Kerala High Court
Prameela. N.D vs 1. State Of Kerala on 24 June, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 3RD ASHADHA, 1944
WP(C) NO.13388 OF 2022
PETITIONERS :-
1 DWIPU, AGED 40 YEARS
S/O. EACHU, AATTUTHALAPPURA P.O., SREEKRISHNAPURAM,
OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679 513.
2 RAJITHA, AGED 31 YEARS
W/O. SANTHOSH, CHIRAKKATT HOUSE, P.O.,
KERALASSERI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 641.
3 SUDARSANAN.K., AGED 37 YEARS
S/O. KUMARAN, KIZHAKKEKKARAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
P.O.THEKKUMURI, CHERPULASSERI, OTTAPALAM TALUK,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679 506.
4 ANEESH V.P., AGED 32 YEARS
S/O. SIVASANKARAN, VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
P.O.CHERPULASSERI, OTTAPALAM TALUK,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679 503.
5 SOBHA K., AGED 37 YEARS
W/O. UNNIKRISHNAN, KOYAMANGALAM PARAMBIL HOUSE,
P.O.KALLUVAZHI, OTTAPALAM TALUK,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679 514.
6 PARVATHI.A., AGED 31 YEARS
W/O. MANOJ, MARAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O., MANKARA,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 613.
7 SURIJA K.V., AGED 37 YEARS
W/O. BALACHANDRAN, CHEMPANCHERI HOUSE, P.O.,
KONIKKAZHI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 632.
8 MARAGATHAM, AGED 34 YEARS
W/O. RAJENDRAN, DHANALAKSHMI NIVAS, P.O.PUDUR
RANGANATHAPURAM, AGALI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 581.
9 HEMAMBIKA, AGED 32 YEARS
W/O. SIVAN, THORAPURAM COLONY, P.O.MANNARKKAD,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 582.
10 SARITHA, AGED 37 YEARS
W/O. DEVADASAN, PARAMPULLI HOUSE,
WP(C) NO.13388/2022 and
connected cases
-: 2 :-
P.O.PAYYANEDAM, MANNARKKAD TALUK,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 583.
BY ADVS.
P.JAYARAM
GIGI PAPPACHAN
K.R.PAUL
LEKSHMI NARAYANAN
RESPONDENTS :-
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF SCHEDULED CASTE AND SCHEDULED TRIBE
DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2 THE DIRECTOR,
OFFICE OF THE SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT, NANDAVANAM, P.O VIKAS BHAVAN,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 696 033.
3 DISTRICT SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD - 678 001.
4 SREEKRISHNAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
P.O.SREEKRISHAPURAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679 513.
5 KERALASSERI GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
P.O.KERALASSERI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 641.
6 CHERPULASSERI MUNICIPALITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CHERPULASSERI P.O.,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679 503.
7 POOKKOTTUKAVU GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
P.O.KALLUVAZHI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679 514.
8 MANKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
P.O. MANKARA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 613.
WP(C) NO.13388/2022 and
connected cases
-: 3 :-
9 KATAMBAZHIPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KADAMBAZHIPURAM,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 633.
10 PUDUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
MANNARKKAD MUNICIPALITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
P.O.PUDUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 581.
11 MANNARKKAD MUNICIPALITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
P.O. MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 582.
BY ADVS.
SMT.K.SUNITHA VINOD, SC, PUDUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT
KALYANI.S.VINOD
NARAYAN S. VINOD
SRI.P.R.VENGITESH
SRI.M.SASINDRAN
SMT.LEELA NARAYANAN
SMT.SUNITHA VINOD
SMT.K.G.SAROJINI, GP
SRI.ASOK M. CHERIAN, ADDL.AG
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 10.06.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C)Nos.15786/2022, 16582/2022,
17557/2022, 18370/2022 AND 19432/2022, THE COURT ON 24.06.2022
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.13388/2022 and
connected cases
-: 4 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 3RD ASHADHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 15786 OF 2022
PETITIONERS :-
1 SINDHU R, AGED 43 YEARS
W/O. BABU P.R, S.C. PROMOTER, VECHOOR PANCHAYATH,
VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM - 686 144, RESIDING AT KARTHIKA,
KUDAVECHOOR P.O, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM - 686 144.
2 RUPESH KUMAR S., AGED 39 YEARS
S.C. PROMOTER, ALAPPUZHA MUNICIPALITY, ALAPPUZHA,
AMBALAPPUZHA BLOCK, ALAPPUZHA - 688 003,
RESIDING AT VALAPPILCHIRA, PALLATHURUTHY,
PAZHAVEEDU P.O, ALAPPUZHA - 688 009.
3 RENUKA MANOJ, AGED 48 YEARS
W/O. MANOJKUMAR, S.C. PROMOTER,
CHENNAM PALLIPPURAM PANCHAYATH,
BLOCK THYKATTUSSERRY, ALAPPUZHA - 688 526,
RESIDING AT VENU NIVAS, THIRUNELOOR P.O,
ALAPPUZHA - 688 541.
4 PREETHA P., AGED 48 YEARS
W/O. SUDAKARAN, S.C. PROMOTER, AROOKUTTY PANCHAYAT,
BLOCK THYKKATTUSSERY, ALAPPUZHA - 688 526,
RESIDING AT PUTHANTHARA, NADUVATHU NAGAR P.O,
ALAPPUZHA - 688 526.
5 SHEEBAKUMARY V.S, AGED 43 YEARS
W/O. PRATHAPAN K.V, S.C. PROMOTER,
PANAVALLY PANCHAYATH, BLOCK THYKKATTUSSERY,
ALAPPUZHA - 688 526, RESIDING AT
KAREETHARA PUTHUVALNIKARTH, PANAVALLY P.O,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
6 SUMA P.S, AGED 48 YEARS
W/O. SALIM M.T, S.C. PROMOTER,
VELIYANNOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
UZHAVOOR BLOCK PANCHAYATH, KOTTAYAM - 686 633,
RESIDING AT MULAYANICKAL HOUSE, PUTHUVELY P.O,
KOTTAYAM - 686 636.
WP(C) NO.13388/2022 and
connected cases
-: 5 :-
7 SAIRA K. SOMAN, AGED 37 YEARS
W/O. MANOJ, S.C. PROMOTER,
KADAPLAMATTOM GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
UZHAVOOR BLOCK PANCHAYATH, KOTTAYAM - 686 633,
RESIDING AT KARROTTUVALYA CHIRAYIL HOUSE,
ELACKAD P.O, KOTTAYAM - 686 587.
8 JAYASREE R, AGED 40 YEARS
W/O.SALIN R, S.C. PROMOTER, CHERTHALA MUNICIPALITY,
KANJIKUZHI BLOCK, S.N. PURAM - 688 582,
RESIDING AT KOTHAKATTUVELI HOUSE, CHERTHALA P.O,
ALAPPUZHA - 688 524.
9 RETHI C.S., AGED 46 YEARS
S/O. GOPI T, S.C. PROMOTER,
SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, KOIPURAM,
ERAVIPEROOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, RESIDING AT
CHURALLOOR HOUSE, VALLAMKULAM EAST P.O,
THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 541.
BY ADVS.
KALEESWARAM RAJ
THULASI K. RAJ
SHILPA SOMAN
RESPONDENTS :-
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
3 DIRECTOR OF SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT,
DIRECTORATE OF SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICE,
VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
4 DISTRICT SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
DISTRICT SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICE,
CIVIL STATION, ALAPPUZHA - 686 002.
5 DISTRICT SCHEDUELD CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
DISTRICT SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICE,
WP(C) NO.13388/2022 and
connected cases
-: 6 :-
COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM - 686 002.
6 DISTRICT SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
DISTRICT SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, ADOOR,
PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 645.
7 CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
BY ADV SRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.06.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).13388/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON 24.06.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.13388/2022 and
connected cases
-: 7 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 3RD ASHADHA, 1944
WP(C) NO.16582 OF 2022
PETITIONERS :-
1 LIJI V., AGED 35 YEARS
D/O. VISWAMBHARAN P, SC PROMOTER,
SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICE,
KOLLAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, KOLLAM-691 001
RESIDING AT KOTHESWARATHU VEEDU, ROYAL NAGAR 64,
ASRAMAM, KOLLAM-691 001.
2 MANOJ R., AGED 35 YEARS
S/O. RADHAKRISHNAN, SC PROMOTER,
SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICE,
CHITTUMALA BLOCK, KOLLAM-691 502 RESIDING AT
AMBIKA BHAVANAM, KANJIRAKODU, KUNDARA P.O,
KOLLAM-691 501.
