specifically conferred, a direction cannot be issued to first respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P6 Review Petition as well. That apart, according to me, it will be a futile exercise to issue any such order as the respondents have already initiated selection proceedings as per Ext.P1 and have proceeded further with the said selection process. Even in the case of any future amendment with respect to the provisions regarding the qualification of age it WPC.17211/2010 : 4 : cannot have any impact on the present selection already initiated as per Ext.P1 dated 31.10.2009. For all these reasons, I find no merit in this writ petition and accordingly it is dismissed. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge