State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By Its Secretary To Government, v. S. Dinakar Senthilkumar,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03.12.2025 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
1. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. By its Secretary to Government Rural Development & Panchayat Raj Department Fort St. George, Chennai - 9.
2. The Director of Rural Development Panagal Building, Saidapet Chennai - 15.
3. The District Collector Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.
..
Appellants Vs.
1. S.Dinakar Senthilkumar
2. S.Raja Ravivarman
3. S.Kalaivanan
4. The Block Development Officer Kumaratchi Block Cuddalore District.
..
Respondents Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order dated 19.01.2024 made in W.P.No.3197 of 2021. For the Appellant : Mr.R.Neelakandan Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.R.U.Dinesh Rajkumar Additional Government Pleader For the Respondents : Mr.K.Venkataramani Senior Counsel for Mr.M.Muthappan for R1 to R3
Mr.S.Yashwanth Additional Government Pleader for R4
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.) The present intra-Court appeal has been directed against the order passed by the Writ Court dated 19.01.2024 made in W.P.No.3197 of 2021.
2. In fact, it is a common order passed in respect of other writ petitions also, who all approached the Writ Court with similar prayer, seeking a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents therein, who are the appellants herein, to extend first priority to the writ petitioners while recruiting fresh candidates for the post of Overseer as per the notification issued by the third respondent therein, that is the District Collector, dated 10.12.2020 by relaxing the age qualification.
3. Ultimately, the writ petitions were allowed through the impugned order and the learned Writ Court has set aside the said notification issued by the District Collector dated 10.12.2020.
4. Though against the said order, the present intra-Court appeal has been directed at the instance of the appellants, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants would submit that, the very notification dated 10.12.2020 has been withdrawn by the District Collector, who issued the said notification. That apart, the same also has been set aside by the orders of this Court, which is impugned herein.
5. In this regard, the Government, that is the Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, has issued a Government Order in G.O.(Ms)No.240 dated 31.10.2025, by which, the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission has become the Recruiting Agency and subsequently, the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission has also issued notification inviting applications from the eligible candidates for Direct Recruitment to the post of Overseer in the Department concerned.
6. In this context, it is brought to our notice by Mr.K.Venkataramani, learned Senior Counsel for respondents 1 to 3/writ petitioners that, though such notification was issued by the present Recruiting Agency, that is the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, where, though age relaxation has been given, that is
higher age limit relaxation has been given to various candidates, such relaxation has not been given to those workers who suffered because of the adhoc job they were engaged in the scheme, which was abruptly closed within a period of one year or more. Therefore, in order to get the age relaxation to those kind of people, mainly people like the writ petitioners and also challenging the relevant clause in the notification issued by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, specific litigation has been filed by way of a writ petition and the same is pending consideration before this Court.
7. In view of the said factor, where, the very impugned notification, which was challenged before the Writ Court and subsequently quashed by the impugned order, since has been withdrawn by the Authority, that is the District Collector himself and the recruitment process now has been entrusted upon the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission vide G.O.(Ms)No.240 dated 31.10.2025, nothing survives in this appeal to adjudicate further.
8. Insofar as the plea or grievance espoused by the respondents/writ petitioners by stating that the age relaxation has not been given, therefore, that triggered them to file subsequent writ petition which is pending before this Court is concerned,
whatever the issues that have been agitated by the present respondents/writ petitioners in the subsequent proceedings could very well be agitated by taking appropriate ground in the said writ petition and all those grounds are left open to be decided afresh in the said writ petition by the Writ Court.
9. With these observations, the present writ appeal is dismissed, as no further adjudication is required in this appeal. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No.28230 of 20205 is closed.
(R.S.K., J.) (V.L.N., J.) 03.12.2025 Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order Internet:Yes/No Index:Yes/No (drm) To:
1. The Secretary to Government, The State of Tamil Nadu Rural Development & Panchayat Raj Department Fort St. George, Chennai - 9.
2. The Director of Rural Development Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai - 15.
3. The District Collector Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.
4. The Block Development Officer Kumaratchi Block, Cuddalore District.
R. SURESH KUMAR, J.
AND V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
(drm) 03.12.2025