3 ANJU K., AGED 34 YEARS, W/O. SATHYANANDA RAM C.G, SC
PROMOTER, SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICE,
VETTIKKAVALA BLOCK, KOLLAM-691 560 RESIDING AT
ARUN SADHANAM (SREE SHYLAM), THAMARAKUDY P.O,
KOLLAM-691 560.
4 ATHIRA O, AGED 31 YEARS, D/O. THANKAPPAN,
SC PROMOTER, SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICE,
VETTIKKAVALA BLOCK, KOLLAM-691 560 RESIDING AT
ATHIRA SADHANAM, POOVATTOR PADINJARU, MAAVADI P.O,
KOLLAM-691 507.
5 SALINI T., AGED 45 YEARS, W/O.SHAJI, SC PROMOTER,
SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICE,
CHITTUMALA BLOCK, KOLLAM-691 502 RESIDING AT
SHAJI BHAVANAM, CHONAMCHIRA, PERINAD P.O,
KOLLAM-691 601.
6 ASWATHY VIJAYAN, AGED 35 YEARS, W/O.ABHILASH,
SC PROMOTER, SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICE,
CHITTUMALA BLOCK, KOLLAM-691 502 RESIDING AT
KOYAIKKALAZHIKATH, UPPOODU, KIZHAKKEKALLADA P.O,
KOLLAM-691 502.
WP(C) NO.13388/2022 and
connected cases
-: 8 :-
7 MANJUSHA R., AGED 40 YEARS, W/O.ANILKUMAR,
SC PROMOTER, SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICE,
CHAVARA BLOCK, KOLLAM-691 583 RESIDING AT
DEVADIYA AAKKAL, EDAPPALLLYKOTTA P.O., CHAVARA,
KOLLAM-691 583.
8 DEEPTHI, AGED 40 YEARS, W/O.BHADRAN, SC PROMOTER,
SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICE,
ITHIKKARA BLOCK, KOLLAM-691 572, RESIDING AT
KUNNATHU VEEDU, KURUMANDAL, PARAVOOR,
KOLLAM-691 301.
9 SOUMYA B., AGED 36 YEARS, W/O.PRIYAKUMAR,
SC PROMOTER, SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICE,
ITHIKKARA BLOCK, KOLLAM-691 572 RESIDING AT GOKULAM,
POOTHAKULAM, PARAVOOR, KOLLAM-691 301.
10 T.N. PRAMEELADEVI, AGED 45 YEARS
W/O.B S ASHOK KUMAR, SC PROMOTER,
SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICE,
ITHIKKARA BLOCK, KOLLAM-691 572 RESIDING AT
KUNNUMPURATHU VEEDU, MAMPALLIKUNNU,
CHATHANNOOR, KOLLAM-691 572.
11 ASHA S., AGED 36 YEARS, W/O.AJAYAKUMAR M,
SC PROMOTER, SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICE,
ITHIKKARA BLOCK, KOLLAM-691 572, RESIDING AT
THODIYIL VEEDU, KURUMANDAL, PARAVOOR,
KOLLAM-691 301.
12 MINIMOL M., AGED 37 YEARS, W/O.MAHESH, SC PROMOTER,
SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICE,
ITHIKKARA BLOCK, KOLLAM - 691 572, RESIDING AT
PERUMPUZHAVILA VEEDU, KURUMANDAL P.O., PARVOOR,
KOLLAM - 691 301.
13 SAJITHA S., AGED 39 YEARS, W/O.BIJU, SC PROMOTER,
SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICE,
CHITTUMALA BLOCK, KOLLAM-691 502, RESIDING AT
VALUVILAYIL VEEDU, THEKKECHERY, KANJAVELI P.O.,
KOLLAM-691 602.
14 JAYALEKSHMI S., AGED 37 YEARS, W/O.PRAMOD,
SC PROMOTER, SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICE,
CHITTUMALA BLOCK, KOLLAM-691 502, RESIDING AT
NEDIYAVILA VEEDU, KERALAPURAM, KOLLAM-691 511.
WP(C) NO.13388/2022 and
connected cases
-: 9 :-
15 AKHIL V., AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.VIJAYAN, SC PROMOTER,
SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, CHAVARA BLOCK,
KOLLAM-691 583, RESIDING AT
KUNNATHOOR PADINJATTATHIL, NEENDAKARA,
KOLLAM-691 582.
16 AJISHA R., AGED 32 YEARS, W/O.SHIBU, SC PROMOTER,
SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICE,
CHITTUMALA BLOCK, KOLLAM-691 502, RESIDING AT PUTHEN
VAYALIL, MUNROTHURUTH, KOLLAM-691 500.
17 SMITHA D., AGED 38 YEARS, W/O. SREEKUMAR,
SC PROMOTER, SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICE,
KOLLAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, KOLLAM-691 001
RESIDING AT KUNNIL KIZHAKKATHIL, UDAYANAGAR 99 A,
ASRAMAM, KOLLAM-691 002.
18 SREEJA S RANGAN, AGED 31 YEARS, D/O.SREERANGAN,
SC PROMOTER, SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICE,
ITHIKKARA BLOCK, KOLLAM-691 572, RESIDING AT
SREEJA VILLA, KOTTAKKERAM, PARIPPALLY,
KOLLAM-691 574.
19 MANU MOHAN M., AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.MOHANAN,
SC PROMOTER, SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICE,
ANJAL BLOCK, KOLLAM-691 306, RESIDING AT
PULIMOOTTIL HOUSE, ONTHUPACHA, KULATHUPUZHA,
KOLLAM-691 310.
20 SOUMYA V.
SC PROMOTER, SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICE,
NILAMEL PANCHAYAT, CHADAYAMANGALAM BLOCK,
RESIDING AT V.S. BHAVAN, KAITHODE P.O., NILAMEL,
KOLLAM - 691 535.
21 ANITHA S.
SC PROMOTER, SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICE,
KADAKKAL PANCHAYAT, CHADAYAMANGALAM BLOCK,
RESIDING AT CHEENIVILA HOUSE, PUTHUKKONAM P.O.,
KADDAKKAL, KOLLAM - 691 536.
22 VISHNU G.K.
SC PROMOTER, SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICE,
ELAMAD PANCHAYAT, CHADAYAMANGALAM BLOCK,
RESIDING AT G.K. HOUSE, A.K.G. JUNCTION,
ELAMAD P.O., KOLLAM - 691 533.
WP(C) NO.13388/2022 and
connected cases
-: 10 :-
23 SINJU S.
SC PROMOTER, SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICE,
ETTIVA PANCHAYAT, CHADAYAMANGALAM BLOCK,
RESIDING AT RODUVILA HOUSE, MANNOOR P.O.,
KOLLAM - 683 541.
24 SINDHU I., AGED 44 YEARS, W/O.STANLEY, SC PROMOTER,
SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICE,
POTHENCODE BLOCK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 582
RESIDING AT - KALIYANVILA VEEDU, PAVUKKONAM,
POTHENCODE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 584.
25 SUNITHA I., AGED 40 YEARS, W/O.SHIBU, SC PROMOTER,
SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICE,
POTHENCODE BLOCK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 582,
RESIDING AT PANDIVILA VEEDU, PACHIRA,
PALLIPPURAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 316.
26 ANU R., AGED 34 YEARS, W/O.SHERIN, SC PROMOTER,
SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICE,
AZHOOR PANCHAYAT, POTHENCODE BLOCK,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 584 RESIDING AT
CHARUVILA VEEDU, AZHOOR P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 305.
27 MANJUSHA MANI J., AGED 43 YEARS, W/O.SURESH,
SC PROMOTER, SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICE,
MANGALAPURAM PANCHAYAT, POTHENCODE BLOCK,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 584 RESIDING AT
SURESHA BHAVAN, MUNDAYKKAL, MURUKKUMPUZHA P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 302.
28 JAYAMANI V., AGED 46 YEARS, W/O.CHANDRAN,
SCHEDULED CASTE PROMOTER, SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT
OFFICE, KADAIKKAVOOR PANCHAYAT, CHIRAYINKEEZHU BLOCK,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 304 RESIDING AT SANJAY NIVAS,
THINAVILALAKSHAM VEEDU, KEEZHATTINGAL P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 306.
29 SUNA N.S., AGED 40 YEARS, W/O.RAJENDRAN,
SC PROMOTER, SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICE,
CHIRAYINKEEZHU BLOCK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 304
RESIDING AT CHARUVILA VEEDU, VALAKKAD, ELAMBA P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 103.
