ORDER In G.O. Ms. No. 70, Rural Development (E-4), dated 20.3.2000, the Government under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, issued Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Development Engineering Subordinate Service (hereinafter referred to as "Rules"). Para-4 of the said Government Order dealing with fixation of cut of date pertaining to age, with reference to the year of selection for the post of Overseer or Road inspector by direct recruitment is under challenge in W.P. (MD) No. 1753 of 2009. 2. In W.P. (MD) Nos. 753, 756 and 1503 of 2009, the petitioners have sought for a mandamus, to consider their case for appointment to the post of Overseer/Junior Draughting Officer by re-fixing the crucial date for selection to the post of Overseer/Junior Draughting Officer for the year 2008-2009 as 1.7.2008, instead of 1.7.2009 within a time frame fixed by this Court. 3. As common questions of law and facts are involved in all these writ petitions, they are taken up together and disposed of by a common order. 4. Short facts in W.P. (MD) No. 1753 of 2009 are as follows: The petitioner belongs to backward Class community. After completing Diploma in Civil Engineering during April 1988, she registered her Educational Qualifications in Employment Exchange at Chennai. Her registration was later on transferred to Madurai on 14.7.1994. The respondents 1 to 3 have not filled up the post of of Junior Draughting Officer/Overseer in Rural Development for several years. Though the petitioner has registered her name in the year 1988, she was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange for the past 21 years. Her Date of Birth is 5.3.1969. The District Employment Office, Madurai, third respondent herein published a news item in Dinamalar on 9.1.2009, stating that the post of Overseer has to be filled up through employment exchange. Since the petitioner was fully qualified, she requested the third respondent to sponsor her name to the District Collector, Madurai District, second respondent herein for selection. But the third respondent, rejected her request stating that she was overaged for the said post as on 1.7.2009. The petitioner has further submitted that the Government had imposed a ban in filling up the posts of all the cadres resulting in depriving employment opportunities to many eligible persons. Therefore, in order to provide opportunities, the Government have issued orders in G.O. Ms. The petitioner has further submitted that the Government had imposed a ban in filling up the posts of all the cadres resulting in depriving employment opportunities to many eligible persons. Therefore, in order to provide opportunities, the Government have issued orders in G.O. Ms. No. 98, P & AR Department, dated 17.7.2006, relaxing the upper age limit by five years. The selection process for the post of Overseer/Junior Draughting Officer in Rural Development, commenced in the month of January 2009. If the commencement of selection process or the date of vacancies for the post of Oversear/Junior Draughting Officer, is taken into consideration as the crucial date for fixing the age limit, then the petitioner would be eligible for sponsorship to the above post. As the cut off date for determining the maximum age limit is taken as 1.7.2009 in the above said rules, the candidature of the petitioner and similarly placed persons are not sponsored and therefore, the petitioner is constrained to challenge the validity of the rules under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 5. Short facts in W.P. (MD) Nos. 753, 756 and 1503 of 2009 are as follows: The petitioners were born on 3.3.1969, 22.4.1969 and 5.6.1969 respectively. They have registered their educational and other particulars with the District Employment Office, Tirunelveli. On 9.1.2009, the first respondent, the District Collector issued a news item in a regular Tamil Daily calling for the posts of Overseer/Junior Draughting Officer for the period 2008-2009. The District Employment Officer, the second respondent ought to have sponsored the names of the petitioners. Though, they have approached the second respondent on 10.1.2009 requesting him to sponsor their names as they were fully qualified, the second respondent informed them that they have crossed the maximum age limit prescribed for the post as per the crucial fixed by the first respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners represented to the first respondent to consider their case for appointment to the posts of Overseer but the same was not responded. Since the notification passed by the Government for the post of overseer for the period 2008-2009 as well as the letter of the first respondent directing the second respondent to sponsor the eligible candidates is not available, the petitioners could not challenge the said Government Order. Since the notification passed by the Government for the post of overseer for the period 2008-2009 as well as the letter of the first respondent directing the second respondent to sponsor the eligible candidates is not available, the petitioners could not challenge the said Government Order. The petitioners have enrolled themselves in the District Employment Office and waiting for sponsorship for more than 20 years. Due to the delay in recruitment to the above said posts by the administration, the