Kerala High Court
A.Narayanan vs The Secretary To Government on 15 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 25TH POUSHA, 1942
WP(C).No.6450 OF 2018(E)
PETITIONER:
A.NARAYANAN
AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.A. KESAVAN NAMBOODIRI,
MANAGER,A.U.P SCHOOL, KOZHAKKOTTUR, ARECODE P.O,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT ATTUPPURAM
ILLAM,KOZHAKKOTTUR, AREACODE PO,
MALAPPURAM DIST., PIN CODE.673639
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.)
SMT.ASHA BABU
SMT.R.S.ASWINI SANKAR
SRI.T.H.ARAVIND
SRI.S.M.PRASANTH
SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI
SRI.G.RENJITH
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695001
2 THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695001
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
MALAPPURAM, PIN. 676505
4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
WANDOOR, MALAPPURAM, PIN.679328
5 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
AREACODE, AREACODE PO, PIN.673639,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
6 SRI. UNNIKRISHNAN P
OFFICE ATTENDANT, A.U.P SCHOOL, KOZHAKKOTTUR,ARECODE
PO, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, RESIDING ATCHITTANGOTTIL
HOUSE, KOZHAKKOTTUR, AREACODE-673639.
WP(C).No.6450 OF 2018 2
SRI. P.M.MANOJ - SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
15.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.6450 OF 2018 3
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court
impugning Ext.P8 order of the Government as
also those issued by the Educational
Authorities in the hierarchy of the Kerala
Education Act and Rules, which have rejected
the request for approval of appointment of 6th
respondent as an Office Attendant solely for
the reason that he had crossed the age of 36,
when he was initially appointed.
2. The petitioner contends that as per
Rule 2 Chapter XXIVA of the Kerala Education
Rules (KER for short) the sixth respondent is
liable to be approved and therefore, that the
impugned orders are deserving of being
interfered with by this Court. He, therefore,
prays that this writ petition be allowed and
Exts.P2, P4, P6 and P8 be set aside and the
competent Educational Authority be directed to
grant approval to the 6th respondent's
appointment.
3. Today, when this matter was called,
Shri.S.M.Prasanth, learned counsel for the
petitioner, submitted that it would not
require for this Court to go into the merits
of the contentions of his client because
through the judgment in Mini v. State of
Kerala [2020 (6) KLT 41] a learned Judge of
this Court has already found that the age
limit, as far as appointments to post of
Office Attendants under the KER are concerned,
has been raised to 41 and therefore, that his
client is now entitled to the prayers sought
for in this writ petition. He, therefore,
prayed that the Educational Authority be
directed to consider the 6th respondent's
approval taking note of the declarations in
Mini (Supra).
4. Shri.P.M.Manoj, learned Senior
Government Pleader, submitted that impugned
orders have been issued because Rule 5 Chapter
XIVB of the KER provides that conditions
regarding the age limit and relaxation
thereof, for appointment of non-teaching staff
in Government Schools shall apply to the non-
teaching staff of the Aided Schools also. He
submitted that, therefore, when the extant
Government Rules provided that the maximum age
limit will be 36, the petitioner is also bound
by the same and therefore, cannot seek that
the 6th respondent's appointment be approved.
5. However, to a pointed question, the
learned Senior Government Pleader submitted
that going by Mini (Supra), the upper age
limit, as far as the Government servants are
concerned, have now been enhanced to 41 years
and that it has been declared by this Court
that such benefit should apply in the case of
Last Grade Servants under the KER also. He,
therefore, prayed that if this Court is so
inclined, the Government will reconsider the
matter and issue orders on the proposal for
approval of appointment of the 6th respondent.
6. I have examined Mini (Supra) and it
is undoubted that the petitioner is right when
he says that the declarations therein are to
the benefit of 6th respondent. The findings and
holdings of the learned Single Judge in Mini
(Supra) is as under:-
"5. Relying on the provisions of the Last Grade
Service Special Rules in which the post of Full
Time Menial in the Education Department is
included, it is submitted that R8(a) provides an
upper age of 35. It is submitted that the upper
age had been raised to 40 years by the Public
Services (Raising of Upper Age Limit for
Appointment) Rules, 1978 and further raised by
another year by the public Services (Raising of
Upper Age Limit for Appointment) Rules, 2014.
The 1978 Rules provided that the upper age
limit provided in the Special Rules for eligibility
for appointment to posts shall stand raised by 5
years. The 2014 Rules specifically provides that
the Special Rules for the various State services
and Subordinate services in force shall stand
modified as if the upper age limit prescribed in
those Special Rules for eligibility for
appointment to posts included in the various
services had been raised by one year. The 2014
Rules have came into force on the 1 st day of
April 2012.
6. In the above view of the matter, it is clear
that the upper age limit for appointment to the
post of Full Time Menial in the education
Department stand raised by further one year and
therefore the upper age limit for such
appointment in the Government now stands at
41 years. In view of the fact that the age limit
and relaxation for appointment of non-teaching
staff in Government Schools having been made
specifically applicable to aided schools as well,
the raising of upper age limit by 5 years in
1978 and further by one year in 2014 would be
applicable for the appointment to the post of
Full Time Menial in aided schools as well. If
that be so, the petitioner whose date of birth is
16.10.1977 is eligible for appointment as Full
Time Menial with effect from 01.06.2018 since
she could not have crossed the upper age limit.
It is clear from Ext.P15 that the respondents
have considered upper age limit as 40 years.
The raising of the upper age limit by 2014
Rules have not been considered by the
Government."
7. It is thus obvious that the impugned
orders in this case cannot find favour in law
and that the approving Authority must,
therefore, reconsider the matter, in terms of
the declarations afore extracted.
In the afore circumstances, I order this
writ petition and set aside Exts.P2, P4, P6
and P8; with a consequential direction to the
5th respondent - Assistant Educational
Officer, to reconsider the proposal for
approval of the appointment of the 6th
respondent strictly in terms of the findings
in Mini (Supra) and to issue appropriate
orders as expeditiously as is possible, but
not later than two months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
MC/15.1.2021
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT DT. 01.06.2016
ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO R6.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.B/3815/2016 DT.
1.8.2016 ISSUED BY R5.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DT. 11.8.2016
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE R4.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.K.DIS/A6/5407/2016
DT. 25.10.2016 ISSUED BY THE R4 TO THE
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DT.
22.11.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE R2
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
NO.G(2)/8085/2017/DPI D. 17.3.2017 ISSUED
BY R2 TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF REVISION PETITION DT.
13.4.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE R1
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.1/209/2017-G.EDN.
DT.2.2.2018 ISSUED BY R1 TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF G.O(MS) NO.203/2013/G.EDN. DT.
2.7.2013 ISSUED BY R1
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:
NIL
MC
(TRUE COPY) PA TO JUDGE
