Madras High Court
Muthupandi @ Muthupandian vs The Thasildar on 14 February, 2018
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 14.02.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P(MD)No.9712 of 2012
and
MP(MD)No.2 of 2012
Muthupandi @ Muthupandian ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Thasildar,
Alangulam Taluk,
Alangulam,
Tirunelveli District.
2.The District Collector,
Tirunelveli District,
Tirunelveli. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
records relating to the proceedings of the first Respondent dated 26.06.2012
and to quash the same and directing the Respondents to consider the
candidature of the petitioner for the post of Village Assistant on the basis
of interview held on 26.06.2012 as per the proceedings of 1st respondent in
Na.Ka.A4.9555/2006 dated 19.06.2012 .
!For Petitioner : Mr.N.Subramani
For Respondents : Mr.R.Sethu Raman,
Special Government Pleader
:ORDER
The order of rejection dated 26.06.2012 in relation to the non selection of the writ petitioner to the post of Village Assistant on the basis of the interview held on 26.06.2012 is under challenge in this writ petition.
2.The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner states that the writ petitioner has completed 8th standard in the year 1987 and he had registered his name in the District Employment Exchange, Tirunelveli under Most Backward Class and accordingly, he is eligible for appointment to the post of Village Assistant. The name of the writ petitioner was sponsored by the District Employment Exchange, Tirunelveli on 16.05.2012 for appointment to the post of Village Assistant. The writ petitioner was aged about 35 years and the upper age limit prescribed for the the post of Village Assistant by direct recruitment is also 35. The learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner states that the writ petitioner is fully qualified for appointment to the post of Village Assistant. However, his case was rejected on the ground that he was not within the age limit as prescribed under the rules. In fact, there is a difference of one month and therefore, the case of the writ petitioner was not considered. However, the writ petitioner is not belonging to the village in which the appointment is to be made.
3.The learned Counsel for the writ petitioner states that as per the Government orders, the writ petitioner is eligible for relaxation of age and such benefit was not extended by the authorities. This apart, the writ petitioner belongs to the adjoining village and this fact was also not considered by the respondents.
4.The Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents states that the rules relevant to the appointment to the post of Village Assistant is The Tamil Nadu Village Servants Service Rules, 1980. The concerned Tahsildar is the competent authority for appointment to the post of Village Assistant. According, to the said rules, each Taluk will be treated as one unit and if any vacancy arises in respect of Village Assistant post, then the same should be filled up through direct recruitment by getting the list of eligible candidates from the District Employment Exchange. The Tahsildar being the appointing authority is bound to follow the roster system, while appointing Village Assistants in terms of the Government Order issued in G.O.Ms.No.142, dated 14.10.2009.
5.In the present case, 5 Village Assistant posts were vacant. The first respondent is the competent authority and he called the list of eligible candidates from the District Employment Exchange, Tirunelveli and the District Employment Officer sponsored the list of eligible candidates for consideration. Based on the list communicated, the first respondent called all the candidates to appear for interview, which was held on 21.06.2012 vide proceedings dated 19.06.2012 and the case of the writ petitioner was rejected on the ground that he had crossed 35 years and he was not a resident of Ayyankulam Village. In the Government Order issued in G.O.Ms.No.521, Revenue Department dated 17.06.1998, Point No (5) age and (7) and other qualifications for the post of Village Assistant have been prescribed, which reads as follows:
?.Age Provided that in the case of persons belonging to any of the Backward Classes of Most Backward Classes and Denotified Communities or Scheduled Castes or a Scheduled Tribes the upper age limit shall be thirty five years.
Other Qualifications:
a. No person shall be eligible for appointment to the post unless: i. he is able to ride a bicycle ii. he satisfies the appointing authority that the character and antecedents are such as to qualify him for the post and iii. Produce a certificate regarding his physical fitness for the post in the form prescribed under rule 10 of the fundamental rules. c. The person appointed to the post shall belong to the village to which he is appointed or the adjoining village if no suitable candidate is available from that village.?
6.Since the petitioner had not fulfilled the requisite qualifications, his candidature was rejected by the respondents. All the grounds raised by the learned Counsel for the writ petitioner in relation to the age relaxation, is as per G.O.Ms.No.704 dated 15.04.1964 and in terms of the which the petitioner claims age relaxation of 10 years under physically handicapped category. The said Government Order provides the age relaxation for physically handicapped candidates to the public employment which does not require normal physical qualifications in all respects. But, in respect of the post of Village Assistant physical fitness is required. Thus, the writ petitioner cannot claim any age relaxation by invoking G.O.Ms.704, dated 15.04.1964.
7.This Court is of an opinion that the writ petitioner was overaged and age relaxation claim under G.O.Ms.No.704, is also inapplicable for the reasons that the post of Village Assistant requires physical fitness. This being the factum of the case, the non selection of the writ petitioner was in accordance with the recruitment rules in force and there is no infirmity as such. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no orders as to costs. Consequently, MP(MD)No.1 of 2012 is closed.
To
1.The Thasildar, Alangulam Taluk, Alangulam, Tirunelveli District.
2.The District Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.
.