Tmt. D.Vijaya Rani, v. The Secretary To Government,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED:- 13.04.2016

CORAM:

'

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.No.13651 of 2016 and WMP No.11944 of 2016 D.Vijaya Rani

...Petitioner

Versus

1.The Secretary to Government, Education Department, Government of Puducherry, Puducherry.

2.The Director of Education, Government of Puducherry.

...Respondents

Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 16.06.2015 for relaxation of age.

For Petitioner :: M/s.V.Srimathi For Respondents :: Mr.R.Syed Mustafa Government Pleader (P)

O R D E R

Mrs.D.Vijaya Rani has filed this writ petition for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 16.06.2015 for relaxation of age.

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.R.Syed Mustafa, learned Special Government Pleader (Puducherry) takes notice on behalf of the respondents.

3.The petitioner appears to have qualified D.T.Ed and secured 90% in TET examination. While so, the Government of Puducherry had issued a notification in May 2015, seeking application from the eligible candidate to recruit primary school teachers. Since the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

notification consisted the total number of vacancies as 425, the Government also reduced the prescribed percentage for TET from 90% to 82%. Therefore, the petitioner applied for the post of Primary School Teacher Group 'B' Non gazetted. But the problem in the petitioner's case is, it is pleaded that when the last date for receiving the application has been fixed as 17.06.2015, being the crucial date, the petitioner is overaged by 11 days in this regard. The petitioner is qualified in all other aspects. Therefore, she made a representation to the respondents to consider her application seeking relaxation of the age limit, which has not been considered by the respondents.

Therefore, she approached this court to direct the respondent to consider her representation but this court is not inclined to pass any order, the reason is that on the crucial date viz., 17.06.2015, the petitioner became over aged. This court is not inclined to direct the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner, as this will unnecessarily lead to open the Pandora box for all the over aged candidates. Hence, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. Sd/- Asst.Registrar (CS IV ) /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar vri To 1.The Secretary to Government, Education Department, Government of Puducherry, Puducherry.

2.The Director of Education, Government of Puducherry.

1 cc to M/s.V. Raghavachari, Advocate, Sr. 23258 W.P.No.13651 of 2016 KS (CO) kk 31/5 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/