6. Based on the above verdict, the matter was reconsidered by the Government. As per Ext.P2 order dated 28.2.2015, the Government tried to draw a distinction with the instances pointed out by the petitioner where benefits were given to individuals, while denying the same to the petitioner. Obviously, the different instances were specifically adverted to by the petitioner including regularisation of the service of Smt.Lalitha as per G.O. (MS)No.186/2000/H.Edn. dated 4.12.2000 and that of Dr.Mini P.Mathai as per G.O. (MS) No.320/2011/H.Edn. dated 26.2.2011, whereby their age was relaxed to be appointed as Lecturer in the regular vacancies. We have gone through the reasons stated by the Government, which appear to be too flimsy and not palatable to this Court. But, unfortunately, on challenging the same before the Tribunal by way of O.A.No.474/2015, the challenge came to be repelled and the O.A. was dismissed as per Ext.P3, which is taken up before this Court, by way of the present Original Petition.

7. Considering the nature of grievance projected with reference to the common cause of action, both the matters W.P. (C)No.22964/2011 and OP(KAT) No.226/2015 are taken up together and heard in detail.

8. The 1 st respondent has filed a counter affidavit in OP (KAT)No.226/2015. The regularisation given to the person by name Lalitha stands conceded. The reason for not filling the regular vacancy on a permanent basis is given in Paragraph 3, which is extracted below:

“3. It is hereby submitted that during the year 1998, it was decided by the Government to restructure the Diploma and Post Diploma Courses in the Music Colleges in the State and the RLV College of Music and Fine Arts, Tripunithura, affiliated to Mahatma Gandhi University in the year 1999. The teaching posts namely Additional Instructor and Instructor were renamed as Junior Lecturer and Lecturer respectively. The above situation necessitated framing of new Special Rules and it was not possible for the Department to report the vacancies in the teaching faculty of Bharathanatyam to the Kerala Public Service Commission until the framing of revised Special Rules in the year 2008.”

As given in paragraph 5, the Special Rules were amended as per Government Order, G.O.(P)No.24/08/H.Edn. dated 19.3.2008. The need to restructure Diploma and Post Diploma Courses in the Music Colleges in the State and RLV College at Tripunithura was felt by the Government in the year ‘1999’. But, it took nearly 8 years for the Government to have the Special Rules amended and all the while, persons like the petitioners were shedding their sweat and blood for imparting and equipping the students who were undergoing various courses including ‘Bharathanatyam’ in the said Institution. By the time the Special Rules were formulated and the vacancies were reported, the petitioner had just crossed the age of 36 years and it was in the said circumstance, that the age relaxation was sought for, which should have attracted proper attention of the Government, in view of the undisputed sequence of events and the effort taken by the petitioner in teaching the students of the Institution so far, right from 1997. It is also to be noted that the request for regularisation, based on similar relief given in other cases, was forwarded to the Government as per Ext.P5, which was still pending consideration. It appears that the issue was considered by the Government quite ‘hypertechnically’, as reflected from the various proceedings produced before this Court.

9. The net result is that, the petitioner who is a duly qualified hand having a Postgraduate Degree in ‘Bharathanatyam’, with 1 st Class and 2 nd rank in the year 2002 is still kept out, even after formulation of the Special Rules and the notification issued by the PSC in the year 2008, on 15.11.2013, except for the higher age factor. Hereagain, it has to be noted that, the Special Rules were formulated by the Government on 19.3.2008 and the vacancies were reported to the PSC on 7.7.2008. The PSC also kept the matter in a cold storage and it took nearly ‘four years’ for the PSC to have issued Annexure A9 notification. For no fault on the part of the petitioner, she was put to suffer quite a lot and whatever could be extracted from her has already been extracted. Several students have come out from the Institution, bagging their Degree, Diploma, PG Diploma, etc. as the case may be, based on the lessons imparted by the petitioner. Still, her chance is still to come, for no fault on her side and she is not even permitted to participate in the selection process, referring to the higher age factor. The paradoxical effect is that, many of the students taught by the petitioner have obtained Degree/Diploma are enabled to participate in the process of selection; but their Teacher – a Postgraduate with 1 st Class and 2 nd rank is still made to wait out, virtually leaving her fate in the dark, which definitely requires to be remedied.

10. After hearing both the sides, including the learned Government Pleader and also the learned Standing Counsel for the PSC, this Court finds that the delay on the part of the Government as well as the PSC has quite adversely affected the rights of the petitioner to be considered against the regular posts of Lecturer in ‘Bharathanatyam’ despite her acquisition of the qualifications and availability of the vacancies. The eagerness shown by the Government was only to non-suit her, merely with reference to the higher age factor, which does not appear to be correct and proper. Power is of course vested with the Government under Rule 39 of Part II KS & SSR, to do justice in appropriate cases. It is also seen that, the Government was vigilant enough to have considered such cases and regularised the service of Smt.Lalitha, Dr.Mini P.Mathai and such other persons as mentioned above. What happened to Smt.Vanajakumari pursuant to Ext.P5 recommendation forwarded by the Principal way back in the year 2001 is not known. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that, as per the information obtained to the petitioner, Vanajakumari’s case has also been considered by the Government and regularisation has been given.