Dr.Manjula P. vs State Of Kerala

Anu Sivaraman, J

The prayers in this writ petition are as follows :-

“i. Call for the records leading to Ext.P13 and quash the same in toto and Ext.P1 to the extent it does not provide for age relaxation to qualified internal candidates.

ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to suitably modify Ext.P1 by incorporating the provision for age relaxation for qualified internal candidates and permit the petitioner to take part in the selection process notified by Ext.P1 for the post of Scientist B in Geology/ Applied Geology.”

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 as well as the learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 5.

It is submitted that the petitioner is working as Technical Officer in the 4th respondent Centre and is fully qualified for appointment as Scientist B in Geology/Applied Geology. It is submitted that Ext.P1 notification was issued by the 5th respondent for appointment to the post of Scientist including that of Scientist B in Geology/Applied Geology. The age limit provided for appointment to the post as per Ext.P1 is 35 years as on 13.2.2021 with usual relaxation to candidates belonging to SC/ST/OBC etc., as per KSCSTE Rules and directives of the Government. It is submitted that the petitioner who is aged 40 years would not be entitled to apply going by Ext.P1. The petitioner contended that in all earlier notifications for appointment in the institutions under the 2nd respondent as well as in the 4th respondent itself, relaxation in age to internal candidates was provided for. Exts.P10, P11, P12 and P13 notifications issued by the 2nd and 4th respondents in the years 2002, 2012 and 2019 are produced in support of the said contention.

It is submitted that the Rules for Recruitment and Assessment Promotion of Technical Staff, which governs the employees of Research and Development Institutions under the 2nd respondent specifically provides for relaxation of upper age limit in case of in-service candidates by the Director of the Centre, based on the recommendation of the Screening Committee. It is submitted that the petitioner being fully qualified and eligible for selection and being an in-service candidate had submitted Ext.P14 representation dated 15.1.2021 seeking relaxation of the age limit to enable the petitioner to apply. However, Ext.P15 reply was issued by the 4th respondent, informing the petitioner that the prescription of upper age limit is in order and not in violation of the Recruitment Rules. The petitioner had approached this Court challenging Ext.P15. By interim order dated 3.2.2021, the petitioner was permitted to make a physical application pursuant to Ext.P1, which was duly accepted and the petitioner was permitted to participate in the selection process. The result of the selection conducted was made available to this Court pursuant to the order dated 30.6.2022. From the details made available, it is clear that the Screening Committee had considered the candidates and the petitioner was interviewed and included as Rank No.1 in the ranked list. However, in the selection list published by the 4th respondent, the result of the selection in respect of Scientist B in Geology/Applied Geology was withheld pending the decision of this Court in this writ petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since there is power vested in the 4th respondent to pass orders granting relaxation to internal candidates in appropriate cases and since it is clear that the petitioner is fully qualified, eligible and meritorious and in view of the fact that the upper age limit had been relaxed in the case of internal candidates as a matter of course in earlier selection, there is absolutely no reason for departing from the practice in the instant case alone. It is contended that the petitioner is entitled and eligible for selection after relaxation of the upper age limit.

A detailed counter affidavit has been placed on record by respondents 2 and 3, wherein it is contended that the petitioner is not entitled to age relaxation as a matter of course and that there is no age relaxation provided to internal candidates by Ext.P1. It is submitted that relaxation of age is granted only in cases where candidates possessing requisite qualification and/or experience are not likely to be available to fill up the post. It is stated that there is no dearth of candidates with prescribed qualifications in the instant selection and that there is absolutely no arbitrariness in the selection.

The learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 5 would also contend that the notification specifically provided the upper age limit of 35 years with permissible relaxations only for candidates belonging to SC/ST/OBC and did not provide any relaxation for in-service candidates. It is, therefore, contended that the petitioner cannot insist that the age limit should be relaxed.

The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Thankappan Nair v. State of Kerala [2001 (3) KLT 855] to contend that even where there is absolute discretion granted to an administrative authority, the exercise of such discretion must be governed by the principles of fairness, taking into account relevant facts and omitting to take into account irrelevant facts. The decision should be according to rules of reason and justice and not according to whims and fancies of the decision maker.

I have considered the contentions advanced. The petitioner is an in-service candidate who is otherwise fully qualified and eligible for appointment to the post of Scientist B in Geology/Applied Geology in the 4th respondent. The only prescription in Ext.P1 standing in the way of the consideration of the petitioner's application for appointment is the prescription with regard to age. In normal circumstances, internal candidates applying for appointment to higher posts in the same institutions where they work are given relaxation in age taking note of the service rendered by them. It is apparent from the documents produced by the petitioner that normal age relaxations for internal candidates was the practice in earlier selections as well. The Service Rules admittedly empower the Director of the 4th respondent Centre to grant relaxation in upper age limit in deserving cases, on the recommendations of the Screening Committee.

In the instant case, the petitioner had approached the Executive Director with Ext.P14 representation soon after the notification was issued. However, the request for relaxation of age limit in respect of internal candidates was rejected by Ext.P15 communication. It is thereafter that the petitioner approached this Court and obtained orders directing the consideration of her application. The petitioner participated in the selection process and has come out successful in the same. Therefore, the short question is whether she would be entitled for appointment by grant of relaxation of the upper age limit. In view of the fact that the relaxation in upper age limit is permissible as per Rules and was as a matter of practice being followed in earlier selections, I am of the opinion that there is absolutely no reason why the petitioner, who is admittedly a meritorious candidate, cannot be granted the same relaxation so as to make her eligible for appointment as Scientist B pursuant to the selection conducted by the respondents.

In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to succeed in the writ petition. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. The respondents shall publish the ranked list in respect of the selection conducted to the post of Scientist B in Geology/Applied Geology and issue appointment orders to the petitioner accordingly, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

This writ petition is ordered accordingly.