IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 19TH SRAVANA, 1944
WA NO. 1706 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTWP(C) 23687/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
APPELLANT:
ARYA S.
AGED 31 YEARS
D/O SUKUNA KUMAR, RESIDING AT SREEKRISHNA
MANDIRAM, SAKTHIKULANGARA P.O.KOLLAM DISTRICT,
PIN-691 581
BY ADV A.JANI(KOLLAM)
RESPONDENT/S:
1 MATSYAFED (KERALA STATE CORPORATE FEDERATION FOR
FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT)
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MATSYAFED
HEAD OFFICE, KAMALESWARAM, MANACAUD
P.O.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 009
2 THE DIRECTOR FOR FISHERIES,
DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES, VIKAS BHAVAN,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 033.
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.P.PRADEEP AND SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. B.
UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
:2:
W.A. No. 1706 of 2021
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., JJ
............................................................
W.A. No. 1706 of 2021
..................................................................
Dated this the 10th day of August, 2022
JUDGMENT
A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.
The petitioner in Writ Petition (C) No. 23687 of 2021 is the appellant herein, aggrieved by the judgment dated 22-11-2021 of the learned Single Judge, dismissing the Writ Petition.
2. Briefly stated, the facts necessary for disposal of the Writ Appeal are that the appellant had submitted an application for appointment as Management Trainee (Marketing) to 10 contract vacancies that had arisen in the respondent organization. The upper age limit prescribed for appointment was 30 years as on 1-5-2020. The appellant is a person who belongs to the OBC category and she was of the bonafide belief that she would be considered for the post through a relaxation of the age criteria, in as much as she was 31 years as on the last date for submission of the application and had been ranked in the rank list prepared by the respondents for selection. When the respondents refused to grant her appointment, she approached this Court through the Writ Petition which was :3: W.A. No. 1706 of 2021 dismissed by the learned Single Judge finding that the appellant did not satisfy the age requirement in the notification issued by the respondent.
3. When the matter came up for admission before us, we took note of the fact that the appointments made by the respondents were essentially contractual appointments and not regular appointments. We also noted that the appointment was only for a period of one year and during the said period what was proposed to be imparted to the incumbents/contract appointees was management training, so that the trainees could benefit from it and use it for the proposes of securing future employment. Taking note of the nature of the appointment contemplated and finding that under those circumstances the age limit prescribed may not be crucial for the appointment, we sought instructions from the respondent as to whether there was a possibility of accommodating the appellant herein for a period of one year as a contract appointee for the limited purposes of extending training to her. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the appellant can be considered for a contract appointment as Management Trainee (Marketing) for a period of one year on contract basis. Taking note of the said submission of the respondent and finding that the respondents would not be unduly prejudiced by offering a contract appointment to the appellant as a Management Trainee (Marketing) more so when she already features in the rank list :4: W.A. No. 1706 of 2021 prepared by the respondent for the purpose, we feel that the ends of justice would be met by directing the respondents to appoint the appellant herein on contract basis for one year as Management Trainee (Marketing). We make it clear that the said appointment granted to the appellant will not entitle her to claim any continuity beyond the period of one year or form the basis of any claim for regularisation in the establishment.
The Writ Appeal is disposed as above.
Sd/-A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE Sd/-MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., JUDGE ani/ /true copy/.