JUDGMENT

Dated this the 14th day of January, 2022 This writ petition depicts the picture of a poor hapless unemployed youth, who waited for employment for more than 28 years after registering his name with the employment exchange. Finally, just prior to the petitioner crossing the maximum age for being sponsored for permanent employment, viz. 31.12.2021, his name was sponsored for appointment under the fourth respondent. To add to the woes of the petitioner, the fourth respondent did not proceed with the process of appointment, compelling the petitioner to seek cancellation of his sponsorship, so that he could be sponsored to the next available vacancy. This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs.

i. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate order or direction to Respondents 1 to 3 sponsor the Petitioner's name to the Regular Post (Last Grade) which has arisen in between 03.03.2021 to 24.12.2021 from the District Employment Exchange, Kollam, or in the alternative to the Regular Vacancies for the post of Hospital Attendant Grade-2 which have been reported to the Employment Exchanges at Thiruvananthapuram Region in between 03.03.2021 to 31.12.2021 and the departments concerned including R5 to comply the same.

ii. Issue direction to Respondents 1 to 3 to consider his seniority and propose his name between 31.12.2021 and 30.09.2022 to be sponsored to any Regular Post (Last Grade) which will be arisen in any of the Departments in the Kerala State for being sponsored from any of the Employment Exchanges in the State.

2. Heard Adv. Priya Shanavas for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader, Adv. V. Venugopal for respondents 1 to 3 and Adv. Pooja.

R. Menon for the fifth respondent.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the peculiar circumstances under which the petitioner is placed should prompt this Court to grant the relief sought, by exercising the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, it is stated that the petitioner can be considered for full time regular appointment in respect of the vacancies that was reported on or before 31.12.2021 in the second respondent’s office, provided the petitioner is eligible in accordance with the different selection rules like registration, seniority, age, educational qualification, priority, communal reservation etc., and only if no candidates were sponsored to the reported vacancies. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the unfortunate stage at which the petitioner is placed will not justify issuance of directions in contravention of the procedure prescribed by statute.

5. Learned Counsel for the fifth respondent pointed out that, even though six vacancies were reported to respondents 1 to 3 and candidates sponsored, the Government intervened and halted the process of appointment on the premise that future appointments can be effected only after a Recruitment Board is established. As such, no relief can be sought against the fifth respondent.

6. Having heard the learned Counsel, I have no doubt that the petitioner deserves the maximum of sympathy. At the same time, the question is whether, sympathetic considerations will justify the issuance of directions contrary to the statutory prescriptions, particularly when it will adversely effect other similarly placed persons. The answer being in the negative, the only way out is to direct respondents 1 to 3 to consider the petitioner's case with utmost compassion and to take all efforts to see whether the petitioner can be sponsored to any of the vacancies that had arisen on or before 31.12.2021.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN JUDGE NB/14-1 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 30783/2021 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.

26909/2021.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17.11.2021 FROM THE EMPLOYMENT OFFICER, TOWN EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE, KUNDARA, KOLLAM.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE