In WP(C) NO.13388 OF 2022-KER HC- Court cannot prescribe age limit higher than age provided by Government in Government Orders or Notifications under Article 226 of Constitution, says Kerala HC Justice Anu Sivaraman [24-06-2022]

Read Order: DWIPU AND ORS v. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY AND ORS 

LE Correspondent

Ernakulam, June 19, 2022: Reiterating Apex Court’s settled law that the fixation of qualifications and eligibility criteria for appointment is clearly within the power of the Government or the employer, the High Court of Kerala has dismissed the petitions pertaining to the selection to the post of Schedule Caste Promoters on contractual basis in the Scheduled Caste Department of the Kerala Government. 

The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman affirmed,“ 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.”

Factual matrix of the case was such that the petitioners were working as SC promoters in different Local Self Government Institutions/ Blocks on contract basis. They assailed the prescription of an upper age limit of 30 years for appointment as SC promoters. The same challenge was also made in some of these writ petitions against the Government Order dated January 22, 2022 wherein criteria for selection included the prescription of the upper age limit of 30 years.  The aforesaid subject matter was taken up before the Division Bench of this Court wherein this Court upheld the rejection of the regularization. 

The main contention that was urged by the counsel for the petitioners was that the Government, by the issuance of the Government Order and the notification restricting the age of eligibility as 18 to 30 years, was attempting to re-introduce the condition which had been found bad by the KAT and by this Court in the earlier round of litigation.

After considering the submissions of both the parties, the Court observed that the order passed by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal in the previous rounds of litigation was with respect to Clause III of Government Order dated December 24, 2014.   It was further noted by this Court that the contention now raised was with regard to the prescription of a lower age of 18 to 30 years for the selection. It couldn’t be denied  that the power to prescribe the eligibility criteria was within the exclusive domain of the Government and was in the nature of an informed policy decision, added the Bench. Reliance was also placed on the judgment in Union of India and others v. Shivbachan Rai .

With respect to the facts of this matter, the Court observed that it failed to reach to a conclusion that the petitioners succeeded in establishing that the prescription of the upper age limit of 30 years was intended to weed out the persons who had received the benefit of the judgment in the earlier round of litigation. Thus, the Bench dismissed the instant writ petitions.