Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 159 (MAD)

K. P. Jayaraman v. The Union of India & others

2004-02-10

M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM, R.JAYASIMHA BABU

body2004
Judgment :- R.Jayasimha Babu, J. It is unfortunate that the petitioner despite having received high commendations from the General Office Commanding in Chief, Army Training Command, who has praised the petitioner for his efficiency, competency, dedication and dutifulness that commendations having been given to him on the 15th of August 1999 the petitioner is still languishing as a lab attendant and despite his performing the work of Lower Division Clerk he has been denied the status of being a LDC on the only ground that he was over 45 years of age and is therefore, not entitled to take the departmental test, which is a pre-requisite for securing an appointment as LDC. 2. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner had been allowed to take the test before he reached the age of 45. In that test in merit ranking he was not placed at a sufficiently high level so as to enable him to secure the appointment. But that was also the position in respect of one K.S.Pillai who also took the same test in the year 1997. It is admitted that K.S.Pillai was aged 47 when he took the examination. He had been permitted by the competent authority to take that examination despite his having crossed the age of 45. The respondents' counsel states that the reason was that it was done as a welfare measure. We do not see why that spirit of extending a helping hand to those who are otherwise competent but had crossed the age bar should not be given, especially to the petitioner here whose efficiency, competency, dedication and dutifulness, had been praised by the Head of the Training Command of which the institution in which he is now serving is but a part. 3. It has also been brought to our notice that Pillai referred to earlier was appointed as LDC when he was aged 51 years, that appointment having been made in the year 2001. The petitioner here is now aged 50 years. We do not see any good reason why the relaxation that had been granted to Pillai should not be granted to the petitioner as well, and he also be allowed to take the examination, and if found successful given the appointment. 4. Being allowed to take the examination is not to say that he should be selected. We do not see any good reason why the relaxation that had been granted to Pillai should not be granted to the petitioner as well, and he also be allowed to take the examination, and if found successful given the appointment. 4. Being allowed to take the examination is not to say that he should be selected. That will depend upon his performance in the exam and if he is found successful in the examination, we see no good reason for denying to him the benefit of appointment, when he is otherwise fit for selection, solely on the ground of age as Pillai was appointed as a LDC when he was aged 51 years. 5. Counsel for the respondents submitted that Pillai was appointed as LDC under the threat of contempt proceedings. We fail to understand the submission. Pillai had gone to the Tribunal which had ruled in his favour. The order of the Tribunal was open to challenge before this Court. No petition was filed challenging the order of the Tribunal. All that was sought to be done was to seek for a review of the order of the Tribunal, that too with an inordinate delay of 235 days. The respondent's application to condone the delay was declined by the Tribunal. However, we see no order in any contempt proceedings which made it imperative for the respondent to appoint Pillai. We also see no reason at all from the records, which can be said to have come in the way of the respondents challenging the order that had been made by the Tribunal in favour of Pillai. 6. Having accepted that order in favour of Pillai, it would be thoroughly unjust to refuse to extend similar treatment to the petitioner before us by permitting him to take the examination even after crossing the age of 45 and also offer him appointment if he is found successful in that examination. 7. Counsel has informed us that the Commandant of the Training Academy being the second respondent has the discretionary power to permit the petitioner to take the examination, as a welfare measure. The rule regarding age is not inflexible and it is capable of being relaxed. It had been relaxed in the case of Pillai and certainly is capable of being relaxed in the case of the petitioner also. 8. The rule regarding age is not inflexible and it is capable of being relaxed. It had been relaxed in the case of Pillai and certainly is capable of being relaxed in the case of the petitioner also. 8. Having regard to the admitted excellent record of the petitioner, we direct the second respondent to permit the petitioner to take the examination as we have been informed by the counsel that there are even now vacancies in the post of LDCs. 9. If the Petitioner is successful in the examination and he is otherwise found fit to be appointed, he shall not be denied such appointment solely on the ground that he has crossed the age of 45 years. 10. The writ petition is ordered accordingly.