Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2761 (MAD)

V. Krishnamoorthy v. Registrar (Administration)

2014-08-20

M.JAICHANDREN, R.MAHADEVAN

body2014
Judgment : M. Jaichandren, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. This Writ Petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorarfied Mandamus to call for and quash the order of the first respondent, dated 01.07.2014, and to direct the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner for the post of Part-time Official Receiver, at Karur District. 3. The petitioner has stated that he is a practising Advocate, at Karur District, after having been enrolled as an Advocate, on 08.04.1992. He had been appointed as an Official Receiver, vide G.O.(3D) No.81, Home (Cts V) Department, dated 25.09.2007. As such, he had been functioned as an Official Receiver, at Karur District, for a period of three years. While so, on 05.10.2013, the second respondent had issued a letter relating to the appointment of Part-time Official Receiver, at Karur District. The petitioner had applied for said post, by way of an application, on 21.10.2013, along with all the relevant records. The receipt of the application had been acknowledged by the second respondent. On 01.07.2014, the first respondent had issued the impugned order rejecting the application of the petitioner stating that he had crossed the age of 50 years, as per Rule 4 of the “Official Receivers – Part time Official Receivers – Conditions of Service Rules”. 4. The petitioner has further stated that the date of birth of the petitioner is 27.05.1964. On the date of the submission of the application, the petitioner had not crossed the age of 50 years. However, as the recruitment process relating to the post of Part-time Official Receiver had taken a long time, the petitioner had crossed the age of 50 years, on the date of the completion of the said process. In such circumstances, the first respondent had issued the impugned order, dated 01.07.2014, rejecting the application of the petitioner stating that he had crossed the upper age limit of 50 years for being selected for the post of Part-time Official Receiver. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the impugned order, passed by the first respondent, dated 01.07.2014, is arbitrary and illegal in the eye of law. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the impugned order, passed by the first respondent, dated 01.07.2014, is arbitrary and illegal in the eye of law. He had further submitted that the date of issuance of the notification regarding the recruitment is 05.10.2013. On the date of said notification, the petitioner was 49 years and four months old. However, as the recruitment process had taken an unduly long time to be completed, the petitioner had crossed the age of 50 years. It had also been stated that, even on the last date of receipt of the applications, the age of the petitioner was less than 50 years. In such circumstances, the impugned order, passed by the first respondent, dated 01.07.2014, is liable to be set aside. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that 50 years has been prescribed as the upper age limit for the post of Part-time Official Receiver, as per Rule 4 of “Official Receivers – Part time Official Receivers – Conditions of Service Rules”. Therefore, the first respondent had rejected the application of the petitioner, as he had crossed the age of 50 years on the date of the finalisation of the process for appointments being made to the post of Part-time Official Receiver. However, he had admitted that no date had been specified in the notification calling for applications for the post of Part-time Official Receiver, for calculating the upper age limit of the candidates applying for the said post. Therefore, it had been decided that the candidates should not have crossed the age of 50 years, on the date of finalisation of the process for appointments being made to the said post. As the petitioner had crossed the age of 50 years on the relevant date, his application had been rejected, by the first respondent, by the impugned order, dated 01.07.2014. 7. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, it is noted that the petitioner had crossed the age of 50 years, on the date when the appointments had been finalised. 7. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, it is noted that the petitioner had crossed the age of 50 years, on the date when the appointments had been finalised. However, it is also noted that the petitioner had not crossed the age of 50 years, which is the upper age limit fixed for the candidates applying for the post of Part-time Official Receiver, on the date of the publication of the notification. Even on the last date fixed for the receipt of applications, the age of the petitioner was within the upper limit prescribed for the said post. It is also noted that the process of recruitment for the post of Part-time Official Receiver had taken an unduly long time to be completed. When no specific date had been fixed for calculating the upper age limit prescribed for the post of Part-time Official Receiver, the rejection of the application of the petitioner stating that he had crossed the age limit prescribed for the said post, on the date of consideration of his application, cannot be accepted to be valid in the eye of law. 8. In such view of the matter, we find it appropriate to direct the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner, dated 21.10.2013, for the post of Part-time Official Receiver, at Karur District, and pass appropriate orders thereon, by following the procedures prescribed for such appointment, as per the relevant Rules in force, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of, with the above directions. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.