K C ELAMMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION; SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR SELECTION TO INDIAN POLICE SERVICE; STATEOF KERALA; MADHU P K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition arises out of the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench dated 10.9.2009 in O.A.No.111 of 2008. The petitioner herein filed the said O.A. before the Tribunal seeking an order to quash Annexure A7 communication dated 4.8.2007 by which her claim for consideration and inclusion in the select list for IPS (Kerala) Cadre as on 1.1.2005 was turned down stating that she has crossed the age limit of 54 years as on 1.1.2005 and as such, not eligible for consideration. The petitioner has also sought a declaration that she is eligible to be considered for selection and appointment against the substantive vacancies in the IPS (Kerala) Cadre as on 1.1.2005 for promotion quota under the provisions of Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955. She also seeks to direct the respondents to consider her claim against the unfilled vacancy as on 1.1.2004 in IPS (Kerala) Cadre by convening Review Selection Committee and to select and appoint her to that cadre with retrospective effect from the date on which Annexure A3 notification appointing the selected candidates of the year 2004 had been made and to grant year of allotment and consequential seniority. The further relief sought for in the OA is to set aside Annexure A6 select list for IPS (Kerala) Cadre as on 1.1.2005 in so far as it selects and appoints the 5th respondent herein to that Cadre. The petitioner has also sought a declaration that Regulation 5(3) of the IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation, 1955; to the extent it prescribes that the Committee shall not consider the case of the members of the State Police Service who have attained the age of 54 years as on the first day of January of the year on which it meets, is illegal, unreasonable, violative Article 14 of the Constitution of India and also violates Regulation 5(1) of the said Regulations.

(2.) Before the Tribunal, the reliefs sought for in the OA were opposed by filing Ext.P2 reply statement by respondents 2 and 3, Ext.P4 reply statement by respondent No.4 and Ext.P5 written statement by the 1st respondent. The petitioner filed Ext.P6 rejoinder. The party respondent, the 5th respondent herein, filed Ext.P7 reply statement. The petitioner filed Ext.P6 rejoinder, which was followed by Ext.P8 reply statement to the rejoinder filed by respondents 2 and 3, Ext.P9 reply statement filed by respondents 2 and 3 to the amended OA and Ext.P10 reply statement filed by the 4th respondent to the amended OA.

(3.) After considering the rival contentions, the Tribunal by Ext.P1 order dated 10.9.2009, dismissed the OA. Feeling aggrieved by Ext.P1 order, the petitioner is before this Court in this Writ Petition.