M. Muruganantham v. The State Of Tamil Nadu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 30.09.2024 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND Writ Petition No.1475 of 2018 M.Muruganantham ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector, Ariyalur District, Ariyalur.
3.The Tahsildhar, Jayamkondam Taluk, Jayamkondam Post, Ariyalur District.
4.The Tahsildhar, Udayarpalayam Taluk, at Jayamkondam, Jayamkondam Post, Ariyalur District.
5.P.Soorya 6.Vijayalakshmi Page No.1 of 9
7.K.Seetharaman 8.R.Rajeswari 9.N.Gopi 10.A.Anbumani 11.K.Deepika 12.C.Selvapathy 13.R.Ganesan 14.R.Kumaran 15.Vasantha Soorya 16.M.Illayaraja 17.K.Mathiyadasan 18.Thaineesmary 19.K.Manikandan 20.K.Amarnath ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Declaration delcaring that the selectin process of Village Assistant in Udayarpalayam Taluk and its consequential appointment of Respondents 5 to 20 done by the 3rd and 4th respondent are illegal, unconstitutional and against the Recruitment Rules, consequently direct the Respondents 2 to 4 to appoint the petitioner as Village Assistant in Udayarpalayam Taluk, Ariyalur District.
For Petitioner : M/s.Chenthoori Pugazhendhi for Mr.K.Balu Page No.2 of 9
For Respondents 1 to 4 :
Mr.P.Anandakumar, Government Advocate For Respondent 16 : Mr.A.Murugan For Respondents 5 to 15, 17 - 20 :
No Appearance
O R D E R
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for respondents 1 to 4 and Mr.A.Murugan, learned counsel appearing for 16th respondent and perused the materials available on record. There is no representation for the remaining respondents.
2. This writ petition has been filed seeking to declare that the selection process of Village Assistant in Udayarpalayam Taluk and its consequential appointments of respondents 5 to 20 done by the Respondents 3 & 4 as illegal, unconstitutional and against the recruitment rules, consequently direct the Respondents 2 to 4 to appoint the petitioner as Village Assistant in Udayarpalayam Taluk, Ariyalur District.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner Page No.3 of 9
submitted an application, pursuant to the notification dated 23.05.2017 for the appointment of Village Assistant in Udayarpalayam Taluk. In Udayarpalayam Taluk, there are 24 vacancies at the time of notification. The petitioner submitted an application for appointment of Village Assistant in Parukkal West Village, which was notified under general priority category.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of selection process, the Udayarpalayam Taluk was bifurcated into two Taluks i.e., Udayarpalayam Taluk and Andimadam Taluk. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that when Udayarpalayam Taluk was bifurcated into two Taluks after issuing notification dated 23.05.2017 and during the pendency of selection process, the respondents ought to have issued notification afresh, fixing the reservation and roasters in accordance with the relevant rules and regulations. But the respondents proceed with the selection process, basing on the notification dated 23.05.2017, without notifying the vacancies after bifurcation of the Taluk into two Taluks, which is illegal and against to law and sought to set aside the selection process by allowing the writ petition. Page No.4 of 9
5. On behalf of the official respondents, a counter affidavit has been filed. Basing on the averments made in the said counter affidavit, learned Government Advocate appearing for official respondents would submits that the petitioner submitted an application for the Village Assistant Post in Parukkal West Village, which was notified for general priority category. For the said post, 15 applications were received and all the candidates were interviewed including the petitioner. Out of 15 candidates, only one candidate was having suitable qualification and produced proper certificates.
6. Learned Government Advocate further contends that since the petitioner is above 35 years, he is barred by age limit criteria and that he failed to fulfill the basic qualification, his candidature is not considered for appointment of Post of Village Assistant and sought to dismiss this writ petition.
7. As per the G.O.Ms.No.521, Revenue Department (Service 3) dated 17.06.1998, the maximum age limit is fixed at 35 years for BC, MBC, SC and ST candidates and 30 years for general category candidates. Though, the vacancy for which the petitioner made application falls under general priority Page No.5 of 9
category, as the petitioner belongs to ST category, he can make application if the age is not more than 35 years.
8. In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner crossed the maximum age limit of 35 years as on the date of the notification dated 23.05.2017. Under the circumstances, the petitioner is not eligible to make application itself for the said post. As such considering his case for appointment does not arise. Being ineligible candidate, he is not entitled to challenge the entire selection process undertaken, pursuant to the notification dated 23.05.2017.
9. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition fails and accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
30.09.2024 vm Index :
Yes/No Speaking Order :
Yes/No :
Yes/No Page No.6 of 9
To:
1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector, Ariyalur District, Ariyalur.
3.The Tahsildhar, Jayamkondam Taluk, Jayamkondam Post, Ariyalur District.
4.The Tahsildhar, Udayarpalayam Taluk, at Jayamkondam, Jayamkondam Post, Ariyalur District.
Page No.7 of 9
BATTU DEVANAND,J.
vm Page No.8 of 9
30.09.2024 Page No.9 of 9