Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 953 (MAD)

A. Annadurai v. Tahsildar Tittakudi Taluk

2013-02-14

K.CHANDRU

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. Mr. R. Govindasamy, the learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents. 2. The petitioner in this writ petition earlier filed the writ petition being W.P.No.26341 of 2010 seeking for a direction to consider him for the post of Village Assistant on the basis of the interview attended by him on 9.9.2010, pursuant to the interview letter dated 25.8.2010. 3. The said writ petition was heard along with several other writ petitions filed by different individuals and were disposed of by a common order dated 8.9.2011, directing the Tahsildar, Thittakudi, to consider the claim of the petitioners for appointment to the post of Village Assistant within six weeks, if they were otherwise eligible. 4. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, since no orders were passed within the time frame, the petitioner filed a contempt petition No.266 of 2012. When the contempt petition came up on 9.3.2012, on behalf of the Tahsildar Thittakudi, it was informed that already an order dated 23.12.2011 was passed considering the case of the petitioner and recording the same, the contempt petition was closed. The petitioner was given liberty to challenge the said order refusing to consider his appointment. Therefore the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition, challenging the said communication dated 23.12.2011. 5. By the said communication it was informed that even at the time of the petitioner attended the selection process, he had crossed 40 years and hence his name could not be considered for the said post. 6. The contention of the petitioner was that 25 posts were declared vacant, for which interview was held on 9.9.2010. Out of which, eight persons were selected, but only six were reported to have joined duty and the remaining two have not reported for duty. For the remaining 17 vacancies, 7 persons were selected, pursuant to the order dated 8.9.2011, passed in W.P.Nos.23539 to 23541 of 2010 and there are still 12 vacancies remain unfulfilled. 7. It is also stated that the petitioner being belonged to Scheduled Caste, five years relaxation can be given in the light of G.O.Ms.No.98 P & AR Department dated 17.7.2006, and therefore, his name should have been considered and not rejected. 8. It is not clear as to how such a writ petition can be maintainable especially when the petitioner, at the time of selection process, was 45 years old. 8. It is not clear as to how such a writ petition can be maintainable especially when the petitioner, at the time of selection process, was 45 years old. Even assuming such exemptions are available to him, he had crossed the age limit fixed for the said post. In fact, G.O.Ms.No.98 P & AR dated 17.7.2006 is no longer in force, as the said G.O. has been replaced by G.O.Ms.No.114, P & AR(S) Department, dated 11.8.2010 with effect from 17.7.2006. By the said G.O the statutory Rules have been amended under the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules and Rule 54-B has been inserted, which reads as follows: "54-B. Age concession for persons affected due to the ban on direct recruitment – Notwithstanding anything contained in the Special rules for the various State and Subordinate Services or in any adhoc rules applicable to any temporary post in the case of a person who has been affected due to the ban on direct recruitment that was imposed on the 29th November 2001, the upper age limit shall be raised to a maximum period of five years reckoned on and from the 17th July 2006, ending with the 16th July 2011, in computing his age for appointment to any post under the State Government, except the categories of posts of Teachers, Doctors and Police Constabulary and shall be applicable in respect of notifications issued or selections made by competent recruiting authorities or appointments made by competent appointing authorities during the aforesaid period." 9. In the light of the above, the impugned communication does not suffer from any legal infirmity. Hence, the writ petition will stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are dismissed.