30 LATHA R., AGED 50 YEARS, W/O.UNNIKRISHNAN,
SC PROMOTER, SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICE,
VARKALA MUNICIPALITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 141
WP(C) NO.13388/2022 and
connected cases
-: 11 :-
RESIDING AT VR BHAVAN, JANARDHANAPURAM, VARKALA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 141.
31 RAJANI D., AGED 39 YEARS, W/O.SUJI, SC PROMOTER,
SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICE,
ILAKAMON PANCHAYAT, VARKALA BLOCK,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 142 RESIDING AT
KONNATHU VEEDU, ILAKAMON P.O., VARKALA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 310.
32 JISHA RANI B.T., AGED 39 YEARS, W/O.BIJUKUMAR,
SC PROMOTER, SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICE,
POOVAR PANCHAYAT, PARASSALA BLOCK,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 502 RESIDING AT
VALIYAVILA VEEDU, CHEKKADI, POOVAAR P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 525.
33 SHYNI PADMAN, AGED 39 YEARS, W/O.BIJU, SC PROMOTER,
SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICE,
THIRUPURAM PANCHAYAT, PARASSALA BLOCK,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 502 RESIDING AT
MAVUNGAL VEEDU, THIRUPURAM P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 133.
34 BINDU K., AGED 45 YEARS, W/O.ASHOKAN,
SCHEDULED CASTE PROMOTER, SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT
OFFICE, ATTINGAL MUNICIPALITY,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 101, RESIDING AT
VILAYIL VEEDU, NEAR BHSS, ATTINGAL,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 101.
35 SREEKALA S.S., AGED 36 YEARS, W/O.SREEKUMAR P,
SC PROMOTER, SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICE,
ATTINGAL MUNICIPALITY,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 101, RESIDING AT
CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, RAMACHAMVILA, ATTINGAL,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 101.
36 SHEEBA V., AGED 39 YEARS, W/O.SAJU S S,
SC PROMOTER, SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICE,
ATTINGAL MUNICIPALITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 101,
RESIDING AT S S SADANAM, KUNNUVAARAM, ATTINGAL,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 101.
37 HARISH BABU P.M., AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. GOPALAN,
SC PROMOTER, SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICE,
ULLIYERI PANCHAYAT, KOZHIKODE - 695 101,
RESIDING AT SREEJA NIVAS ULLIYERI,
WP(C) NO.13388/2022 and
connected cases
-: 12 :-
KOZHIKODE - 673 620
38 NISHA V.K., AGED 42 YEARS, W/O.SREEJAN,
SC PROMOTER, SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICE,
KOORACHUNDU PANCHAYAT, KOZHIKODE, RESIDING AT
SREEJA NIVAS ULLIYERI, KOZHIKODE - 673 620.
BY ADVS.
RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL
VIVEK VIJAYAKUMAR
RESPONDENTS :-
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 THE DIRECTOR
DIRECTORATE OF SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT,
UNIVERSITY OF KERALA SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS, NANDAVANAM,
PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033.
3 THE DISTRICT SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, CIVIL STATION,
CUTCHERY P.O., KOLLAM - 691 013.
4 THE DISTRICT SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, KANAKA NAGAR,
NANTHENCODE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033.
5 THE DISTRICT SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, CIVIL STATION,
KOZHIKODE - 673 020.
BY ADV SRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.06.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).13388/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON 24.06.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.13388/2022 and
connected cases
-: 13 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 3RD ASHADHA, 1944
WP(C) NO.17557 OF 2022
PETITIONERS :-
1 PRAMEELA. N.D., AGED 44 YEARS, SC PROMOTER,
PAMPADY BLOCK, MEENADOM GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICE,
KOTTAYAM, RESIDING AT KADAPPIL (H), MEENADOM
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 516
2 SINDHU.V.M., AGED 47 YEARS, SC PROMOTER,
PAMPADY BLOCK, ELIKULAM
SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, KOTTAYAM
RESIDING AT KULLANKIYIL (H), CHENGLAM P.O,
URULIKUNNAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 585
3 PRTHEESHA K.S, AGED 40 YEARS
PAMPADY BLOCK, SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICE,
KOTTAYAM, RESIDING AT KALATHOOR (H), MALAM P.O
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 019
4 RESHMA. R, AGED 31 YEARS
MADAPPALLY BLOCK, CHANGANASSERY MUNICIPALITY
SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, KOTTAYAM
RESIDING AT PARAYIL (H), FATHIMAPURAM P.O
CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 102
5 REMYA. T. R., AGED 37 YEARS
LALAM BLOCK, (ERATTUPETTA)
POONJAR THEKEKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT
SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICE KOTTAYAM
RESIDING AT KOTTARUM PARAMBIL (H) KUNNONNY P.O
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 582
6 SHEEBA RAJ, AGED 47 YEARS
ERATTUPETTA BLOCK, SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT
OFFICE, KOTTAYAM RESIDING AT ALAPPATTU (H)
MELUKAVU P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 652
WP(C) NO.13388/2022 and
connected cases
-: 14 :-
7 RESHMA.G., AGED 34 YEARS
TEEKOY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, ERATTUPETTA BLOCK,
SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, KOTTAYAM
RESIDING AT MYLAMTHARAYIL (H), VELATHUSSERY P.O,
MAVADY, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685 553
8 SINDHU.T.G., AGED 49 YEARS
UZHAVOOR BLOCK, SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICE
KOZHA (P.O), KOTTAYAM, RESIDING AT KUTTIYANKAL,
CHAKKAMPUZHA P.O., EDAKKOLY, PIN - 686 574
9 MADHUMOL.M.G., AGED 41 YEARS
LALAM BLOCK, MUTHOLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, KOTTAYAM
RESIDING AT MANJAPPALLIKUNNEL (H)
PULIYANNOOR.P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686 573
10 SANIA.MOL.V, AGED 39 YEARS
MADAPPALLY BLOCK, CHANGNASSERY MUNCIPALITY
SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, KOTTAYAM
RESIDING AT KUNNAKADU PUTHUPARAMBIL,
FATHIMAPURAM P.O., CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM,
PIN - 686 101
11 SOUMYA.K.K., AGED 32 YEARS
UZHAVOOR BLOCK, SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICE
KOZHA (P.O), KOTTAYAM, RESIDING AT VADAMURICKAL,
MEMURY P.O, MANJOOR, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686 635
12 RAJANI.M.RAJU, AGED 39 YEARS
LALAM BLOCK, MUTHOLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICE KOTTAYAM
RESIDING AT MUDIYANTHANATHUKUNNEL (H)
ULLANADU, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686 651
13 RAKHA MOL. A.T., AGED 42 YEARS
LALAM BLOCK, MUTHOLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, KOTTAYAM
RESIDING AT MALIYIL (H), PALA.P.O
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686 575
BY ADV G.RANJITA
WP(C) NO.13388/2022 and
connected cases
-: 15 :-
RESPONDENTS :-
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001
2 THE DIRECTOR
DIRECTORATE OF SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT,
UNIVERSITY OF KERALA SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS,
NANDAVANAM, PALAYAM, THIRUVANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 033
3 DISTRICT SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
COLLECTORATE P.O., CIVIL STATION,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686 002
SMT.K.G.SAROJINI, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 10.06.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).13388/2022 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON 24.06.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.13388/2022 and
connected cases
-: 16 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 3RD ASHADHA, 1944
WP(C) NO.18370 OF 2022
PETITIONERS :-
1 LINCY K, AGED 46 YEARS, W/O. SREEJITH M.K.,
SCP VALAPATTANAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KANNUR BLOCK,
KANNUR DISTRICT- 670 001 RESIDING AT SREELAKAM,
MOOPPANPARA, VALAPATTANAM P.O., KANNUR - 670 010.
2 SANDHYAKALA K.G., AGED 36 YEARS, W/O.SANEESH T.T SCP
KELAKAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, IRIKKUR BLOCK,
KANNUR DISTRICT- 670 593 RESIDING AT
THUNDUMALIL HOUSE, PETYAMPARAMBU P.O., THULLAL, KANNUR
DISTRICT - 670 674.
3 SILIJA O.P., AGED 39 YEARS, W/O. MANOJ T,V
SCP MUNDERI PANCHAYATH, EDAKKATTU BLOCK,
KANNUR - 670 621 RESIDING AT
KOTTATHUVALAPPIL HOUSE, PARAVOOR P.O., KANJIRODU,
KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670 592.
4 LASINA K., AGED 38 YEARS, W/O. KAILASAN,
SCP KADAMPUR PANCHAYATH, EDAKKATTU BLOCK,
KANNUR- 670 621, RESIDING AT KUNDATHIL HOUSE,
KADAMBOOR P.O., PIN- 670 663 NEW ADDRESS CHITHRAVEENA,
KOTTOOR P.O., KADACHIRA,
KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN- 670 621.
