Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is the B.E (Mechanical Engineering) Graduate. He passed the said degree in the year 1992 with 59% marks. After undergoing apprenticeship training, he got himself registered with the Professional and Executive Employment Exchange, Santhome, Chennai on 05.03.1996. The petitioners land was acquired by the Government of Tamil Nadu for Adi-Dravidar Welfare Scheme and consequently, the petitioner became entitled to priority employment in terms of G.O.No.188 P & AR Department dated 20.12.1976. 2. On 12.05.1998, the petitioner received an interview card from the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, Salem, to attend the interview on 06.06.1998. However, the petitioner was not allowed to attend the interview stating that he did not hold I class in the B.E. degree. According to the petitioner, for the recruitment to the post of Assistant Engineer (Mechanical), as per the Transport Corporation service rules, the required qualification is a degree in Automobile or Mechanical Engineering awarded by a recognised university. The petitioner made a representation and since it did not evoke any response, he filed W.P.No.8839 of 2008 and this Court passed an order directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 14.03.2008. While considering the said representation, the authorities rejected the application by order dated 09.05.2008 holding that the petitioner does not have a 1st class in the B.E., degree course. This was challenged in W.P.No.22510 of 2008 and the learned single Judge interpreting the service rules held that the rejection of the petitioners claim was bad and the authorities were directed to sponsor the name of the petitioner for appointment as Assistant Engineer in the Transport Corporation, within the time frame. The Transport Department went on appeal. The Division Bench in W.A.No.758 of 2010 dismissed appeal filed by the Transport Depoartment, on 08.06.2010, confirming the order of the learned single Judge. 3. It is fairly stated by Mr.T.Chandarsekaran, learned special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 3 and 4 that the Special Leave Petition filed in SLP.No.25147 of 2010 by the third respondent in the present Writ Petition against the order passed in W.A.No.758 of 2010 dated 08.06.2010 was also dismissed at the admission stage itself. 4. The petitioner made a representation dated 07.07.2010 pursuant to the order of the Division Bench. The second respondent Employment Office sponsored the name of the petitioner to the Transport Department as directed by the Court. 4. The petitioner made a representation dated 07.07.2010 pursuant to the order of the Division Bench. The second respondent Employment Office sponsored the name of the petitioner to the Transport Department as directed by the Court. Thereafter the fourth respondent after considering the case of the petitioner passed the impugned order on 24.07.2010. The substance of the letter is as follows:- VERNACULAR (TAMIL) PORTION DELETED According to the respondents, the petitioner, on the date when the impugned order was passed, was likely to attain the age of 40. The petitioner is a Backward Class candidate and the age limit is 35 years. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to be considered for appointment having crossed the age limit. The sponsoring letter was therefore returned. 5. Mr.K.Duraisamy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner stated that the candidate belongs to Backward Class Community and he is entitled to appointment upto the age of 40 (35 + 5) in terms of Government Order No. 73865/BPE/2006 dated 04.12.2006. The rejection of the petitioners claim on 24.07.2010 prior to the petitioner attaining the age of 40 is bad. Even on the date when the impugned order was passed, the petitioner did not reach the age of 40 and therefore the rejection order is premature and shows total non-application of mind and arbitrariness. It is a malafide act on the part of the respondents to reject the claim which has been granted by Court after considering the merits of the petitioners claim. It is contended that the benefit that will flow to the petitioner will be the date of order of the single Judge which has been confirmed by the Division Bench and not the date of the impugned order. Therefore, the authorities are bound to accept the petitioners claim for appointment atleast from the date of the order of the single Judge. The plea now raised by the respondents was not canvassed before the learned single Judge or before the appellate Court. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed by the fourth respondent reiterating the stand taken in the impugned order. 7. The plea now raised by the respondents was not canvassed before the learned single Judge or before the appellate Court. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed by the fourth respondent reiterating the stand taken in the impugned order. 7. This Court is not inclined to accept the stand of the respondents as set out in the impugned proceedings for the following reasons:- 1) The respondents do not dispute the benefit that petitioner is entitled to in terms of G.O.No.13865/BPE/2006 dated 04.12.2006, whereby the age limit for BC candidate is 40 years in the category of claim made by the petitioner. 2) The benefit of eligibility flows to the petitioner based on the order of the learned single Judge dated 27.08.2009 on which date also the petitioner was well within the age limit. 3) The stand of the respondent that the petitioner did not hold 1st class in B.E., degree course and therefore ineligible was rejected by this Court and in the appeal as well. It has been interpreted to the benefit of the petitioner and therefore, he should have been appointed on the date when the learned single Judge passed the order or atleast when the appeal was dismissed. The appointment should have been made without further delay. 4) The Writ Appeal challenging the order of the learned single Judge was dismissed and the plea of over age was not taken then and the respondents are bound to implement the order forthwith. The petitioner was making representation thereafter. The delay in implementing resulted in petitioner growing older. It is not his fault. 5) In any event on 24.07.2010, i.e., the date on which the impugned order was passed, admittedly, the petitioner did not reached the age of 40. If the petitioner is well within the age limit prescribed, there is no justification to deny the petitioner the benefit in anticipation that he will become 40 years shortly. 8. No human being can be static at particular age. The respondents are trying to deny the benefit after delaying the process of appointment. This is nothing but a malafide action on the part of the respondents and is deprecated. 9. The impugned order is therefore set aside. The Writ Petition is allowed. 8. No human being can be static at particular age. The respondents are trying to deny the benefit after delaying the process of appointment. This is nothing but a malafide action on the part of the respondents and is deprecated. 9. The impugned order is therefore set aside. The Writ Petition is allowed. The authorities are directed to appoint the petitioner in terms of the order of this Court in W.P.No.22510 of 2008 based on the sponsorship made by the second respondent forthwith. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.