employment opportunities of the petitioners should not be denied. In the above circumstances, they have prayed that the respondents ought to have fixed 1.7.2008, as the cut off date for determining the maximum age limit prescribed for the notified posts. It is also the contention of the petitioners that Rule 12 (v) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services would be applicable to the facts of this case. 6. At the outset, Mr. Veera Kathiravan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. (MD) No. 1753 of 2009 submitted that he is not questioning the competence of the first respondent in framing the recruitment rules. Inviting the attention of this Court to the different dates prescribed for considering the eligibility of the candidates, one for acquiring the educational qualification and another for age limit for the selection to the post of Overseer/Road Inspector, he submitted that even though the petitioner is qualified as per the Rule 3 of the Special Rules, she becomes disqualified by fixing first date of July 2009, as the crucial date for determining the maximum age limit. He further submitted that after setting the selection process in motion in the month of January 2009, those who have satisfied the educational qualification as on the date of notification or on the date as to when the vacancies arose for the post of Overseer/Junior Draughting Officer ought to have been sponsored by the District Employment Officer for the above said post. According to him, by prescribing a future date for determining the maximum age limit, those who had acquired educational qualification on the date when vacancies arose or on the date of notification are denied opportunities to participate in the selection process by fixing a future date and it discriminates against those, who would be benefited by the cut off date. According to him, by prescribing a future date for determining the maximum age limit, those who had acquired educational qualification on the date when vacancies arose or on the date of notification are denied opportunities to participate in the selection process by fixing a future date and it discriminates against those, who would be benefited by the cut off date. Therefore, placing reliance on decisions of the Supreme Court in (2008) 13 SCC 463 and Secy, AIR 2006 SC 1806 : (2006) 4 SCC 1 : (2006) 2 MLJ 326 : 2006-II-LLJ-722, submitted that the rule which is prejudicial to a Section of the candidates, who have registered in the live register of the employment exchange and denied employment opportunities due to the ban imposed by the Government for quite some time is violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 7. Mr. Thalaimutharasu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P. (MD) Nos. 753, 756 and 1503 of 2009 submitted that notification pertains to vacancies in the post of Overseer/Junior Draughting Officer for the year 2007-2008 and therefore, as per Rule 4(a) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Rules, the crucial date for determining the maximum age should be 1.7.2008 and not 1.7.2009. He further submitted that Rule 12(v) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Rules would be applicable to the facts of this case and therefore, the petitioners are fully qualified for the selection to the above post. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners further submitted that for some administrative reasons, there was ban imposed by the Government in filling up of the post by direct recruitment and the delay caused by the Government should not be put against the petitioners. According to him, due to the ban imposed, the petitioners have already lost several opportunities to secure employment suitable to their educational qualifications and the present notification is the last opportunity in their life time and therefore, the District Employment Officer, third respondent, ought to have sponsored the name of the petitioners who were well within the prescribed age of 40 years as on 1.7.2008, after G.O. Ms. No. 98, P & AR Department, dated 17.7.2006, by which, relaxation of upper age limit of five years was given, is applied. 9. Per contra, Mr. No. 98, P & AR Department, dated 17.7.2006, by which, relaxation of upper age limit of five years was given, is applied. 9. Per contra, Mr. K. Balasubramanian, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that the Rules are framed as per the proviso to Article 309 of the constitution of India and as long as the Rules are not tested on the competence, there is no need to interfere with the same. Prescribing the crucial date, age, educational qualification, years of experience, mode of selection to a particular post, is purely the prerogative of the Government and the petitioners have no locus standi to suggest a cut off date for determining the age limit for selection to any post. 10. Inviting the attention of this Court to Rule 4(a) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Development Engineering Subordinate Rules, which is impugned in W.P. (MD) No. 1753 of 2009, learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that the maximum age limit has to be determined with reference to the first day of July of the year, in which, the selection for appointment to the posts are to be made as per the notification and it cannot be anterior to that. According to him, though the vacancies to the above said post may be for the year 2006, but the notification was published only in the year 2009, and therefore, it should be taken as a year of selection and the maximum age limit can be determined only with reference to first day of July' 2009 and it cannot be 1.7.2008, as contended by the petitioners. Therefore, he submitted that there is nothing wrong in fixing the future date for eligibility. 