5 ANIREJI R.A, AGED 37 YEARS, W/O.RAJEESH P
SCP CHITTARIPARAMBU PANCHAYATH, EDAKKADU BLOCK, KANNUR
DISTRICT - 670 621 RESIDING AT VAIGA, AKKARAVATTOLI,
CHITTARUPARAMBU,
KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 650.
6 SAJISHA K.K., AGED 32 YEARS, W/O. PRAJITH M.V
SCP KUNNATHUPARAMBU PANCHAYATH,
KOOTHUPARAMBU BLOCK, KANNUR DISTRICT -670 643
RESIDING AT KALLUVACHAPARAMBATH HOUSE,
THOVVAKKUNU P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 693.
7 SHYNI K.C., AGED 37 YEARS, W/O. VIJEESH T,
SCP PATTIYAM PANCHAYATH, KOOTHUPARAMBU BLOCK
WP(C) NO.13388/2022 and
connected cases
-: 17 :-
KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 643, RESIDING AT THEKKINANDIYIL
HOUSE, PATHAYAKKUNNU P.O.,
KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 691.
8 SELVI P., AGED 50 YEARS, W/O. VALSARAJAN E,
SCP PAYYAVOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, IRIKKUR BLOCK, KANNUR
DISTRICT-670 593, RESIDING AT
PONNARATH VEEDU, PAYYAVOOR P.O.,
KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 633
9 SAVINA P.P., AGED 34 YEARS, W/O. RAJEESH P,
SCP KEEZHATTUR I GRAMA PANCHAYATH, IRIKKUR BLOCK,
KANNUR DISTRICT- 670 593 RESIDING AT NIVEDYAM,
KARAPERAVOOR P.O., MATTANNUR,
KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 702.
10 RAMYA M.S., AGED 38 YEARS, W/O. PRAKASAN N.O,
SCP ARALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, IRIKKUR BLOCK,
KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 593, RESIDING AT MAVULLAKANDIYIL
HOUSE, VEERPPADU P.O.,
VEERPPADU, KANNUR DISTRICT- 670 704.
11 RAJITHA K.P., AGED 39YEARS, W/O.BABU K,
SCP PAYAMEL GRAMA PANCHAYATH, IRIKKURR BLOCK, KANNUR
DISTRICT- 670 593, RESIDING AT
PALIYAMKANDI HOUSE, PAYAM P.O., KOLIKKADAVU,
KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 704.
12 SHYJA M., AGED 40 YEARS, W/O. BABURAJ N,
SCP MATTANUR MUNICIPALITY, IRIKKUR BLOCK,
KANNUR DISTRICT-670 593, RESIDING AT PARVANAM, MANNUR,
PORORA P.O MATTANUR,
KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 702.
13 SHYMA K, AGED 36 YEARS, W/O SATHEESH K,
SCP SREEKANDAPURAM MUNCIPALITY, IRIKKUR BLOCK, KANNUR
DISTRICT. PIN- 670593, RESIDING AT KANECHERIYAN HOUSE
KOTTUVAYAL, SREEKANDAPURAM P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN -
670 631.
14 LATHA M.K., AGED 44 YEARS, W/O. GOPALAKRISHNAN,
SCP KOTTIYOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, IRIKKUR BLOCK, KANNUR
DISTRICT- 670593, RESIDING AT
PARAKKONATH HOUSE, KOTTIYOOR P.O., PALUKKACHI, KANNUR
DISTRICT -670 651.
15 VINITHA R.K., AGED 40 YEARS, W/O. JAYAKRISHNAN,
SCP IRIKKUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, IRIKKUR BLOCK,
WP(C) NO.13388/2022 and
connected cases
-: 18 :-
KANNUR DISTRICT- 670 593
RESIDING AT PATTEELPARAMBIL VEEDU, IRIKKOOR P.O.,
IRIKKOOR, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 593.
16 DHEESHNA P.P., AGED 32 YEARS, W/O. VIJITH K,
SCP MALOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, IRIKKUR BLOCK,
KANNUR DISTRICT- 670 593
RESIDING AT SWAPNAKOODU, KANJILERI P.O.,
KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 702.
17 SINDHU K, AGED 46 YEARS, W/O. SUDHAKARAN.M.V,
SCP KOODALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, IRIKKUR BLOCK, KANNUR
DISTRICT- 670 593, RESIDING AT ANJANAM, MUTTANUR P.O.,
KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 595.
18 SREEJA P., AGED 43 YEARS, W/O. BABU K.K.
SCP ULIKKAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH, IRIKKUR BLOCK,
KANNUR DISTRICT- 670 593, RESIDING AT
KIZHAKKEKANDI HOUSE, PARIKKALAM,
KANNUR DISTRICT- 670 705.
19 NISHA M.V., AGED 39 YEARS, W/O. HARIDASAN T,
SCP PADIYOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, IRIKKUR BLOCK, KANNUR
DISTRICT- 670 593, RESIDING AT
PONNARATH HOUSE, KOSAVAN VAYAL P.O., OORATHUR, KANNUR
DISTRICT - 670 593.
20 SHEELA RAJ, AGED 44 YEARS, W/O. RAJAN K T,
SCP MATTANNUR MUNICIPALITY, IRIKKUR BLOCK,
KANNUR DISTRICT- 670 593, RESIDING AT
ARABHI HOUSE, KAYANI P.O., OORUVACHAL,
KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 702.
21 BAIJU KOYON, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O. SOMAN P.,
SCP NARATHU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KALLYASSERY BLOCK KANNUR
DISTRICT - 670 562, RESIDING AT
PANAYAN HOUSE, ALINKEEZHIL,
NARATH POST, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 601.
22 PREEJA M.V., AGED 44 YEARS, W/O. MURALI K.P,
SCP IRITTY MUNICIPALITY IRITTY BLOCK,
KANNUR DISTRICT- 670 703, RESIDING AT PUNYAM, PUNNADU
P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 703
23 SREEJINA M., AGED 36 YEARS, W/O. SUDHEERAN K,
SCP PANNUR MUNICIPALITY, PANUR BLOCK,
KANNUR DISTRICT- 670 692, RESIDING AT
WP(C) NO.13388/2022 and
connected cases
-: 19 :-
THAZHEKKUDIYIL HOUSE,, ANIYARAM P.O.,
KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 672.
24 DEEPA M., AGED 33 YEARS, W/O. MANOJ KP,
SCP ERUVESI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, IRIKKUR BLOCK,
KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 593, RESIDING AT
KIZHAKKEPURAYIL HOUSE, ERUVESSI P.O., ERUVESSI,
KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 632.
25 RESHMA C.P., AGED 37 YEARS, W/O. ANEESH,
SCP PANNUR MUNICIPALITY, PANUR BLOCK,
KANNUR DISTRICT-670 692, RESIDING AT
EDATHIL THAZHEKUDIYIL HOUSE, KARIYAD SOUTH,
(VIA) KANNUR DISTRICT-673 316
26 RENJALI V. K, AGED 40 YEARS, W/O SHAJI A. M,
SCP, PINARAYI, PANUR BLOCK,
KANNUR DISTRICT-670 692, RESIDING AT
VADAKKEKALLARATH HOUSE, PINARAYI P. O,
KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN- 670 741
27 SAJI G., AGED 49 YEARS, S/O. GOPALAKRISHNAN,
SCP SEETHATHODU PANCHAYATH, RANNI BLOCK,
PLAMOOTTIL HOUSE, GURUNATHANMANNU P.O.,
SEETHATHODU-689 667, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,
PIN- 689 672
28 RAMYAMOL C.K., AGED 36 YARS, W/O. SANOOJ T.V.,
SC PROMOTOR IN ANGADI PANCHAYATH,
SCD OFFICE RANNI BLOCK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689 672 RESIDING AT
PUTHETHUKALAYIL, PULLOOPRAM P.O., RANNI,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689 674.
