Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
Sangaraju Rajasree vs Ut Of Pondicherry on 25 September, 2025
1 OA 188/2017
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA/310/00188/2017
Dated the 25th day of September, Two Thousand Twenty-Five
CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI. M. SWAMINATHAN, Member (J)
&
HON'BLE SHRI. SISIR KUMAR RATHO, Member(A)
Sangaraju Rajasree,
Wife of P. Venugopal Reddy Hindu,
aged 39 years, residing at No.41, Lenin Street,
Kosapalayam, Puducherry. .......Applicant.
By Advocate M/s. V.Ajayakumar
-Vs-
1. Union of India rep. By
the Govt. of Puducherry through
the Secretary to Govt. for Health and Family Welfare,
Chief Secretariat, Puducherry.
2. The Director,
Indian System of Medicine and Homeopathy,
Puducherry.
3. Gokulakrishnan ........Respondents.
(All notices and other processes may
be served on the 3rd respondent
through the 2nd respondent.)
By Advocate Mr. R.Syed Mustafa
2 OA 188/2017
ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. Sisir Kumar Ratho, Member(A)) In the instant OA, the applicant seeks the following relief:-
"To call for the records of the second respondent with No.018/DISM&H/Estt./E1/2016 dated 13.1.2017 in respect of the select list and the waiting list for the post of Pharmacist (Ayurveda) and to quash the same in respect of the selection of the 3rd respondent and consequently to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to include the name of the applicant in the waiting list in the place of 3rd respondent and to consider her for appointment to the post of Pharmacist (Ayurveda) and to pass such other or further orders in the interest of justice and thus render justice. "
2. Brief facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, are as follows:
This Original Application is filed for including the name of the applicant in the select list for the post of Pharmacist (Ayurveda) in the place of third respondent and to consider her for appointment. The second respondent issued a notification in 2014 for filling up the post of Ayurveda (Pharmacist) and the applicant participated in the said selection and got selected but was not given appointment even after repeated requests. While so, another notification was issued on 15.2.2016 for filling up the post of Pharmacist (Ayurveda) for 10 vacancies and selection process was based on the methodology of calculating the qualifying mark by taking 50% of H.S.C. marks and 50% of marks obtained in Diploma in Pharmacy and 1.5% of marks for each completed year of Employment Registration. As per the said methodology the applicant has got 66.8% of marks whereas the third respondent has got only 43.81% of marks. But the name of the third respondent was placed in rank No.2 in the waiting list in the place of applicant. Further, out of the five candidates selected under the Unreserved (UR) category, three were shown to be over-aged just 3 OA 188/2017 like the applicant and the applicant is also entitled to get age relaxation on par with other selected candidates. The second respondent with some ulterior motive, as a result of difference of opinion with the applicant's elder sister who was working as Medical Officer in the same Department, was acting with vengeance and avoiding the applicant's selection and so the name of the applicant has not figured in the select list which is arbitrary and discriminatory. Being aggrieved, the applicant has filed the present OA challenging the impugned orders.
3. After notice the respondents have entered appearance through their counsel and filed their reply statement refuting all the averments made in the OA except those which are admitted on facts.
