AMIRKUTTY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the petitioner, who was appointed as a Government Law Officer to do Government Work at the Munsiff's Court Centre, Karunagappally, in Kollam district, by virtue of Ext. P1, is entitled to continue even after attaining the age of '60' years, in view of the 'Common Provisions' under the 'Head G' in Chapter II of the Kerala Government Law Officers (Appointment and Conditions of Service) and Conduct of Cases Rules, is the subject matter of consideration. The case of the petitioner is that, he was a practising lawyer at Karunagappally and on substantiating the credentials, he came to be appointed as aforesaid, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Rule as mentioned above. By virtue of the terms of Ext. P1 appointment, he assumed charge and it was for a period three years from the date of his assumption of charge or on attaining the age of sixty years, whichever was earlier. Admittedly, the petitioner crossed the age of 60 years and immediately thereupon, Ext. P2 order came to be passed by the Government on 23.11.2012, holding that, the appointment of the petitioner has automatically come to an end w.e.f. 15.11.2012. Simultaneously, the second respondent was appointed for a period of three years from the date of his assumption of charge of till the attainment of the age of sixty years, whichever was earlier, exactly in similar lines of Ext. P1. The petitioner challenges Ext. P2 in this writ petition.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that merely by virtue of crossing the age of 60 years, it cannot lead to any automatic termination, in view of 'Rule 14' coming under 'Head G' 'Common Provisions'; which stipulates that the age barrier applicable only in the case of persons other than a Government Law Officer (other than Public Prosecutor of High Court), a Special Government Pleader, Special Public Prosecutor or a Pleader to do Government work. The petitioner being a person, who comes under the exempted category, it is contended that, the prohibition is not at all attracted and the petitioner ought to have been permitted to continue even after crossing the age of 60 years, till he completing the period of three years.

(3.) Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.