Kerala High Court To Consider Validity Of 55-Yrs Upper Age Eligibility Criteria For Mediators

Justice V.G.Arun by relying upon the Apex Court decision in Tej Prakash Pathak and others v. Rajasthan High Court and others, observed that in the absence of rules to contrary, the employer has discretion to devise selection procedure and establish benchmarks for various stages of the process. However, the Court expressed doubt regarding the fixation of a maximum age limit of 55 years as an essential eligibility criterion in the notification, stating that the matter warrants consideration.

“Therefore, it may be possible for the 2nd respondent to set the benchmark of maximum 55 years for shortlisting the candidates. Be that as it may, it is doubtful whether the maximum age limit can be included as an eligibility condition in the notification. In the opinion of this Court, the question requires detailed consideration", stated the Court. 

The petitioner is an advocate aged 58 years with 34 years of standing at the Bar. He has approached the High Court challenging the maximum age limit of 55 years prescribed in the notification dated October 10 issued by the Kerala State Mediation And Conciliation Centre for applying to the position of Mediators.

It is stated that the Civil Procedure has stipulated no such age limit (Alternative Dispute Resolution) Rules of 2008 ( ADR Rules). It was further stated that Rule 8 of the ADR only stipulates at least 15 years of standing in the Bar and no other eligibility criterion for being appointed as a Mediator. It was also stated that the maximum age limit cannot be taken as a factor for disqualification as per Rule 9. It was thus argued that the maximum age limit in the notification, which excludes advocates aged more than 55 years, is ultra vires to the ADR Rules, as no such age limit is prescribed in the Rules.

On the other hand, the Counsel appearing for Kerala State Mediation and Conciliation Centre submitted that in previous selections also 55 years was fixed as the maximum age limit. It was further stated that employers can set benchmarks for shortlisting of the candidates.

The Court observed that the last date for applying for the position was November 14. However, the Court declined to pass an interim order to stay the notification, noting that intervening at this stage of the selection process could disrupt the selection process and cause prejudice to the candidates who have already applied.

As such, the matter has been posted for hearing on December 02.

Counsel for Petitioner: Advocate G Keerthivas Giri

Counsel for Respondents: Senior Advocate Santhosh Mathew, Advocates G Harikumar, Roshen D. Alexander, Tina Alex Thomas, Harimohan, Kochurani James

Case Number: WP(C) NO. 40455 OF 2024(R)

Case Title: Adv P U Ali v High Court of Kerala