JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus after calling for the records pertaining to the order No.A1/1507/2012 dated 28.06.2012 passed by the 5th respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to adhere the G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 17.07.2006 issued by the 1st respondent and consider the petitioner for the post of Livestock Inspector Grade II in the 2nd respondent Department pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.10 dated 27.01.2012 passed by the 2nd respondent.) 1. This petition had been filed by the writ petitioner seeking issuance of a writ of certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order No.A1/1507/2012 dated 28.06.2012 and to direct the respondents to adhere the G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 17.07.2006 issued by the 1st respondent and consider the petitioner for the post of Livestock Inspector Grade II in the 2nd respondent Department pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.10 dated 27.01.2012 passed by the 2nd respondent. 2. The writ petitioner, P.Chandrasekaran had registered his qualification of passing the Higher Secondary examination in March 1998 with Employment Exchange, Thiruppur on 18.06.1998. He then underwent training in Cattle Insemination. He claimed that he had also obtained certificates for such training. He had attended the courses conducted by the Tamil Nadu Livestock Development Agency and Tamilnadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences University and also attended the basic training on artificial insemination organized by the Tamilnadu Livestock Development Agency under the Government of India Project for Cattle and Buffalo breeding. He claimed that he had performed an average of about 100 artificial inseminations in a month. He also claimed to have necessary training and experience in the field of Livestock Management. 3. In the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition, it had been stated that the second respondent had issued G.O.Ms.No.10 dated 27.01.2012 permitting the third respondent to conduct Livestock Inspector Training to 350 candidates for the year 2011-2012 in accordance with stipulation of G.O.Ms.No.75 dated 01.08.2002 and G.O.Ms.No.181 dated 07.11.2007. Further, permission was granted to conduct similar training to two more batches in the year 2012-13 and 2013-14. The fifth respondent issued a press release for the post of Livestock Inspector with the names of those who had registered with the Employment Exchange. The required qualification was pass in Higher Secondary examination. Further, permission was granted to conduct similar training to two more batches in the year 2012-13 and 2013-14. The fifth respondent issued a press release for the post of Livestock Inspector with the names of those who had registered with the Employment Exchange. The required qualification was pass in Higher Secondary examination. The upper age limit was 35 years for SC and ST candidates, 32 years for BC and MBC candidates and 30 years for others as on 01.07.2011. The petitioner expected that his name would be included in the list for training. However, it was not done. When he enquired the reason, it was stated that he was over-aged by one year and 15 days as per G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 17.07.2006. He claimed that he was entitled for age relaxation till 16.07.2011. 4. It was stated that the first respondent had banned direct recruitment in the Government Department by G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 29.11.2001 and the ban was lifted by G.O.Ms.No.14 dated 07.02.2006. The Government had passed G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 17.07.2006 to help the unemployed youth who were affected by the ban order The age was relaxed for the period from 17.07.2006 till 16.07.2011. The petitioner claimed that he is entitled for application of G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 17.07.2006 and entitled for age relaxation. However, the fifth respondent did not sponsor the name of the petitioner for selection for the post of Livestock Inspector in the second respondent, Department. The petitioner gave a representation on 02.05.2012. This was not responded. He then filed W.P.No.13493 of 2012 in the nature of Mandamus, directing that his name should be included. 5. This Court by an order dated 12.06.2012, directed the fifth respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass suitable orders. It was stated by the fifth respondent that since the petitioner had registered his Higher Secondary qualification on 18.06.1998, when the cut off date was 03.06.1996, his name was not recommended. The petitioner claims that the reason stated by the fifth respondent has to be interfered by this Court and the respondents have to adhere to G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 17.07.2006 and the petitioner should be considered for the post of Livestock Inspector Grade-II in the second respondent, Department. It is under these circumstances that the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 6. The petitioner claims that the reason stated by the fifth respondent has to be interfered by this Court and the respondents have to adhere to G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 17.07.2006 and the petitioner should be considered for the post of Livestock Inspector Grade-II in the second respondent, Department. It is under these circumstances that the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 6. In the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, it had been stated that the required education qualification was Higher Secondary pass on or before 03.06.1996. It was stated that the petitioner had registered his Higher Secondary Qualification only on 18.06.1998. Therefore, he lost his seniority and the fifth respondent could not recommend the petitioner’s name. It was further stated that there are no merits in the claim of the petitioner. It was stated that the writ petition should be dismissed. 7. Heard arguments advanced by Mr.A.Suresh Sakthi Murugan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.P.S.Siva Shanmugasundaram, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 8. In M.P.No.1 of 2013, the following order was passed on 03.07.2013: “It is stated that as per G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 17.07.2006, the petitioner is entitled to five years relaxation of age and in that event, he is entitled to considered for training for the post of Livestock Inspector Training Grade-II. 2. In these circumstances, there shall be an order of interim direction to keep one post vacant for the post of Livestock Inspector Training Grade-II in the 2013-14 batch” 9. The writ petitioner had qualified himself by passing Higher Secondary examination in March 1998. He registered his qualification in the fifth respondent, District Employment Office, Thiruppur on 18.06.1998. He entered into the field of Cattle Insemination. In his affidavit, he claimed to have worked in Artificial Insemination Technician in Pethappampatti, Kudimangalam and Koolavadi Area from February 2005 to May 2011. He has also obtained certificate of training on Artificial Insemination and Dairy Management conducted by an Organization under ICAR-Government of India from 02.05.2011 to 15.06.2011. He had also attended basic training on Artificial Insemination organized by the Tamilnadu Livestock Development Agency and Tamilnadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences University. He also attended training organized by the Tamilnadu Livestock Development Agency under the Government of India Project for Cattle and Buffalo breeding. He claimed to perform an average of about 100 artificial insemination in a month. He had also attended basic training on Artificial Insemination organized by the Tamilnadu Livestock Development Agency and Tamilnadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences University. He also attended training organized by the Tamilnadu Livestock Development Agency under the Government of India Project for Cattle and Buffalo breeding. He claimed to perform an average of about 100 artificial insemination in a month. The petitioner, having registered himself with the Employment Exchange, awaited participating in the Livestock Inspector Training conducted by the third respondent. 