11. Referring to the distinction between the special rules and general rules, learned Additional Government Pleader further submitted that the date prescribed for the acquisition of educational and other qualifications should not be confused with the crucial date for determining the maximum age limit, applicable to the post of Overseer/Road Inspector, which has to be filled up by direct recruitment. He further submitted as on 1.7.2009, the petitioners have crossed the maximum aqe limit prescribed for the post and therefore, the non-sponsorship of their names for selection is in accordance with the statutory rules. 12. He further submitted as on 1.7.2009, the petitioners have crossed the maximum aqe limit prescribed for the post and therefore, the non-sponsorship of their names for selection is in accordance with the statutory rules. 12. Placing reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in AIR 2003 SC 2156 : (2003) 2 SCC 632, learned Additional Government Pleader further submitted that the question relating to constitution, pattern, prescription of qualifications and other conditions of service, are purely within the executive domain of the State and there is no right to challenge the authority of the State to amend or alter to suit their convenience. Relying on a decision of this Court in (2008) 6 MLJ 800 , he submitted that when the rules were framed and cut off dates are prescribed for the purpose of determining the eligibility of qualification and age, merely because, the same are likely to affect some candidates, fixing the cut off date for the above said purpose, cannot be held to be arbitrary or discriminatory, violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He also submitted that the selection process is already over and therefore, the Writ Petitions deserve to be dismissed. As violation of Article 14 is not substantiated, he prayed for dismissal of all the Writ Petitions. 13. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 14. G.O. Ms. No. 70, Rural Development (E4) Department, dated 20.3.2000 reads as follows: Rural Development (E4) Department G.O. (Ms) No. 70 Dated : 20.3.2000 Read: 1. G.O. (Ms) No. 263 Rural Development (CSS.I) Department dt. 27.12.1996. 2. G.O. (Ms) No. 102 Rural Development (E4)Department, dt. 25.5.1998. 3. From the Director of Rural Development Lrs. Roc No. 43294/97/EE2, dt.24.9.1998, 22.7.1999, 3.8.1999, 26.8.1999, 7.9.1999 and 22.9.1999. ORDER In the Government order first read above a separate Engineering wing has been formed in the Rural Development Department. The Government now have decided to accept the recommendation of the Director of Rural Development to merge the categories of Overseer and Junior Draughting Officer in the Rural Development Engineering Wing into one category as "Overseer" with effect from 25.5.1998. Government have also decided to constitute a separate service viz. TamilNadu Panchayat Development Engineering Subordinate Service for the four categories of senior Draughting Officer, Junior Engineer, Overseer and Road Inspector and to frame Special Rules/Ad hoc Rules. Government have also decided to constitute a separate service viz. TamilNadu Panchayat Development Engineering Subordinate Service for the four categories of senior Draughting Officer, Junior Engineer, Overseer and Road Inspector and to frame Special Rules/Ad hoc Rules. Accordingly, Government direct that- (i) The categories of Overseer and Junior Draughting Officer in the Rural Development Engineering Wing shall be merged into one category as "Overseer" with effect from 25.5.1998. The Overseer and Junior Draughting Officer categories are interchangeable as Common seniority is being followed. (ii) The following categories of posts in the Rural Development Engineering Wing shall be constituted into a separate service called Tamilnadu Panchayat Development Engineering Subordinate Service. 1. Senior Draughting Officer 2. Junior Engineer 3. Overseer 4. Road Inspector 15. Tamil Nadu Panchayat Development Engineering Subordinate Service consists of following categories of posts, viz., (i) Overseer and (ii) Road Inspector. The relevant provisions in the above said Government Order are as follows: "2. Appointment: Appointment to the category specified in column (1) of the Table below shall be made by the methods specified in the corresponding entries in column(2) thereof 3. Preparation of annual list of Approved Candidates: For the purpose of drawing up the annual list of approved candidates for appointment to the posts in the service by direct recruitment or by promotion the crucial date on which the candidate should have acquired the prescribed qualification shall be the 1st April of the year. 4. Qualification (a) Age: No person shall be eligible for appointment for the posts of Overseer or Road Inspector by direct recruitment, if he has completed the age of 35 years on the first day of July of the year in which the