Arya S vs Matsyafed (Kerala State ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 9240 Ker

             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

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

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/.