29 DEEPADEVI P.S., AGED 40 YEARS, W/O. ANILKUMAR P.K.
SC PROMOTOR IN ETTUMANOOR PANCHAYATH,
SCD OFFICE, KOYIPURAM BLOCK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689 531, RESIDING AT
VALYAKALAYIL HOUSE, IRAVIPEROOR P.O.,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 542
30 ANUKUTAN M.G., AGED 33 YEARS, S/O. GOPINADHAN,
SC PROMOTOR IN THOTTAPPUZHASSERI PANCHAYATH,
SCD OFFICE, KOYIPURAM BLOCK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689 531,
RESIDING AT MALOOR HOUSE, KOLABHAGAM P.O.,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689 545
WP(C) NO.13388/2022 and
connected cases
-: 20 :-
31 REMANI A. K., AGED 50 YEARS, W/O.O.AJAYAKUMAR,
SCP MYLAPRA PANCHAYATH, KONNI BLOCK, PIN- 684 696,
RESIDING AT KADAMANNIL VEEDU, MYLAPRA P. O,
PATAHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689 671
32 VEENA VENUGOPAL, W/O.VENUGOPAL,
SC PROMOTOR IN NEELAMPEROOR PANCHAYTH,
SCD OFFICE VELIYANAD BLOCK, ALAPPUZHA - 689 595,
RESIDING AT NEYKKUZHI, VELIYANADU P.O.,
ALAPPUZHA - 689 595
33 LEKHA O., W/O.REJI S,
SC PROMOTOR IN KRISHNAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
SCD OFFICE MUTHUKULAM BLOCK, ALAPPUZHA - 690 506,
RESIDING AT SAROVARAM, AKKANAL P.O., KRISHNAPURAM,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT -690 533.
34 RAJANI K.S., AGED 38 YEARS, W/O. UTHAMAN,
SC PROMOTOR IN KUTHIYATHODE PANCHAYTH, SCD OFFICE
PATTANAKKAD BLOCK, ALAPPUZHA - 688 537,
RESIDING AT KALATHITHARA, PARAYAKADU P.O.,
KUTHIYATHODU, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT
35 HANIMOL, AGED 37 YEARS, W/O. SHANAVAS
SC PROMOTOR IN THURAVOOR PANCHAYTH, SCD OFFICE,
PATTANAKKAD BLOCK, ALAPPUZHA - 688 537
RESIDING AT MANANCHERRY, THURAVOOR P.O.,
VALAMANGALAM NORTH, ALAPPUZHA - 688 532.
36 SREEVIDYA P.A., AGED 46 YEARS, W/O. ANIL
SC PROMOTOR IN EZHUPUNNA PANCHAYTH,
SCD OFFICE PATTANAKKAD BLOCK, ALAPPUZHA - 688 537.
RESIDING KANNATTU NIKARTHU, ERAMALLOOR,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT -688 537.
37 DHANALAKSHMI S., AGED 31 YEARS, W/O. DILEEPKUMAR
SC PROMOTOR IN KAYAMKULAM MUNICIPALITY, SCD OFFICE
MUTHUKULAM BLOCK, ALAPPUZHA - 690 506 RESIDING AT
SREELAKSHMI NIVAS, PUTHUVEL, KRISHNAPURAM,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 690 533.
38 SUNITHA V.K., AGED YEARS, W/O. ANEESH,
SC PROMOTOR IN MARARIKKULAM PANCHAYTH, SCD OFFICE,
KANJIKKUZHI BLOCK, ALAPPUZHA - 688 582 RESIDING AT
CHANDRA NIVAS, CMC - 11, CHERTHALA P.O.,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 688 524.
WP(C) NO.13388/2022 and
connected cases
-: 21 :-
39 SREEKALA S, AGED 30 YEARS, W/O. VINOD,
SC PROMOTOR IN KAYAMKULAM MUNICIPALITY, SCD OFFICE
MUTHUKULAM BLOCK, ALAPPUZHA - 690 506, RESIDING AT
PARIPPADI KIZHAKKETHIL, PERINGAL P.O., KAYAMKULAM,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT -690 506.
40 RAJANI O., W/O. SUNIL KUMAR,
SC PROMOTOR IN MUTHUKULAM PANCHAYATH, SCD OFFICE
MUTHUKULAM BLOCK, ALAPPUZHA - 690 506, RESIDING AT
SUNILIL BHAVANAM, MUTHUKKULAM VADAKKU, CHOOLATHERIVU,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT- 690 506.
41 SARANYAMOL S.,
SC PROMOTOR IN NEELAMPEROOR PANCHAYTH, SCD OFFICE
VELIYANAD BLOCK, ALAPPUZHA - 689 595, RESIDING AT
MUTTUMTHARA HOUSE, EPRARA P.O., ALAPPUZHA.
42 SWAPNA P.S., AGED 34 YEARS,
SC PROMOTOR IN PULINKUNNU PANCHAYTH, SCD OFFICE
VELIYANAD BLOCK, ALAPPUZHA - 689 595, RESIDING AT
KIZHAKKECHIRA, PULINKUNNU P.O.,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 688 505.
43 LATHIKA, AGED 50 YEARS, W/O. SHAJI,
SC PROMOTOR IN NOORANAD PANCHAYTH,
SCD OFFICE, BHARANIKKAVU BLOCK, ALAPPUZHA - 690 505
RESIDING AT LATHIKA BHAVAN, THAMBURU,
NOORANADU P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 690 504.
44 ANITHA P.K., AGED 43 YEARS, D/O. KUNJAPPAN,
SC PROMOTOR AROOR PANCHAYATH, PATTANAKKAD BLOCK,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT -688 537, RESIDING AT
PUTHUVAL NIKARETH, CHANDIROOR P.O.,
CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 688 537.
BY ADVS.
RAJI T.BHASKAR
SHAJI E.V.
RESPONDENTS :-
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT
SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
WP(C) NO.13388/2022 and
connected cases
-: 22 :-
2 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIATE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
3 DIRECTOR OF SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
4 DISTRICT SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN 670 001
5 DISTRICT SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. PIN- 689 645
6 DISTRICT SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-688 001
SMT.K.G.SAROJINI, GP
SRI.ASOK M. CHERIAN, ADDL.AG
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.06.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).13388/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON 26.04.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.13388/2022 and
connected cases
-: 23 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 3RD ASHADHA, 1944
WP(C) NO.19432 OF 2022
PETITIONERS :-
1 RAJKUMAR G., AGED 45 YEARS
S/O.GURU, S.C.PROMOTER, DEVIKULAM BLOCK SCHEDULED
CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, DEVIKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
(UNDER TERMINATION) DEVIKULAM, IDUKKI - 685 613,
RESIDING AT ARIVIKAD, MATTUPETTY P.O.,
IDUKKI - 685 616.
2 LANEESH A.T., AGED 42 YEARS
S.C.PROMOTER, RANNI BLOCK SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT
OFFICE, RANNI,
NARANAMOOZHY GRAMA PANCHAYAT (UNDER TERMINATION)
RESIDING AT ANCHUKINATTUMKAL (H), ADICHIPUZHA P.O.,
PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 711.
BY ADVS.
KALEESWARAM RAJ
THULASI K. RAJ
RESPONDENTS :-
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 THE SECRETARY TO GOVRERNMENT,
LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
3 DIRECTOR OF SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT,
DIRECTORATE OF SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICE,
VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
4 DISTRICT SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
DISTRICT SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICE,
MOOLAMATTOM, IDUKKI - 685 589.
WP(C) NO.13388/2022 and
connected cases
-: 24 :-
5 DISTRICT SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
DISTRICT SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICE,
THIRD FLOOR, MINI CIVIL STATION,
PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 645.
BY SMT.K.G.SAROJINI, GP
BY SRI.ASOK M. CHERIAN, ADDL.AG
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
15.06.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).13388/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON 24.06.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.13388/2022 and
connected cases
-: 25 :-
JUDGMENT
[WP(C) Nos.13388/2022, 15786/2022, 16582/2022,
17557/2022, 18370/2022 & 19432/2022]
Dated this the 24th day of June, 2022
This batch of writ petitions pertains to the selection to the
post of Schedule Caste Promoters (herinafter referred to as "SC
Promoters") on contract basis in the Scheduled Caste
Development Department of the Government of Kerala. The
petitioners are persons working as SC Promoters in different
Local Self Government Institutions/Blocks on contract basis.
They challenge the prescription of an upper age limit of 30 years
for appointment as SC Promoters by the notification which is
produced as Ext.P5 in W.P.(C).No.15786 of 2022 which contains
the said prescriptions. Challenge is also raised in some of these
writ petitions against the Government Order dated 22.01.2022
prescribing the criteria for selection including the prescription
of the upper age limit of 30 years.
2. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioners is that the petitioners are persons who had been
working as SC Promoters on contract basis from 2006, 2011,
2014 etc. The petitioners in all these writ petitions except W.P.
WP(C) NO.13388/2022 and
connected cases
(C).No.19432 of 2022 had applied pursuant to the notification on
the basis of the permissive interim orders granted either by this
Court or by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal. They had all
been inducted as SC Promoters on contract basis, but their
contracts had been renewed from time to time.
3. Earlier, a Government Order was issued on 20.7.2010
spelling out the duties attached to the post of SC Promoters.
