Madras High Court
K. Murugan vs The District Collector on 24 January, 2008
Author: K.Chandru
Bench: K.Chandru
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 24..01..2008 Coram: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.CHANDRU W.P. No. 28940 of 2007 and M.P. No. 1 of 2007 K. Murugan .. Petitioner Vs. The District Collector Krishnagiri District .. Respondent Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the entire records relating to the communication of the respondent in Na. Ka. No. 9785/2007/K3 dated 07.8.2007, quash the same and direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner to the post of Junior Draughting Officer in the District Revenue Development Department, Krishnagiri. For Petitioner : Mr. T. Sellapandian For Respondents : Mrs. Bhavani Subbaroyan, AGP ORDER
Heard Mr. T. Sellapandian, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs. Bhavani Subbaroyan, learned Additional Government Pleader representing the respondent and perused the records.
2. The petitioner claimed that he belongs to Scheduled Caste community and had passed his S.S.L.C. in the year 1982 and Diploma in Civil Engineering in the year 1985. He also got his name registered in the Employment Exchange in the year 1985. He was called for an interview for the post of Draughting Officer in the Adi Dravida Welfare Department and he was not selected. During the year 1999, when the list was called for from the Employment Exchange for the appointment to the post of Draughting Officer in the Adi Dravida Welfare Department, the petitioner's name was not sponsored as he has not had his requisite seniority among the list of registered candidates. Thereafter, since there was a ban imposed by the Government from the year 2001-06, there was no recruitment. The ban was lifted only in the year 2006. The District Rural Development Department, Krishnagiri, asked for the list of names from the Employment Exchange for the post of Junior Draughting Officer and the petitioner's name was sponsored as No. 1 in the seniority. By a communication dated 10.7.2007, he was asked to appear for an interview on 16.7.2007 and the petitioner attended the said interview but he was not selected. Therefore, he sent a representation for which a communication dated 07.8.2007 was sent stating that the petitioner had crossed 40 years, which is the upper age prescribed for any employment in the Rural Department and Panchayat Raj Engineering Service Rules. It is this communication dated 07.8.2007 that is now challenged in the writ petition.
3. The respondent District Collector has filed a counter affidavit dated 27.10.2007 and justified the denial of employment to the petitioner as he had exceeded the age limit prescribed for the post. It was stated that under the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Development Engineering Subordinate Service Rules, those who have completed 40 years of age on first July of the year in which the appointment is made, are not eligible to be appointed by direct recruitment to the post of Junior Draughting Officer. Though the petitioner's name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange, on certificate verification, it was found that the petitioner had crossed the upper age limit. The attention of the respondent was also drawn by the Government letter dated 11.5.2007 stating that the Special Rules will have to be followed in the matter of recruitment of Junior Draughting Officers strictly as per the Rules and under the existing Special Rules, those who have completed 40 years of age (35+5) are not eligible for appointment of direct recruitment.
4. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner wants to have the advantage of age relaxation available to them under the Special Rules and further on top of it, wants to avail the general concession given by the Government due to ban imposed on direct recruitment. The petitioner cannot have the benefit of both rules and it is for the Government to fix the upper age limit for entry in any Government post. In the absence of any enabling provision in favour of the Government, the petitioner cannot as a matter of right claim double exemption.
5. Under the circumstances, the writ petition is misconceived and devoid of merits. Accordingly, the same stands dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
24..01..2008 Index : Yes Internet : Yes gri To The District Collector Krishnagiri District K.CHANDRU, J.
gri Pre-Delivery Order in W.P. No. 28940 of 2007
24..01..2008