Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3048 (MAD)

B. Aruna v. Government of Tamil Nadu

2014-09-02

D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

body2014
Judgment : 1. The petitioners have applied for the post of Steno-Typist Grade – III included in Group-IV Services pursuant to the notification issued by the second respondent in Notification No.14/2012 dated 27.04.2012 against the vacancies for the years 2007-2008 to 2012-2013. 2. The petitioners belong to “Others” category. The upper age limit for the persons belonging to “Others” category is 30 years as on 01.07.2012, as per Clause 3 of the Notification. 3. It is unfortunate that the first petitioner is aged 31 years and the second petitioner is aged 36 years as on 01.07.2012. 4. The petitioners have appeared for written examination and after passing written examination, they were called for certificate verification. At the time of certificate verification, it was found that the petitioners were over-aged and hence, they were not selected. 5. At this juncture, the petitioners have chosen to file this writ petition seeking direction to the respondents to consider their representation dated 21.11.2012 seeking to select them to the post of Steno Typist Grade – III. 6. A counter affidavit is filed by the second respondent. It is stated therein that since the petitioners were over-aged, they were not selected. 7. Heard both sides. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended that the recruitment is for the year 2007-2008 to 2012-2013 and if the recruitments were held in time, the petitioners could have been within the age limit prescribed under Clause 3 of the Notification. Hence, the prescription of upper age limit of 30 years for the recruitment of the year 2007-2008 to 20122013 for “Others” category is bad. 9. In my view, the aforesaid submission does not merit consideration. Firstly, the notification and more particularly, the qualification relating to age as on 01.07.2012 has not put to challenge. If such a challenge is made, the benefit would go to large number of persons for different employment. In the Notification, it is clearly mentioned that the upper age limit would be as on 01.07.2012. Therefore, the said yardstick was applied uniformly in the case of all applicants. Hence, it is too late for the petitioners to contend that the prescription of upper age limit is bad. In the Notification, it is clearly mentioned that the upper age limit would be as on 01.07.2012. Therefore, the said yardstick was applied uniformly in the case of all applicants. Hence, it is too late for the petitioners to contend that the prescription of upper age limit is bad. They could have questioned the prescription of upper age limit at the time of notification and this Court could have quashed the notification, if the Court accepted the submission and could have directed the second respondent to issue fresh notification. Now the entire selection process is over. Hence, I do not find any infirmity in the action of the respondents in not selecting the petitioners on the ground that they were over-aged. 10. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.