Thereafter on 24.12.2014 a Government Order was issued
prescribing criteria for appointment. Several persons, who were
working as SC Promoters approached the Kerala Administrative
Tribunal challenging the said Government Order as also seeking
regularization as SC Promoters in view of the fact that their
services are required by the Government.
4. Ext.P2 (W.P.(C).No.19432 of 2022 ) order was
rendered by the Administrative Tribunal in a batch of original
applications. After considering the contentions advanced in
considerable detail, the Administrative Tribunal came to the
conclusion that the plea raised by the petitioners for
regularization in service is devoid of merits. It was found that
the engagement was only contractual in nature and the mere
fact that the scheme continues cannot be a ground to claim
WP(C) NO.13388/2022 and
connected cases
regularization. The challenge against Government Orders dated
17.3.2015 and 25.4.2015 were rejected and the said Government
Orders were upheld. However, Clause III of Government Order
dated 24.12.2014 barring SC Promoters, who have 8 years or
more of service, from being considered for selection was set
aside. It was held that there is no legal embargo for replacing
SC Promoters who have been appointed purely on contract
basis. However, since Clause III of Government Order dated
24.12.2014 was set aside, the selection process was directed to
be conducted afresh in respect of all persons who had not been
permitted to participate in the selection solely for the reason
that they had completed 8 years of service as SC Promoters.
Subject to the above, the original applications were dismissed.
5. Thereafter, the matter was taken up before the
Division Bench of this Court in OP(KAT) No.125 of 2017 and
connected cases. The findings of the KAT were largely upheld by
this Court by Ext.P3 judgment dated 31/8/2017. The rejection of
the claim for regularization was upheld. The setting aside of the
condition that persons who completed 8 years as SC Promoters
could not be considered in the selection, was also upheld.
However, taking note of the fact that 10% of total vacancies of
WP(C) NO.13388/2022 and
connected cases
SC Promoters are to be filled up by considering persons who are
working as social workers, as dealt with under Clause II of
Government Order dated 24.12.2014, and since the maximum
age limit for social workers to be considered for selection was 50
years, it was directed to be considered whether they could be
identified by placing them en-bloc under the 10% of vacancies
where the maximum age is 50 years. It was directed that
preference is given to persons in the age group 40 to 50 years in
the category of social workers and only if no qualified person
satisfying the requirement is available under this group will it
go to other persons of lesser age. Clauses I and II of the
Government Order dated 24.12.2014 were modified to the above
extent. Ext.P3 judgment was again taken up in SLP and by
Ext.P4 dated 28.10.2021, the Special Leave Petition filed by the
State were dismissed.
6. It is submitted that on the basis of selection so
conducted, the petitioners had been selected as SC Promoters
and were continuing on contract basis. While so, G.O.No.6/2022
SC STD was issued on 22/1/2022. The said Government Order
provided the qualifications and eligibility for further contractual
appointments as SC Promoters. It was stipulated that
WP(C) NO.13388/2022 and
connected cases
1.the applicants should belong to the Scheduled Caste
2.have minimum educational qualification of Plus 2 or
equivalent
3.should be within the age of 18 to 30 years.
7. It was further provided that the applications for
engagement in a local authority would be invited from persons
within the area of such local authority. If persons with
required qualifications are not available within the area of one
local authority, persons from other local authorities would be
considered. The order also provided for conduct of written
examinations at Block/Municipality/Corporation level and
interviews conducted at district level. It was further provided
that the selected candidates would have to undergo training
and that they would have no claim for regular appointment. It
was further provided that persons, who had been engaged as
Promoters earlier and who had been discharged on
disciplinary grounds, would not be considered. The earlier
Government Order dated 24.12.2014 prescribing the
qualification was expressly cancelled by G.O.No.6/2022 SC
STD dated 22/1/2022 [Ext.P3 in (W.P.(C).No.18370 of 2022)].
Pursuant to Government order dated 22.1.2022, a notification
WP(C) NO.13388/2022 and
connected cases
has admittedly been issued calling for applications for
contract appointments as SC Promoters which is also under
challenge.
8. The main contention urged by the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners in all these cases is that the
Government, by the issuance of the Government Order and the
notification restricting the age of eligibility as 18 to 30 years, is
attempting to re-introduce the condition which had been found
bad by the KAT and by this Court in the earlier round of
litigation. It is submitted that what could not be done directly is
now being attempted to be done indirectly inasmuch as all those
persons who have completed 8 years of service as SC Promoters
would be rendered ineligible to apply in the present selection
because of the reduction of the upper age limit. It is, therefore,
the specific contention that the vice of arbitrariness and
discrimination which was found in the earlier Government Order
is being perpetrated in a different form in the present order. It
is further contended that the prescription of the age limit of 30
years for engagement of SC Promoters is absolutely illegal and
discriminatory and has absolutely no nexus to the objects sort to
be achieved. The decisions of the Apex court in High Court of
WP(C) NO.13388/2022 and
connected cases
Kerala v. Reshma A and others [2021 3 SCC 755], Renu and
others v.District and Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari and
another [2014 KHC 4089], J. Pandurangarao v. A.P.Public
Service Commission, Hyderabad and another [1963 KHC
467], State of Punjab and another v. Brijeshwar Singh
Chahal and others [2016 KHC 6248] etc. are relied on.
9. The Additional Advocate General Sri. Asok M.
Cherian appearing for the respondents submits that the
engagement of SC Promoters is only on contract basis and for
the purpose of a Scheme of the Government. It is stated that the
mere fact that the project is a continuing one cannot give any
right to appointees, who are specifically engaged on contract
basis for a fixed period to contend that they are entitled either to
continue in service after the period of the contract or to
regularization. It is submitted that the claim for regularization
has been specifically considered by the KAT as well as by the
Division Bench of this Court and it was clearly found that the
persons like the petitioners, who have been engaged on a
contract basis, can have absolutely no claim for regularization or
for continuance in service. It is submitted that in the earlier
round of litigation, what was found was that the exclusion of
WP(C) NO.13388/2022 and
connected cases
persons, who fall within the eligibility conditions, but who were
rendered ineligible to apply only because they had completed 8
years of service as SC Promoters, was not informed by any
rational nexus. It is contended that the Government had
considered the entire aspects of matter and had found that the
eligibility criteria for selection of SC Promoters requires to be
revised. It is submitted that it is as a part of the said exercise
that the earlier Government Orders were cancelled and a fresh
Government Order was issued prescribing the revised criteria. It
was felt that the services of young and techno-savvy persons
was required in the light of the onerous duties to be carried out
by SC Promoters and therefore the Government had taken an
informed decision to restrict the age of eligibility as 18 to 30
years. It is submitted that the category of social workers was
also done away with in view of the fact that it was felt that
youngsters would be able to better carry out the functions of SC
Promoters which requires young blood as well. It is, therefore,
contended that the Government, in it's wisdom, is free to
prescribe an age of eligibility or an upper age limit for
appointment and unless there is clear and glaring illegality in
the prescription, this Court would not be justified in interfering
WP(C) NO.13388/2022 and
connected cases
with such prescription. It is further submitted that in the case of
persons who have exceeded the age of 40 years, there would be
absolutely no claim which can be raised in view of fact that there
is no quota set apart for social workers in the present selection
going by the Government Order. Therefore, even if all the
contentions of the parties are accepted, the only claim would be
in respect of persons between the age of 30 and 40 and those of
the petitioners, who are aged more than 40 years as on the date
for submission of applications would be completely ineligible in
any case.
10. I have considered the contentions advanced on either
side. I notice that in the earlier round of litigation also, the
specific contention raised by the petitioners was that they are
entitled to regularization in service in view of the continuing
nature of the project. The said contention was specifically
negated by the Administrative Tribunal which was affirmed by
this Court as well as the Apex court. In the judgment of KAT the
prescriptions with regard to eligibility had been considered.
There were different age limits and qualifications provided for
different sets of persons. The general prescription of age limit
was between 18 and 40. For SC Promoters who were assigned
WP(C) NO.13388/2022 and
connected cases
duties of tutors in pre-metric hostels, the minimum qualification
was degree with preference to B.Ed course. Clause II provided
the 10% of SC Promoters in a district will be appointed from
social workers. For social workers, the minimum educational
qualification was SSLC and the upper age limit was 50. Clause
III provided that persons, who worked as Promoters for more
than 8 years will not be considered. The Administrative Tribunal
did not consider the contentions with regard to prescriptions of
age limits for engagement in the selection. What was considered
was specifically Clause III of the Government Order dated
24.12.2014 which provided that persons who had completed 8
years as SC Promoters would not be considered in the selection.
