RAJKUMAR G. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed against the dismissal of the writ petition, WP(C)No.19432 of 2022 filed by the appellant that sought to quash Ext.P5 notification and a declaration that persons who are above 30 years are also eligible to apply for the post of Schedule Caste Promoters (hereinafter referred to as "SC Promoters "). The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the writ appeal are as follows:-

(2.) The petitioners were working as SC Promoters on contract basis in different offices in the Districts of Idukki and Pathanamthitta. Earlier a Government order was issued on 20/7/2010 which prescribes the duty attached to the post of the SC promoters. Thereafter, on 24/12/2014, another Government Order was issued prescribing the procedure for appointment of persons including the petitioners who were working as SC Promoters. The SC Promoters approached the Kerala Administrative Tribunal(KAT) challenging the said Government Order as also seeking their regularization. The Kerala Administrative Tribunal (KAT) by Ext.P2 order dtd. 23/5/2017 found that the plea raised by the petitioners for regularization in service cannot be accepted finding that the engagement was only contractual in nature. However, clause III of the Government Order dtd. 24/12/2014 barring SC Promoters, who have 8 years or more service, from being considered for selection was set aside. It was also stated that there is no legal embargo for replacing the SC Promoters who have been appointed purely on contract basis. It also directed to conduct a fresh selection process to persons who have not been permitted to participate. Subject to this all other contentions of the petitioners were rejected. Not satisfied with the judgment of the Tribunal, the petitioners had preferred OP(KAT) before this court which resulted in Ext.P3 judgment, wherein, the order of the Tribunal was not interfered with. However, the Court found that it was appropriate to modify clause II of the Government Order dtd. 24/12/2014 to the extent that preference shall be given to the persons in the age group of 40-50 so that 10% of the total number of vacancies to the post of SC Promoters shall be filled up by people who have crossed 40 years of age, but not attained 50 years. The said order was challenged before the Supreme Court , the same was disposed of by Ext.P4 order clarifying that:

(3.) It is on the strength of the above orders that the petitioners contend that irrespective of the age they are eligible to apply for the post as and when fresh selection process is initiated. By Ext.P5 notification dtd. 28/2/2022, fresh notification was issued for appointment to the post of SC Promoters with a stipulation that the eligible candidates must be within the age limit of 18-30. It is relevant to note that the previous scheme was changed and the new scheme was notified under Ext.P5. Thus, according to the petitioners, Ext.P5 was intended to exclude the petitioners in violation of Exts.P2 to P4 orders. The petitioners, therefore, seek to challenge Ext.P5 dtd. 28/2/2022 and also the decision taken on 31/3/2022 to terminate the services of the petitioners. They also prayed for issuing a fresh notification so as to make them eligible to appear.