Introduction:

1. In a recruitment to an executive post, the Selection Committee applies regulations not yet enforced, relaxes the age of a candidate, and appoints him. The candidate next in rank questions it. Under the regnant regulations no relaxation is possible. Pending the writ petition, the candidate earlier appointed also retires. But the next candidate, the writ petitioner, is still eligible. If the Court declares the earlier appointment illegal, can it direct the employer to appoint the challenger despite the long delay? The answer: Yes.

Facts:

2. The Spices Board, the second respondent, a statutory body under the Spices Board Act 1986, published Ext.P1 notification inviting applications from eligible candidates to fill up various posts, including the post of Director (Finance). When nineteen persons had applied to the post of Director, the Board shortlisted seven names holding that they had fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Later, the Selection Committee, constituted by the Board, conducted interviews and, through Ext.P4 rank list, declared that three persons were found eligible: Babu K.C., the fourth respondent, placed at rank No.1; Sunil Mathew K., the petitioner, at rank No.2; and another person at rank No.3. Eventually, it issued Ext.P5 offer letter to Babu, who soon thereafter joined the service.

3. Sunil, the petitioner, has a grievance: The notification prescribes the maximum age of 45 as on 1.12.2010, but Babu, the successful appointee, crossed that age by then. Though there was no provision for age relaxation in the notification, the Selection Committee illegally relaxed Babu’s age by nine years and six months, and appointed him the Director (Finance). So the writ petition.

Submissions:

Petitioner’s:

4. Sri Paul Kuriakose, the learned counsel for Sunil Mathew, has submitted that Babu was not qualified because, by the time the Board issued Ext.P1 notification, he was barred by age. He has, first, contended that the notification does not provide for any relaxation. He has, in the alternative, contended that for two other posts in the notification five years' relaxation was provided. If that were taken as applicable to the post of Director (Finance), still, over four years remained beyond the relaxable age. Therefore, Babu’s appointment, he contends, is unsustainable for it falls foul of not only the notification but also the service regulations governing the employer- Board.

The Spice Board’s:

5. The learned Standing Counsel for the Spices Board and the Selection Committee, the second and third respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that even when there is no specific mention about the relaxation, say, of age in the notification, the service rules or regulations holding the field will determine the issue. In elaboration, he has submitted that the Ext.R2(a) regulations prescribed the method of age relaxation in recruitment. According to him, for any post, the Board can relax the age of a prospective candidate up to ten years as is evident from Regulation-7. He has also contended that Sunil, in the first place, has not been qualified to hold the post. To be specific, Sunil’s experience does not accord with what was required in the notification. Thus, on both counts, the learned Standing Counsel contends that Sunil’s objection remains unsustainable.

6. First, Babu’s age stood relaxed under the Regulations of 2010 and, second, Sunil himself is disqualified because of his lacking the experience. Therefore, the learned Standing Counsel has urged this Court to dismiss the writ petition.

7. Heard Sri Paul Kuriakose, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Antony Mukkath, the learned Standing Counsel, besides perusing the record.

Issues:

8. The 1996 Regulations hold the field. Under those regulations, a candidate’s age cannot be relaxed. But the Selection Committee relaxed the age and appointed a candida