Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3132 (MAD)

S. Lawrence v. Commissioner

2014-09-05

R.MAHADEVAN

body2014
Judgment : 1. This writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to seek the second respondent to sponsor the petitioner's name for recruitment to the post of Veterinary Inspector and consequentially consider him for appointment to the said post in terms of Rule 12(d) (i) of the General Rules of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules by considering his representation dated 07.06.2012 within a stipulated period. 2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had completed Higher Secondary Course during March, 1992 and registered the same in the District Employment Office, Pudukkottai on 08.02.1993. Subsequently, the petitioner had completed graduate in B.A. (Co-op) in the year 2004 and also studied Diploma in Library Service and Yoga. His next due of renewal of registration in the employment exchange is April, 2015. The petitioner belongs to Backward Class community. While so, the first respondent issued a notification for recruitment to the post of Veterinary Inspector through employment exchange for the year 2012. The qualification prescribed for the above said post is a pass in Higher Secondary and employment seniority and the maximum age limit fixed for Backward Community is 32 years. Further, he submitted that though the petitioner is eligible for the said post, his name was not sponsored by the second respondent due to over age. Hence, he made a representation to the respondents on 07.06.2012 but no action has been taken by the respondents so far. He would further submit that as per Rule 12(d)(i) of the General Rules of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules, if any minimum general qualification prescribed for any of the appointment below the degree and the candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Most Backward and Backward Classes with higher qualification than the minimum qualification prescribed, are exempted from the age limit. Therefore, as the petitioner is having higher qualification than the minimum qualification prescribed for the post of Veterinary Inspector, he should not be rejected on the ground of age limit. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court with the above prayer. 3. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would submit before this Court that the claim of the petitioner cannot be considered since he is not eligible to be considered, but no such order had been passed so far. 4. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court with the above prayer. 3. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would submit before this Court that the claim of the petitioner cannot be considered since he is not eligible to be considered, but no such order had been passed so far. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 5. Without going into the merits of the claim of the petitioner, the first respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 07.06.2012 and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, if any orders denying the claim of the petitioner has already been passed, the same shall be communicated to the petitioner forthwith. 6. The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above directions. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.