selection for appointment to the posts are made..... (b) Other Qualifications : No person shall be eligible for appointment to the category specified in column (1) of the Table below by the methods specified in the corresponding entries in column(2) thereof, unless he possesses the qualifications specified in the corresponding entries in column(3) thereof. (5) Appointing authority : (a) The Collector of the District concerned shall be the appointing authority for the categories in the respective district units. (5) Appointing authority : (a) The Collector of the District concerned shall be the appointing authority for the categories in the respective district units. (b) The direct recruitment to the posts shall be made by calling for candidates from Employment Exchanges in the District as and when vacancy arises and selection by Selection Committee which shall follow the prescribed selection procedure issued by Government from, time to time and the Committee shall be constituted by the District Collector concerned. 16. The post of overseer can be filled by direct recruitment or by promotion from Category-II, i.e., Road Inspector. For the purpose of drawing up of the annual list of approved candidate for appointment to the post in service by direct recruitment or by promotion, the crucial date on which, the candidate should have acquired the prescribed qualification, shall be first of April of every year. If the post of Overseer is filled up by direct recruitment, the Educational Qualification prescribed is that the candidate must possess a diploma in Civil Engineering. If the said post is to be filled up by promotion, the candidate (1) Must possess a Diploma in Civil Engineering and (2) Must have rendered service as Road Inspector for a period of not less than 15 years: Provided that a person appointed by promotion, must have passed the following tests, (a) The Account Test for PWD Officers and Subordinates and (b) Paper IV of the Departmental Test for Officers of the Panchayat Development Department viz. Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act 1994 and the rules and orders issued thereunder. 17. Perusal of G.O. Ms. No. 70, Rural Development (E4) Department, dated 20.3.2000, shows that a separate Engineering Wing had been formed in the Rural Development Department and the Government have decided to accept the recommendation of the Director of Rural Development to merge the categories of Overseer and Junior Draughting Officer in the Rural Development Engineering Wing into one category as "Overseer" with effect from 25.5.1998. Government have also decided to constitute a separate service viz. Tamil Nadu Panchayat Development Engineering Subordinate Service for the four categories of senior Draughting Officer, Junior Engineer, Overseer and Road Inspector and to frame Special Rules/Ad hoc Rules. Accordingly, Government have issued the above Government Order. 18. Government have also decided to constitute a separate service viz. Tamil Nadu Panchayat Development Engineering Subordinate Service for the four categories of senior Draughting Officer, Junior Engineer, Overseer and Road Inspector and to frame Special Rules/Ad hoc Rules. Accordingly, Government have issued the above Government Order. 18. Reading of the Special Rules make it clear that there are two channels of appointment for the post of Overseer, i.e. (1) by direct recruitment and (2) by promotion. Fixing of cut of date for the purpose of acquiring the prescribed qualification stated in the table to Rule 4(b) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Development Engineering Subordinate Service for drawing up of the panel for promotion to the post of Overseer should not be confused with direct recruitment. Rule 5(b) contemplates that in the case of direct recruitment, vacancies would be notified to employment exchanges. 19. It is well known that as per the procedure, the employer notifies the estimated number of vacancies to be filled up to the employment exchange and in response, the Employment Exchange would sponsor eligible candidates, who satisfy the prescribed educational qualifications under the relevant service rules for a the notified post in the ratio, if any, fixed for sponsorship, according to the number of vacancies earmarked for the respective communities and following the seniority in the employment registration, As stated supra, the recruitment to the post of Overseer/Junior Draugting Officer is not from open market, but through employment exchange. Therefore, when the posts are notified to the District Employment Exchanges, they have to necessarily sponsor the candidates, who have already qualified and registered themselves in the employment exchange on the date of notification f or. the notified posts and they cannot sponsor candidates, who have not acquired educational qualification on the date of notification. In the case on hand, even according to the petitioners, the posts were notified in January 2009, Therefore, the employer would not even suggest to the employment exchange to wait till first of 1.4.2009, for the candidates to register their qualifications and send the list for selection. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that there may be possibility of considering the candidates for the above post, who satisfy the educational qualification as on 1.4.2009, but still be - disqualified on the ground of over-age as, by determining the age as on 1.7.2009 of the year of selection, cannot be countenanced. 20. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that there may be possibility of considering the candidates for the above post, who satisfy the educational qualification as on 1.4.2009, but still be - disqualified on the ground of over-age as, by determining the age as on 1.7.2009 of the year of selection, cannot be countenanced. 20. Cut-off date prescribed, viz., First April of the year for Empanelment of eligible candidates for preparation of the annual list of approved candidates for filling up of the post by promotion should not be mixed up with the direct recruitment through employment exchanges. 21. No doubt, perusal of G.O. Ms. No. 739, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (E3) Department, dated 15.12.2006, shows that estimated vacancies are for the year 2006-07 and that orders were issued to fill up the balance of vacancies. It is the admitted case of the petitioners that due to the ban imposed by the Government, there was no recruitment to the post for some time and considering the plight of those, who became overaged and disqualified from applying or sponsoring their names from the employment exchange, the Government have issued orders in G.O. Ms. No. 98, P & AR Department, dated 17.7.2006, relaxing the upper age limit by five years. 22. Further, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the State that it is the prerogative of the Government to fix a cut off date for any recruitment and merely because, the same is likely to affect some candidates, fixing of cut off date cannot by itself be held to be arbitrary or discriminatory. The decision relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents in (2008) 6 MLJ 800 can be made applicable to the facts of this case. 23. Before the Supreme Court in AIR 1997 SC 2964 : (1997) 6 SCC 614 , the question of fixing the cut off date for determining the age limit under various Rajasthan Service Rules came up for consideration. Rule 11(A) of the Rajasthan Medical Services (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1962 was one such rule tested before the Supreme Court. The said rule is reproduced hereunder: "11(1) A candidate for direct recruitment to a junior post enumerated in Part C of the Schedule must not have attained the age of 35 years on the first day of January following the last date fixed for receipt of applications. The said rule is reproduced hereunder: "11(1) A candidate for direct recruitment to a junior post enumerated in Part C of the Schedule must not have attained the age of 35 years on the first day of January following the last date fixed for receipt of applications. Provided: (1) That the upper age-limit in sub-rules (1) and (2) above may be relaxed by 5 years in exceptional cases by Government in consultation with the Commission." 24. The question posed before the Supreme Court in the above reported judgment, at Paragraph 4 is reproduced hereunder, "4. Is such a cut off date fixed by the Rules applicable to the relevant service, arbitrary? It has been urged before us by the petitioners and/or appellants that the cut off date of 1st of January following the last date fixed for receipt of applications is arbitrary. The cut off date should only be fixed with reference to the last date of making the application in question. It is submitted before us that the date of 1st of January has no nexus with the application in question and, therefore, must be struck down." 25. Answering the above questions, the Supreme Court at Paragraph 5, held as follows: "5. This contention, in our view, is not sustainable. In the first place the fixing of a cut off date for determining the maximum or minimum age prescribed for a post in not per se, arbitrary. Basically, the fixing of a cut off date for determining the maximum or minimum age required' for a post, is in the discretion of the Rule making Authority or the employer as the case may be. One must accept that such a cut off date cannot be fixed with any mathematical precision and in such a manner as would avoid hardship in all conceivable cases. As soon as a cut off date is fixed there will be some persons who fall on the right side of the cut off date and some persons who will fall on the wrong side of the cut off date. That cannot make the cut off date, per se, arbitrary unless the cut off date is so wide off the mark as to make it wholly unreasonable. This view was expressed by this Court in (1975) 1 SCC 305 and has been reiterated in subsequent cases. That cannot make the cut off date, per se, arbitrary unless the cut off date is so wide off the mark as to make it wholly unreasonable. This view was expressed by this Court in (1975) 1 SCC 305 and has been reiterated in subsequent cases. In the case of (1990) 2 SCC 669 , the relevant service rule stipulated that the candidate should not have completed the age of 26 years on the 1st day of July of the year in which the selection is made. Such a cut off date was challenged. This Court considered the various steps required in the process of selection and said, "when such are the different steps in the process of selection the minimum or maximum age of suitability of. candidates for appointment cannot be allowed to depend upon any fluctuating or