R.JAYAKUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was working as Office Attendant, who aspired for direct recruitment to the post of Legal Assistant Grade-II in the Law Department. There was a direct recruitment for in-service candidates to the post of Legal Assistant Grade II. But the maximum age prescribed was 40. The petitioner was beyond the age of 40 and hence, he along with two others, approached this Court with a writ petition. This Court, by Ex.P5, directed consideration of their representation within four months. The representation was not considered within the four months, but the recruitment process was proceeded with. It was at that point of time, another writ petition was filed which was transferred later as a Transferred Application. There was an interim order by this Court in the writ petition, which directed the petitioner to implead at least one person from Exts.P9 and P10 select lists, as seen from the order in W.P.(C) No.14000 of 2008 produced at Annexure P4. There is none impleaded as directed in the interim order as we see from the cause title of the transferred application in the impugned order (Annexure P1). The learned Counsel has an explanation that Annexure P5- I.A. was filed for impleadment, but by an omission, in the amended copy of the transferred application, he was not impleaded. Obviously, if an impleadment has been directed, it is for the petitioner to see that the party is impleaded and notice issued to them. We do not see any notice having been issued to any party in a representative capacity.

(2.) Later, it is submitted that the entire selection itself was cancelled and there was a further selection conducted wherein the petitioner was also participated for reason of the enhancement of the maximum age, having been carried out in the Special Rules from 40 to 50 years and the petitioner got appointment as Legal Assistant.

(3.) The contention of the petitioner is that though the original vacancy arose in an earlier date, the petitioner was promoted only when the original petition was pending. The amendments were also made later and the appointments were made only after 2014. In such circumstances, the petitioner's claim a retrospective promotion from the date in which the Government was directed to consider the representation by Ext.P5. We are of the opinion that no such retrospective effect can be given since as on the date of application as rightly found by the Tribunal, the petitioner was not entitled to apply for direct recruitment of in-service candidates.