← Library
Madras High CourtWP/48428/2025dismissed

D.Selvam v. The District Employment Officer

2025-12-17Honourable Mr Justice M.Dhandapani6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 17.12.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI D.Selvam ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The District Employment Officer, Office of the District Employment Office, Thirivallur, Thiruvallur District.

2. The Regional Joint Director, Office of the Joint Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Thiruvallur, Thiruvallur District.

....Respondents PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned proceedings of the second respondent in Na.Ka.No. 1512/Aa/2012 dated 06.01.2021 and to quash the same, and consequently, direct the respondents herein to consider the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Animal Husbandry Assistant (AHA) by treating the petitioner as eligible and within the permissible age limit in view of the earlier proceedings and orders of this Court in W.P.No.20924 of 2012 dated

12.03.2018 and further direct the respondents to issue appointment order to the petitioner against the existing vacancy in accordance with law, within a time frame that may be fixed by this Court.

For Petitioners :

Mr.G.Ilamurugu For Respondents : Mr.P.Ganesan, AGP

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking to quash the impugned proceedings of the second respondent in Na.Ka.No. 1512/Aa/2012 dated 06.01.2021 and consequently, direct the respondents herein to consider the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Animal Husbandry Assistant (AHA) by treating the petitioner as eligible and within the permissible age limit in view of the earlier proceedings and orders of this Court in W.P.No.20924 of 2012 dated 12.03.2018 and further direct the respondents to issue appointment order to the petitioner against the existing vacancy in accordance with law.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was issued an interview call letter dated 23.04.2008 for the post of Animal Husbandry

Assistant. At that time, a group of about 10 persons working in the Animal Husbandry Assistant, without possessing the prescribed qualification, filed writ petitions challenging the interview process and obtained an interim stay direction to keep one post vacant. The petitioner submitted a detailed representation on 16.04.2018 and the second respondent vide impugned order dated 16.04.2018 rejected the petitioner's representation stating that the petitioner born in the year 1973 had crossed the permissible age limit. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the second respondent failed to consider that if at all the name of the petitioner had sponsored in the earlier selection that had done during 2012, certainly the petitioner could have got employment and thus the respondent deprived the right of employment and equal opportunity in public employment which is unsustainable.

4. The learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner has not possessed prescribed

qualification for the post of office assistant and age is also barred.

5. Heard the learned counsels appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

6. Admittedly, the petitioner has studied SSLC and at present, he is aged about 52 years. The maximum age for the post of Office Assistant is 30 years. Whereas the petitioner is 52 years. The respondents have no power to relax the age of the petitioner. Only the Government have power to relax the age. Further, the petitioner has not possessed the educational qualification as prescribed for the post of Office Assistant as per Tamil Nadu Basic Service Rules. Therefore, the Government have rejected the petitioner's request and passed impugned order in the year 2021. However, the writ petition has filed after four years and there is no proper explanation for the delay. That itself shows that the petitioner has not shown any interest to secure the job. Hence, this Court is inclined to dismissed the writ petition for lack of qualification.

7. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.

17.12.2025 rli NCC: Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking Order : Yes / No To

1. The District Employment Officer, Office of the District Employment Office, Thirivallur, Thiruvallur District.

2. The Regional Joint Director, Office of the Joint Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Thiruvallur, Thiruvallur District.

M.DHANDAPANI, J.

rli 17.12.2025