Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2018 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 81584

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.ASHA, J
DR.DIVYA P.D – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C).No. 15112 of 2014|WP(C).565 of 2015|WP(C).9353 of 2015|WP(C).14174 of 2015|WP(C).15580 of 2014|WP(C).19030 of 2015|WP(C).19274 of 2014|WP(C).19275 of 2014|WP(C).19908 of 2014|WP(C).30862 of 2014

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners:SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SRI.P.V.JAYACHANDRAN, SRI.ISAAC KURUVILLA ILLIKAL, SRI.NIDHI BALACHANDRAN, SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI, SRI.K.V & A.S. UTY, SRI.ELVIN PETER, SMT.AYSHA YOUSEFF, SRI.P.RAHUL, SRI.V.RAJENDRAN| For the Respondents: SRI SUNIL KURIAKOSE, SMT.MARY BEENA JOSEPH, SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI, SRI.GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Court ruled that the Note to Statute 149 allowing age relaxation for certain candidates was inconsistent with the Swedish Act, and no candidates aged over 40 years on the application date could be considered for appointment.

Headnote:(A) Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University Act, 2010 - Section 57, 58 - Statutes 132, 138, 140 - Age limit for appointment of Assistant Professors set at 40 years without relaxation for OBC candidates - Petitioners challenged age limit and sought regularization under Note to Statute 149 - Court found the Note inconsistent with the Act and ruled that no candidates over the age limit on application date can be considered for appointment. (Paras 30-44)

Findings of Court:
The claim for age relaxation for OBC candidates was rejected while the age specified for applications continued without any contraventions. No candidates were entitled to appointment if they exceeded the age limit designated in the Statute on the date of application. The appointments made subject to the judgment were deemed illegal.

Result: Petitions allowed and directed the University to remove ineligible candidates from the rank list and fill positions as per merit. (Paras 42-44)

Table of Content
1. overview of writ petitions (Para 1 , 2)
2. claims and background of petitioners (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. challenging age limit and seeking regularization (Para 6 , 7)
4. counter assertions from the university (Para 8 , 9)
5. university statutes and regulations for recruitment (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
6. upper age limit considerations (Para 13 , 14)
7. claims on relaxation policies (Para 15 , 16 , 17)
8. legal challenges on candidate qualifications (Para 18 , 19)
9. discrepancies in qualification claims (Para 20 , 21)
10. need for expert review of qualifications (Para 22 , 23 , 24)
11. court's analysis and reasoning (Para 25 , 26 , 27)
12. legal standards and obligations (Para 28 , 29)
13. conclusion on age limit and regularization (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33)
14. legislative powers and rule-making authority (Para 34 , 35 , 36)
15. final determinations on petitions (Para 37 , 38 , 39)
16. final conclusions and directives of the court (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44)

JUDGMENT

All these writ petitions relate to selection and appointment to the post of Assistant Professors in various disciplines in various institutions under the Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University (`University' for short). The petitioners in all these Writ Petitions submitted applications pursuant to the notification issued on 12.06.2014. Therefore, all these cases were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The claims raised by the petitioners in WP(C) Nos. 19274 of 2014, 19275 of 2014, 30862 of 2014 and 565 of 2015 are more or less similar. Petitioners in all these cases have submitted applications pursuant to notification issued on 12.06.2014, for appointment as Assistant Professors in various disciplines. The age limit notified for submitting applications was “should not have attained the age of 40 years as on the last date for submission of application that is 31.7.2014. For candidates from SC/ST Category, there would be a relaxation of 5 years in the upper age limit.” The petitioners had crossed the age of 40 years. They belong to Other Backward Class (OBC) and therefore they claim that they are entitled to get age relaxation under Rule 10(c) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules (KS&SSR). They also claim regularisation claiming the benefit of Note to Statute 149 of the University First Statutes, 2014. The petitioners in each of these Writ Petitions are seeking appointment in different disciplines. Brief facts in each of the writ petitions are the following.

WP(C).No.19274 of 2014

3. Petitioner was working as a Veterinary Surgeon in the Department of Animal Husbandry under the Government of Kerala with effect from 17.02.2006 to 04.09.2009. After availing study leave and acquiring Ph.D he rejoined duty in June 2011 and worked there upto 17.02.2012. From 18.02.2012 to 30.09.2013 he worked as Academic Consultant in the Department of Surgery and Radiology in the College of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Pookode. While so, he was appointed as Assistant Professor with effect from 01.10.2013 on deputation. While he was continuing there the University issued notification inviting applications from eligible candidates to be appointed to the post of Assistant Professors on permanent basis. Though the notification did not provide for age relaxation to candidates belonging to OBC, the petitioner claims that as per Rule 2(3) of the Public Services (Raising of Upper Age Limit for Appointment) Rules, 1978 the maximum upper age limit for direct recruitment to any post shall in no case exceed 50 years and therefore the notification to the extent it prescribed the upper age limit at 40 years is arbitrary. Pursuant to the notification he submitted application for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in Veterinary Surgery and Radiology. The petitioner claims that as Section 58 of KVASU Act, 2010 provides that the rules for reservation of appointments to the posts under the Government in favour of SC/ST and OBC are applicable in the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2018 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 81584

The Court ruled that the Note to Statute 149 allowing age relaxation for certain candidates was inconsistent with the Swedish Act, and no candidates aged over 40 years on the application date could be considered for appointment.

Cases Referred (5)