11. Paragraph 32 to 35 of the judgment of the Kerala
Administrative Tribunal contains the discussion with regard to
Clause III which reads as follows:-
32. The learned Government Pleader submitted that such a criteria has been
adopted so that new persons will be able to get engagement and it is not
violative of Article 16 of the Constitution. It can be seen that throughout the
engagement of persons was only for one year. Of course, some of the
appointees could continue based on renewal. Such persons have continued
for more than 8 years also. It is , not a case of appointment/engagement was
being made for a fixed period of 8 years. It so happened that some of the
persons continued for 8 years on the basis of renewal. Therefore, as the
WP(C) NO.13388/2022 and
connected cases
initial appointment was not for 8 years, the question will be whether such
persons could be denied opportunity to compete. In effect it operates as a
ban for such ' SC Promoters to participate in the selection process. While
interpreting Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India, it has been held in
Krishan Chander Nayar v. Central Tractor Organisation (AIR 1962 SC 602) ;
by by a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court that "the ban imposed should
have a reasonable basis and must have some relationship to the suitability
for employment or appointment to an office. But an arbitrary imposition of
ban against the employment of a person under the Government would
certainly amount to denial of equal opportunity employment guaranteed
under Article 16(1). Article 16(1) of the Constitution guarantees equal
opportunity in the matter of employment. Herein the question is whether
there is justification in categorising persons who, have worked as Promoters
for more than 8 years as ineligible for being considered again for temporary
appointment. The classification normally. should have a nexus with the
object sought to be achieved. Otherwise it will not be a reasonable
classification. As we have already noticed, the re-engagement for a number of
years resulting in continuance for 8 years was due to various reasons. It is
not a case where the initial engagement was for a fixed term of 8 years.
Therefore, the classification has no nexus with the object sought to be
achieved. If such persons are within the age limit provided under Annexure
A17 produced in O.A.No.881 of 2015 and they are having the qualification
and fulfils the remaining eligibility criteria, they cannot be denied
opportunity to apply and compete for fresh selection. Therefore, such a
clause will definitely violate Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India. Hence,
clause III of Annexure A17 directing that Promoters who have been engaged
for more than 8 years will not be considered again is set aside. As already
noticed, the notifications inviting applications after the issuance of Annexure
A17 are also under challenge in various Original Applications. For
convenience, pleadings in O.A.No.85 of 2016 are referred to herein. Annexure
A7 is the copy of Government order dated 24.12.2014 prescribing new
WP(C) NO.13388/2022 and
connected cases
norms and guidelines. Annexure A8 is the copy of the notification dated
4.1.2016 inviting applications in eight Grama Panchayats including the
Panchayats wherein the applicants are working, Similar contentions have
been highlighted by the applicants.
35, We, however, reject the contention of the learned counsel for the
applicants that persons who have continued for 8 years and more will be best
suited for performing the various duties and therefore they are entitled for
continuance and regularisation in service."
It was in the said circumstances that Clause III of Government
Order dated 24/12/2014 was set aside.
12. In the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court,
the entire aspects were reconsidered and the judgment of the
Administrative Tribunal quashing Clause III was upheld. The
claim for regularization was emphatically found against.
Thereafter, with regard to the claim of persons between 40 and
50 years to be considered in the 10% quota set apart for social
workers was considered. Thereafter, it was further held as
follows:-
" 25. The prayer made to direct the State Government to frame a Scheme,
to provide regularisation of the persons like the petitioners is also not
liable to be acted upon. Whether the Scheme is to be continued or not;
what shall be the conditions etc., come within the exclusive domain of the
State Government. It is for the State Government to stipulate the relevant
aspects including the terms and conditions, which cannot be transgressed
WP(C) NO.13388/2022 and
connected cases
or endorsed into by this Court. Similarly, the power vested with the
Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, which could
be invoked to direct the State to frame a Scheme of appropriate measure,
unfortunately, is not available with this Court, while exercising the
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India . For this reason
as well, we find it difficult to give any such direction to the State in this
regard.
Only one thing remains to be considered, i.e., even admittedly, 10% of the
total vacancies of SC Promoters in the District are to be filled up by
considering the persons, who are working as 'Social Workers' as dealt with
under Clause II of Annexure A17. In that case, the maximum age limit is '50
years'; whereas it is 18-40 years in other cases, as mentioned in Clause I
(ii) of Annexure A17. It is conceded across the Bar that the petitioners'
applications in response to Annexure A17 will be considered, if they satisfy
the requirements (educational qualification and age factor) for fresh
engagement. But in so far as the petitioners, who were continuing in
service for more than 8 years and are stated as having crossed the age of
40 years, it is to be considered, whether they could be identified by placing
them enbloc under this segment, i.e. 10% of the total number of vacancies
available in the District, where the maximum age is 50 years. We find it
appropriate to cause the above modification to the said extent,i.e. in
respect of this group preference shall be given to the persons having the
age group- above 40 years and upto 50 years and that only if no qualified
person satisfying the above requirement is available under this Group, will
it go to the other persons of lesser age, i.e., less than 40 years. Clauses I & Il
of Annexure A17 will stand modified to the said extent. Subject to the
above, we decline interference and the Original Petitions are dismissed."
13. In the above factual situation, I am of the opinion the
only question that was decided in Ext.P2 and P3 judgments apart
WP(C) NO.13388/2022 and
connected cases
from the right of the petitioners for regularization or even to
seek a scheme to be framed for temporary engagements is the
validity of Clauses II and III of the Government Order. The
prescription of age and educational qualification in the
Government Order and the notifications were found to be within
the exclusive domain of the Government. After finding so, the
prescription that persons, who fall within the eligibility criteria
prescribed by the Government Order and the notification, but
are excluded only because they had completed 8 years of service
as SC Promoters, was considered. It was found that the
exclusion of such persons only because they had 8 years of
service in the post had no reasonable nexus to the object sought
to be achieved and was therefore found to be discriminative and
arbitrary.
14. The contention now raised is with regard to the
prescription of a lower age of 18 to 30 years for the selection. It
cannot be gainsaid that the power to prescribe the eligibility
criteria is within the exclusive domain of the Government and is
in the nature of an informed policy decision. The State in its
counter affidavit seeks to justify the prescription by stating as
follows:-
WP(C) NO.13388/2022 and
connected cases
"6. The Government has the right to revise guidelines and objective of the
scheme. The selection of SC Promoters was done according to the orders
issued timely by the Government. The selection of the SC Promoters for the
year 2022-23 would be according to the guidelines set by Government as
per G.O.(Ms) No. 6/2022/ SCSTDD dated 22.01.2022 and the previous
orders in this regard are not valid for the same.
7. It is submitted that the Department gave chances to all candidates who
were satisfying the criteria set by Government as per G.O.(Ms) No.
6/2022/SCSTDD dated 22.01.2022, to appear in the selection process
without considering whether they have been working as SC Promoters or
not. So it is obvious that department is not against applicants who worked
previously as Promoters."
If that be so, the only question that can be considered by this
Court is whether the prescription of age of 30 years would
offend the findings in judgments of the Kerala Administrative
Tribunal, this Court and the Apex Court in the earlier round of
litigation.
15. The Apex Court in a catena of decisions has held that
the fixation of qualifications and eligibility criteria for
appointment is clearly within the power of the Government or
the employer. In Union of India and others v. Shivbachan
Rai [(2001)9 SCC 356] the Apex Court, while considering the
fixation of age limit for appointment for direct recruitment to the
post of Assistant Director in Central Poultry Building Farms as
WP(C) NO.13388/2022 and
connected cases
"not exceeding 35 years (relaxable for Government servants up
to 5 years in accordance with the instructions and orders
issued by the Central Government)" held that prescribing of any
age limit for a given post, as also deciding the extent to which
any relaxation can be given, if an age limit is fixed, are
essentially matters of policy. It was further held that restricting
the age relaxation up to 5 years though the earlier recruitment
rules provided for age relaxation for government servants
without the specific limit of ideas was perfectly justified, since
the question of fixation of upper age limit as well as grant of
relaxation therefrom is completely within the realm of matters of
policy and such decisions cannot be considered as arbitrary or
unreasonable.
16. A Division Bench of this Court in Vivek S A v. Kerala
Public Service Commission and others [2007 (4) KHC 753]
also held in the case of fixation of age limit for appointment to
the post of vocational teacher, that the rule making authority is
conferred with the power to fix the age limit as well as the
qualification and that such prescription cannot be called to
question as being arbitrary or discriminatory.
