ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
This Original Petition is filed by the petitioner in O.A. (EKM)No.528 of 2014, challenging the order passed by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, dismissing the Original Application.
2. Records show that, since 1997 the petitioner has been working on contract basis as Junior Lecturer (Bharathanatyam) in the college of which the 4th respondent, is the Principal. This continued till 2011 with a break during 1999-2000. In 2011 on the basis that she has attained 40 years of age the Employment Exchange did not sponsor her. Thereupon she filed a Writ Petition seeking a direction for her continuance in the college and that Writ Petition was subsequently transferred to the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, where it is stated to be pending.
3. While so, 3 vacancies in the post of Junior Lecturer including that of Bharathanatyam were notified by the Public Service Commission by Annexure-A9 advertisement issued during November, 2013. It appears that, though the petitioner had exceeded the maximum age limit prescribed in the notification, she applied in response to the notification. Simultaneously she filed Annexure-A12 representation before the 1st respondent seeking a relaxation of the age limit invoking Rule 39 of Part II of KS & SSR. In the representation she placed reliance on the principles laid down in paragraph 55 of the decision reported in Secretary, State of Karnataka & others Vs. Umadevi (3) & others [(2006) 4 SCC 1] and the principles laid down in Sathyaprakash & Ors Vs. State of Bihar [2010 (4) SCC 179]. She also relied on Annexure- A13, a Government Order dated 26/2/2011 issued relaxing the age limit to the post of Junior Lecturer in favour of an individual candidate.
4. Though the matter was considered by the Government, the representation was finally rejected by Annexure-A15 order, where without referring to any of the contentions raised by the petitioner, the Government took the view that guidelines have already been issued by the Government not to invoke the power under Rule 39 for the benefit of individual candidates. It was in such circumstances, she filed O.A.(EKM)No.528 of 2014 which was dismissed by the Tribunal.
5. We heard the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel for the PSC.
6. Although various contentions have been raised by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, which were resisted by the learned Government Pleader, we feel that it is a matter which requires re-consideration by the Government. Reading of the Government Order shows that the only reason stated by the Government to decline the prayer of the petitioner is the guidelines issued by the Government itself in invoking the powers under Rule 39, which according to the Government shall not be invoked for the benefit of individuals.
However, the petitioner relies on Annexure-A13 and similar other cases where this power has been invoked for the benefit of individuals and that too after the guidelines were issued. The Government also did not advert to the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the judgment relied on by her.
7. In other words, Annexure-A15 shows that, it was issued without any application of mind and that it was on that basis Annexure-A12 representation made by the petitioner was rejected. These reasons call for re-consideration of the matter.
8. For these reasons, we are unable to sustain the order passed by the Tribunal and Annexure-A15. We set aside the order passed by the Tribunal dismissing O.A.(EKM)No.528 of 2014 and Annexure-A15 order passed by the Government rejecting Annexure-A12 representation made by the petitioner.
9. The Original Petition is accordingly disposed of directing that the 1st respondent shall re-consider Annexure- A12 representation made by the petitioner duly adverting to the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the judgments noticed above, and also Annexure-A13 Government Order relied on by the petitioner. The orders in this matter shall be passed, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment before the 1st respondent for information and compliance.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE skj