3.1 The respondents submitted that according to the Recruitment Rules for the post of Pharmacist(Ayurveda), the age limit was 18-30 years and thus the age was calculated as on 26.02.2016 which was the last date for receipt of duly filled in application. The age limit is relaxable to the applicants belonging to the special category as per the rules in force. Further, additional age benefit of 5 years will be awarded to the special categories of over-aged candidates if sponsored by the Employment Exchange, Govt. of Puducherry in accordance with G.O.Ms. No.22/92-Lab dated 28.08.1992 of Labour Department, Puducherry as per following the condition of the said G.O. i.e. for UR - 35 years (30 + 5), OBC/MBC - 38 years (30+3+5)& SC-40 (30+5+5). As per the G.O., the age relaxation can be extended to the candidates sponsored by the Employment exchange alone. As far as this case is concerned, the applicant belonging to UR category has not been sponsored by the Employment Exchange and her age had crossed over and above the relaxable age limit of 5 years, as 4 OA 188/2017 her then age was 39 years. In view of the above, she was found to be ineligible for the post of Pharmacist (Ayurveda) and therefore her candidature was not taken into account for consideration. 3.2 The respondents further submitted that out of the 5 candidates selected under the Unreserved category, the 3 applicants viz... Tmt. J. Lalitha, Tmt. K. Jaikavitha and Tmt. A. Kavitha Devi who were over-aged but they had been sponsored by the Employment Exchange for the post of Pharmacist (Ayurveda) at Sl. No. 1 & 3 of the Lr. No.X2/52/EE/2016 dated 03.03.2016. One of the candidates who stood first in the select list Tmt. J.Lalitha, did not appear for certificate verification and conveyed her unwillingness over phone. Hence, relaxation of age limit was obtained for Tmt. K. Jaikavitha and Tmt. A. Kavitha Devi from the Competent Authority (Hon'ble Lt. Governor) on 01.06.2017. The age of the over- aged candidates selected at the time are given below:
Sl. Name DOB Age as on Category Over- Marks No. 26.02.2016 aged by 1 Lalitha 08/28/84 31 Y 6M UR 1Y6M 87.13 2 Jaikavitha 03/18/81 34 Y 11M OBC 4Y 11 M 79.7 3 Kavitha Devi 10/18/83 32 Y 4M MBC 2Y 4 M 76.02
While verifying the certificates of Tmt. A. Kavitha Devi, who was at Sl. No.5 in the select list it was found that she had not pursued her Diploma in Pharmacy through regular stream and she became ineligible as per RR and notification issued for the post. In order to fill up the said vacancy under Unreserved category, the candidates in the wait list of Pharmacist(Ayurveda) were considered. On consideration, it was noticed 5 OA 188/2017 that Tmt. K. Joshna, who was at Sl.No.1 in the wait list of Pharmacist (Ayurveda) had also not pursued her Diploma in Pharmacy through regular stream and hence she also became ineligible for the post of Pharmacist(Ayurveda). Therefore, Thiru. B.Gokulakrishnan, who was at Sl.No.2 in the wait list of Pharmacist(Ayurveda) and also the third respondent was selected under Unreserved category for the post of Pharmacist(Ayurveda) and offer of appointment was issued on 23.05.2018. This goes to show that no rules have been violated in the recruitment conducted for filling up the post of Pharmacist(Ayurveda, Siddha, Homoeopathy & Unani).
3.3 The respondents further submitted that the Hon. Supreme Court of India in Trivedi Himanshu Ghansyambhai Vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and others (2207 (7) Supreme Court 438), has held that "the candidates who become unsuccessful in the selection process have no locus standi to challenge the selection list" and in view of the same, the applicant herein having taken part in the selection process, on becoming unsuccessful in the selection, has no rights to challenge the selection list. Hence they prayed for dismissal of the OA.
4. Heard both sides. Perused the records, pleadings and the judgments cited by both the parties.
5. Although the applicant has highlighted various reasons for her non- selection to the post of Pharmacist (Ayurveda), the key issue was the "Overage" of the applicant. The other reasons cited by the applicant that she got more marks than the candidates who were selected, the respondents were prejudiced against her due to a complaint of corruption 6 OA 188/2017 against them by her sister are of additive in nature which have been denied by the respondents as being without substantiation. The applicant belongs to UR category and according to the Recruitment Rules, the age limit for UR was 18 to 30 years. Government of Puducherry, vide their GO dated 28.08.1992 has provided an age relaxation of five years for the candidates sponsored by the employment exchange over and above the normal age limit prescribed for the particular category. Since the applicant was not sponsored by the employment exchange, she is not entitled for the same. The respondents submit that three candidates were over-aged but after according age relaxation of five years by the competent authority their candidature was considered. These three candidates namely, Tmt.J.Lalitha, Tmt K.Jaikavitha and Tmt.A.Kavitha Devi were of age 31 years 6 months, 34 years 11 months and 32 years 4 months on the reckoning date while the applicant was 39 years of age. Therefore, even if five year age relaxation is provided to the applicant, she would not be eligible, irrespective of the fact that her candidature has not been sponsored by the employment exchange.
6. In view of the fact that the applicant was of 39 years of age, her candidature could not be considered even after a relaxation of 5 years over and above the prescribed 30 years for UR category, we do not find any merit in the OA. Accordingly the OA is dismissed. No costs.
(Sisir Kumar Ratho) (M.Swaminathan)
Member(A) Member(J)
MT 25.09.2025