The Kerala High Court agrees to examine whether setting a maximum age limit of 55 years can be deemed an essential eligibility criterion for applicants seeking the position of mediators in the mediation Centres under the Kerala State Mediation and Conciliation Centre.

The bench of Justice V.G. Arun, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Tej Prakash Pathak and Others v. Rajasthan High Court and Others, observed that in the absence of rules to the contrary, employers have the discretion to design selection procedures and set benchmarks for different stages of the process.

However, the Court questioned the inclusion of a maximum age limit of 55 years as an essential eligibility criterion in the notification, emphasizing that the issue requires further consideration.

“Therefore, it may be possible for the 2nd respondent to set the benchmark of a 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.

It was contended that the Civil Procedure (Alternative Dispute Resolution) Rules of 2008 (ADR Rules) do not prescribe any maximum age limit. Rule 8 of the ADR Rules only requires a minimum of 15 years of standing at the bar as the eligibility criterion for appointment as a Mediator. Additionally, it was argued that Rule 9 does not consider the maximum age limit as a ground for disqualification. Therefore, the maximum age limit of 55 years specified in the notification, which excludes advocates above this age, was challenged as being ultra vires to the ADR Rules, as no such restriction is provided under the Rules.

Conversely, the counsel representing the Kerala State Mediation and Conciliation Centre argued that a maximum age limit of 55 years had been consistently applied in previous selection processes. It was further contended that employers are entitled to establish benchmarks for shortlisting candidates.

The Court noted that the deadline for submitting applications for the position was November 14. However, it declined to issue an interim order staying the notification, reasoning that interference at this stage could disrupt the ongoing selection process and prejudice candidates who have already submitted their applications.