uncertain date. If the final stage of selection is delayed and more often it happens for various reasons, the candidates who are eligible on the date of application may find themselves eliminated at the final stage for no fault of theirs. The date to attain the minimum or maximum age must, therefore, be specific and determinate as on a particular date for candidates to apply and for the recruiting agency to scrutinize the applications". This Court, therefore, held that in order to avoid uncertainty in respect of minimum or maximum age of a candidate, which may arise if such an age is linked to the process of selection which may take an uncertain time, it is desirable that such a cut off date should be with reference to a fixed date. Therefore, fixing an independent cut off date, far from being arbitrary, makes for certainty in determining the maximum age," 26. In the above reported judgment, it was further contended before the Supreme Court, that if on the date when the vacancy occurred, the candidates were within the minimum age prescribed by reference to the cut-off date, then if the advertisement is delayed, their age should be considered with reference to the cut-off date of 1st January following the date of occurrence of vacancy. The said contention was also rejected by the Supreme Court for the reason that the power of relaxation is required to be exercised in public interest, for example, if other suitable candidates are not available for the post and the only candidate who is otherwise suitable has crossed the maximum age-limit; or to mitigate hardship. 27. In the case on hand, the vacancies notified are for the year 2006-2007. There is no allegation or mala fide that the respondents have deliberately postponed the notification to the District Employment Exchanges for recruitment to the post of Overseer or Junior Draughting Officer. As long as the petitioners have not come out with any specific case of mala fide as against the employer and substantiate the same with materials, mere administrative delay in notifying the vacancies to the District Employment Exchanges, cannot be a reason to quash Paragraph 4 of the Special Rules for the post of Overseer in the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Development Engineering Subordinate Service, prescribing for the cut-off date for determining the age limit applicable to the post to be filled up by direct recruitment. In view of the above, I do not see any manifest illegality or violation of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, warranting quashing of Paragraph 4 of the impugned Government Order. 28. It is the contention of the petitioners that the cut off date should be fixed as 1.7.2008, instead of 1.7.2009, the year of selection. The language employed in Rule 4 of the Special Rules is that the first of July of the year, in which, the selection to the post has to be made will be the crucial date for determining the maximum age for the post of Overseer/Junior Draughting Officer by direct recruitment. According to the rules, the applicant has to complete the age of 35 years as on 1.7.2009. The date of notification in the Press, according to the petitioners, is in the month of January/February 2009. The Date of Birth of the Writ Petitioners as on the date of notification/vacancies are as follows: 29. Even taking for granted that the date of notification should be the crucial date for determining the maximum age limit, all the petitioners have crossed the maximum age provided for direct recruitment to the post of Overseer/Junior Draughting Officer, even if five years, relaxation is given. Even taking for granted that the date of notification should be the crucial date for determining the maximum age limit, all the petitioners have crossed the maximum age provided for direct recruitment to the post of Overseer/Junior Draughting Officer, even if five years, relaxation is given. When the Special Rules specifically contemplate the First of July of the year, in which, the Selection is made as the cut off date for determining the maximum age, the contention of the petitioners that Rule 12 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, have to be applied and the date on which the vacancies arose, should be the date for determining the age limit, is contrary to the well accepted principle generalia specialibus non derogant, which means that special Rules shall prevail over General Rules. The decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners are inapposite to the facts of this case, in view of the decisions Dr. Amilal Bhat v. State of Rajasthan (supra) and S. Bhuvaneswari v. State of Tamil Nadu (supra) cases. 30. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view that there is no infringement of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India in framing the Special Rules for the post of Overseer/Junior Draughting Officer in the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Development Engineering Subordinate Service in fixing a cut off date for determining the maximum age limit. Therefore, W.P. (MD) No. 1753 of 2009, challenging Paragraph 4 of G.O. Ms. No. 70, Rural Development (E-4), dated 20.3.2000 is dismissed. Consequent to the dismissal of the above, W.P. (MD) Nos. 753, 756 and 1503 of 2009 are also dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Petitions dismissed.