10. By G.O.Ms.No.10 dated 27.01.2012, the second respondent permitted the third respondent to conduct Livestock Inspector Training to 350 candidates for the year 2011-12 as per the norms stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.75 dated 01.08.2002 and G.O.Ms.No.181 dated 07.11.2007. The permission was also granted to conduct Livestock Inspector Training for two more batches in the year 2012-13 and 2013-14. The fifth respondent issued a press release on 27.03.2012 in Dinakaran Newspaper stating that for the vacancies in the second respondent, Department for the purpose of Livestock Inspector, names would be recommended and that the upper age was 32 years for B.C. to which, community the petitioner belonged. The petitioner was informed that since he was over-aged, his name was not recommended by the fifth respondent. It is under these circumstances, that petitioner had approached his Court. 11. The respondents have filed two counter affidavits. In the counter affidavit dated 19.07.2013 filed by Mr.J.David Raja Abishega-Raja, District Employment Officer, Thiruppur, the following details have been given: PARA 3: It is submitted that the petitioner registered his qualification in office of 5th respondent namely District Employment Office, Thiruppur and as per the records his registration details are as follows: Name P.CHANDRASEKARAN Registration 1995M009972 Date of birth 16.06.1978 Address S/o.Pateeswaran, C.Nagoor, Moongil Tholuvu Po, Jakkarpalayam via, Madathukulam TK, Tiruppur Dt, 643 202. Community and category Backward Class -Non Priority Qualification registered with X0110 (SSLC) SF.28.12.1995 X0115 (HSC) SF.18.06.1998 12. It was stated that the petitioner was not considered for the norms since he had crossed the upper age limit prescribed for BC category i.e., 32 years as on 01.07.2011. It was stated that five years age relaxation period was ended with 16.07.2011. It was stated that the vacancy for which the petitioner contested was notified only on 03.03.2012 and therefore, the age relaxation cannot be applied. 13. It was stated that five years age relaxation period was ended with 16.07.2011. It was stated that the vacancy for which the petitioner contested was notified only on 03.03.2012 and therefore, the age relaxation cannot be applied. 13. In the second counter affidavit dated 20.09.2014 filed by Mr.E.Sivagurunathan, Additional Secretary to Government, Animal Husbandry and Dairying and Fisheries Department, it was stated that the petitioner should have registered his Higher Secondary qualification with the Employment Exchange on or before 03.06.1996. However, the petitioner had registered himself only on 18.06.1998. It was stated that since the petitioner should have completed his Higher Secondary education before 03.06.1996, his claim cannot be considered. 14. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner, on the other hand stated that the petitioner herein had completed his 12th standard examination and had also underwent training and had obtained certificates for the same. He stated that the writ petitioner was qualified to perform the duties of Livestock Inspector, Grade-II in the second respondent Department, pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.10 dated 27.01.2012. 15. It is seen that the respondents have raised objections on two grounds. The first ground on which they have raised objection is that the petitioner had registered himself with Employment Exchange only on 18.06.1998, but the Government Order specifically stated that the candidates who have registered their Higher Secondary Qualification on or before 03.06.1996 along are eligible. The second ground on which they have raised objection is that the petitioner had crossed the age of 32 years as on 16.07.2011 and consequently, cannot be considered. 16. There appears to be a contradiction in the qualifications prescribed by the respondents. If a candidate completes his Higher Secondary in the year 1996, then he should at least 17 or 18 years of age. If he is to be less than 32 years as on 2011, then he should have born on or after 1979. This would naturally mean that the candidates who had completed their Higher Secondary examination in the year 1996, could also have crossed the age of 32 years by the year 2011. The petitioner had completed his Higher Secondary Qualification on 18.06.1998. The petitioner has been disqualified on the grounds that he had registered himself with the Employment Exchange in the year 1998 and had also crossed the age of 32 years. The petitioner had completed his Higher Secondary Qualification on 18.06.1998. The petitioner has been disqualified on the grounds that he had registered himself with the Employment Exchange in the year 1998 and had also crossed the age of 32 years. In the impugned order, it has been stated as follows: “TAMIL” In the very same order, it had also been stated as follows: “IMAGE” 17. The reading of the second portion of the impugned order reveals that the respondents had stated that they would consider the petitioner for further years, if he is suitable qualified. This Court by order dated 03.07.2012 had granted an order of direction to keep one post vacant for the post of Livestock Inspector, Grade-II in the year 2013-2014 batch. The writ petitioner should not be put to any hardship and should not unduly prejudiced, by the efflux of time owing to which the writ petition is still pending. The fact is that the petitioner has got the basic qualification as on date. He had also qualified himself by attending the training course which have been enumerated above. One post has also been kept vacant all these years. 18. In view of all these aspects, I would dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the third respondent to decide at the earliest as an one time measure on merits and based on the qualification alone of the writ petitioner and grant him an opportunity of livelihood by appointing him as Livestock Inspector, Grade-II in the third respondent Department. The impugned order is hereby quashed. I direct the third respondent to consider the petitioner for appointment at the earliest as Livestock Inspector Grade-II, provided that he has the necessary educational qualifications and is competent to function as such. 19. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.