WP(C) NO.13388/2022 and
connected cases
17. The Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and
others v. Principal Abhay Nandan Inter College and others
[2021 KHC 6533] held that where issues of policy of the
Government are concerned and where a subordinate legislation
has the character of a policy decision, then until and unless
there is manifest or extreme arbitrariness, the constitutional
court cannot interfere with such a decision. It was held that
amendment of an existing condition cannot be challenged on the
basis of mere presumption. Once a rule is introduced by way of
a policy decision, a demonstration of the existence of manifest,
excessive and extreme arbitrariness is required to set at naught
such a prescription. On the facts of the case, it was held that
mere fact that a counsel representing the State is not able to
satisfy the court on the policy challenged would not ipso facto
lead to a declaration that it is constitutional, unless the
challenge is sustainable on the grounds raised and materials
placed by the persons who challenged the prescription.
18. A learned single Judge of this court in Sheela v State
of Kerala and others (2016 KHC 858) held that the policy
decisions taken by the State Government not to enhance the age
of retirement in a statutory corporation in which the State
WP(C) NO.13388/2022 and
connected cases
Government holds substantial stake cannot be interfered with by
a constitutional court, unless the petitioners can satisfy the court
that the said policy decision is irrational or unreasonable.
19. In the instant case as well, what is under challenge is
the prescription of an upper age limit of eligibility in selection
for contractual appointments. The State Government contends
that it is for the proper implementation of the project that an
informed decision was taken to restrict the age of persons
sought to be appointed on contract basis. Unless the petitioners
are able to satisfy the court that it is only to weed out the
petitioners who were entitled to the benefit of Ext.P2 and P3
judgments that the decision was taken by the Government to
reduce the upper age, the petitioners cannot sustain the
challenge against the prescription of upper age limit simpliciter.
From an examination of the pleadings on record, I notice that
many of petitioners are persons, who have attained the age of 40
or more. As a matter of fact, all the petitioners in W.P.
(C).No.19432 of 2022 are above the age of 40 years and it is also
submitted that they have not submitted applications pursuant to
the notification. Going by the prescriptions in the earlier
notification also, de hors the provisions for engagement of social
WP(C) NO.13388/2022 and
connected cases
workers, the petitioners, who have exceeded the age of 40,
would not have had a right to apply. This Court, exercising
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
cannot prescribe an age limit higher than the age provided by
the Government in the Government Orders or the
notifications. What can be considered by this Court is only
whether there is patent illegality, arbitrariness or
unreasonableness in the prescription of the upper age.
20. The contention raised by the petitioners in these
writ petitions is that the prescription of the upper age limit is
arbitrary and discriminatory. The only contention raised by
them in support of this argument is that in the earlier round of
litigation, it had been held that the condition provided that
persons who have completed 8 years of service as SC
Promoters would not be considered for appointment on
contract basis was bad in law. However, from the pleadings
and the materials placed on record, I am unable to come to
the conclusion that the petitioners have succeeded in
establishing that the prescription of the upper age limit of 30
years is intended to weed out the persons who had received
WP(C) NO.13388/2022 and
connected cases
the benefit of the judgment in the earlier round of litigation.
This aspect of the matter is not borne out by the pleadings of
the petitioners themselves.
In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion
that the prayers as sought for in the writ petition cannot be
granted. The writ petitions fail and the same are accordingly
dismissed.
Sd/-
Anu Sivaraman, Judge
sj
WP(C) NO.13388/2022 and
connected cases
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13388/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. L 17078/16 DATED
22.11.2016 ISSUED BY PALAKKAD DISTRICT SCHEDULED
CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER APPOINTING SCHEDULED CASTE
PROMOTERS I DIFFERENCE LOCAL AUTHORITIES.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 28.02.2018 ISSUED
BY DISTRICT SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
PALAKKAD INVITING APPLICATIONS FOR SCHEDULED CASTE
PROMOTERS TO DIFFERENT LOCAL AUTHORITIES IN PALAKKAD
DISTRICT.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO 6/2022/SC/ST.
DEV. DPT. DATED 22.01.2022 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY ,
DEPARTMENT OF SC/ST DEVELOPMENT PERMITTING THE
DIRECTOR OF SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO
REVISE ND RENEW THE GENERAL NORMS AND GUIDE LINES IN
THE APPOINTMENT OF SCHEDULED CASTE PROMOTERS BY
RESTRICTING AGE LIMIT FROM 18 TO 30 AND FIXING
MINIMUM EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS AS PLUS TO ETC.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 09.03.2022 ISSUED BY THE
DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT,
PERMITTING EXITING SC PROMOTERS ABOVE THE AGE OF 30
YEARS TO APPLY FOR SELECTION AS SC PROMOTERS AND
PROMOTERS AND DIRECTING THEIR INCLUSION IN THE LIST
OF APPLICATIONS IN THE LIGHT OF THE ORDER DATED
08.03.2022 ISSUED BY KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.3.2022 RESTRICTING
THE APPLICATION OF EXHIBIT P4 ORDER TO THE
PETITIONERS IN THE RESPECTIVE ORIGINAL APPLICATIONS
BEFORE THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO. 99/2014/SC/ST DEV. DEPT
DATED 24.12.2014 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT SPECIFYING
THE ELIGIBILITY CONDITIONS OF SCHEDULED CASTE
PROMOTERS.
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.NO.5420/2022 AND
5519/2022
WP(C) NO.13388/2022 and
connected cases
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15786/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(P) NO. 86/10 DATED
28.07.2010.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL
IN OA 879/2015 AND CONNECTED MATTERS DATED
23.05.2017.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN THESE
OP(KAT), 125/17 DATED 31.08.2017.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE
SUPREME COURT IN SLP NOS. 4057-4064/2018 AND
CONNECTED CASES DATED 28.10.2021.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE
SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT DIRECTORATE.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08.03.2022 IN O.A.
NO. 331/2022 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KERALA
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL.
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.NO. 5420/2022
AND 5519/2022
WP(C) NO.13388/2022 and
connected cases
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16582/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF G.O.(MS) NO.99/2014/SCSTD DATED
24/12/2014 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P2 A COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
IN OP (KAT) NO.125/2017 & CONNECTED CASES.
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER 28/10/2021 OF THE
HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN SLP (C)
NOS.4057-4064 OF 2018.
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF G.O.(MS) NO.6/2022/SCSTD DATED
22/01/2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION NO.SCDD/658/2022-
A2 (DEV A) DATED NIL ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
08/03/2022 IN O.A.NO.364/2022 OF THE KAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM P7.
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
10/5/2022 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C)
NO.15786/2022.
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(P) NO. 86/2010 DATED
28/07/2020 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.NO.5420/2022
AND 5519/2022
WP(C) NO.13388/2022 and
connected cases
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17557/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
ExhibitP1 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(P) NO.86/10 DATED 28/7/2010
.
ExhibitP2 A TRUE COPY OF G.O. (MS) NO. 99/2014/ SCSTD
DATED 24/12/2014 .
ExhibitP3 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF THE JUDGMENT OF
OP (KAT)125/2017DATED 31/8/2017.
ExhibitP4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT
DATED 28/10/2021.
ExhibitP5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 11/02/2022.
ExhibitP6 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 10/5/2022
OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C) NO.15786/2022.
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R1(a) EXHIBIT R1(a) : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN
WPC.NO.5420/2022 AND 5519/2022
WP(C) NO.13388/2022 and
connected cases
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18370/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 COPY OF G.O(MS) NO. 99/2014/SCSTD DATED
21.12.2014 ISSUED BY THE 1" RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P2 COPY OF THE ORDER 28.10.2021 OF THE HONOURABLE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN SLP(C)NOS. 4057-4064
OF 2018.
Exhibit P3 COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO. 6/2022/SCSTD DATED
22.07,2022ISSUED BY THE 1"" RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P4 COPY OF NOTIFICATION NO. SCDD/658/2022-A2 (DEV
A) DATED ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5 COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 25/03/2022 IN
O.A.NO. 506/2022 OF THE KAT, ERNAKULAM
Exhibit P6 COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 18/03/2022 IN OA
NO. 433/2022 OF THE KAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
Exhibit P7 COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 10/5/2022 THIS
HONBLE COURT IN WP(C)NO.15786/2022
WP(C) NO.13388/2022 and
connected cases
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19432/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(P) NO.86/10 DATED
28/07/2010.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL
IN OA 879/2015 AND CONNECTED MATTERS DATED
23/05/2017.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN THESE OP
(KAT)S DATED 31/08/2017.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE
SUPREME COURT IN SLP NOS.4057-4064/2018 AND
CONNECTED CASES DATED 28/10/2021.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICTION ISSUED BY THE
SCHEDULED CASTES DEVELOPMENT DIRECTORATE.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE CASE STATUS FROM THE OFFICIAL
WEBSITE OF THE SUPREME COURT.
