S.Gayathri, D/O.Soundarrajan, v. The Secretary,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 09.12.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH and W.M.P.(MD) Nos.2277 to 2279, 11454 to 11456, 11485 to 11487, 13754 to 13756 and 18298 to 18300 of 2018 S.Gayathri ...Petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.2048 of 2018 S.Karuppasamy
...Petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.12561 of 2018
K.Rajeshwaran ...Petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.12608 of 2018 M.Ranjitha Jenifer ...Petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.15214 of 2018 V.Bhuvaneswari ...Petitioner in W.P.(MD)No. 20555 of 2018 Vs
1. The Secretary to Government, Department of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries (AH.I), Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai - 9.
2. The Director of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services, Chennai - 6.
3. The Director of Employment and Training, O/o. The Director of Employment and Training, Guindy, Chennai - 32.
... Respondents 1 to 3 in all WPs
4. The District Employment Officer, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.
5. M. Chithra ... Respondents 4 and 5 in in W.P.(MD)No.2048 of 2018 1/9
4. The District Employment Officer, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.
5. S. Meenatchi
6. A. Lakshmi
7. M. Latha ...Respondents 4 to 7 in W.P.(MD)No.12561 of 2018
4. The District Employment Officer, Madurai District, Madurai.
5. M. Karthikeyan
6. P. Parimala
7. T. Sujatha ...Respondents 4 to 7 in W.P.(MD)No.12608 of 2018
4. The District Employment Officer, Dindigul District, Dindigul.
5. K. Palaniammal
6. M. Sathya
7. D. Manikandan
8. Silosilin Rani ...Respondents 4 to 8 in W.P.(MD)No.15214 of 2018
4. The District Employment Officer, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.
5. M. Latha ...Respondents 4 and 5 in W.P.(MD)No. 20555 of 2018 Prayer in all WPs.: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned seniority list of the 4th respondents dated Nil and the consequential impugned appointment order issued by the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.48751/E2/2012 dated 30.09.2013 and quash the same and consequently direct the fourth respondent to prepare a fresh seniority list for the post of Livestock Inspector Grade II based on the employment seniority maintained by him and pass orders. For Petitioners : Mr.M.R.Sreenivasan For Respondents : Mr.V.Om Prakash Government Advocate for R1 to R4 R5- No appearance 2/9
COMMON ORDER This batch of writ petitions have been filed by petitioners challenging the Seniority List of the fourth respondent that is, the District Employment Officer for the post of Livestock Inspector Grade II and consequential appointments made of the private respondents by the Director of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services.
2. The writ petitions have a history which is set out as below: 2.1. Government Order in G.O.Ms. No.10, Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries dated 27.01.2012 had been issued seeking to fill up vacant posts of Livestock Inspector Grade II. The Government Order was the subject matter of challenge in W.P.(MD) No. 3296 of 2013 and the learned Single Judge of this court had allowed the writ petition in sofar as that petitioner was concerned. In conclusion, the court held that the petitioner in that case is well within the age limit under the notification and the official respondents were thus directed to consider the candidature of that petitioner within a time frame that was fixed for that purpose. 2.2. The State had challenged the order of the learned Single Judge in W.A.(MD) No. 1114 of 2015. A Division Bench of this court disposed the writ appeal confirming the order of the learned Single Judge. It was however clarified by the Bench that the appointments pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.10 shall not be disturbed.
3. The aforesaid orders are pressed into service by the petitioners in this case as well. It has transpired that notifications issued originally were followed by revised notifications issued in 2015 that came to be challenged by a group of petitioners in W.P.(MD) Nos. 2452 and 2453 of 2013 on identical facts and legal position. A learned Single Judge of this court by his order dated 17.07.2019 considered the case of the petitioners, ultimately dismissing the writ petitions.
4. The same argument as advanced before me now has been considered by learned Single Judge in order dated 17.07.2019, to the fact that the candidates sponsored by the employment exchange had all been over the stipulated age and hence their appointments were in violation of the prescription under the notification and the concerned Government Orders.
5. The age of the respondents as on the critical date, 01.07.2012, is a matter of fact. Reference is made to the counter affidavits filed by R2 (in WP(MD)Nos.2048, 12561, 12608 & 15214 of 2018) and R4 (in WP(MD)No.20555 of 2018) which at paragraphs 5 3/9
thereof set out the relevant details of the respondents, as follows: W.P.(MD)No.2048 of 2018:
Sl.
No.
Pri ori ty Age as on 01.07 .2012 113 MBC GLP (DW ) Reg No.
Reg Date Name and Address Date of Birth Commun al Catego ry 05.10.1 MBC years month s days 189 BCO GLP SGD200 0F 000049 SGD200 0F 000000 03.01.
M.
Manonmani W/o.
Late.
Muthu kumar 16.07.1 BC years Month s days GT GLP SGD199 8F 000040 29.05.
K.
Thandeesw ari W/o.
Kannan 02.07.1 SC Years Month s Days GT GLP SGD199 3F 000024 29.05.
C.
Kasthuri Thilaka 03.07.1 SC Years Month s Days GT GLP SGD200 2M 000038 30.05.
M. Chitra D/o.
Muthu 30.05.
K. Balkan S/o.
Kottaiyan 07.06.1 SCA Years Month s Days 4/9
W.P.(MD)No.12561 of 2018:
Sl .
No .
Regn. No & Seniorit y Name of the candidate Date of birth/ Community/ Priority Category
1. TND1996F 00001583 29.05.19 B.Loheswari SC 03.02.1978 GT-W-NP
2. TND1998F 00009320 29.05.19 G.Jeya SC 09.05.1978 GT-W-NP
3. TND1999F 00002520 29.05.19 S.Meenakshi SC 02.04.1978 GT-G-NP
4. TND1993F 00004340 30.05.19 A.Lakshmi SC 12.05.1978 GT-G-NP
5. TND1999F 00011733 30.05.19 M.Latha SC 23.05.1978 GT-G-NP W.P.(MD)No.12608 of 2018:
Sl .
No .
Regn. No & Seniority Name of the candidate Date of birth/ Community Priority Category
1. MDD1999F 00007774 21.07.199 K.Pandiselvi 03.02.1978 MBC MBC-GL-P
2. MDD1998F 00000898 13.04.199 M.Jeyalakshmi 03.03.1979 BC BC-GL-P
3. MDD1994F 00002405 08.06.199 R.Meenakshi 13.07.1977 GTW GTW-NPR-Y 5/9
4. MDDD1992F 00004073 29.06.199 J.Vijayarani 08.07.1977 GTW GTW-NP
5. MDD1993F 00004862 29.05.199 S.Maheswari 26.01.1978 GTW GTW-NP
6. MDD1995F 00002727 29.05.199 M.Karthikeyan 15.05.1978 GT GT-GL-NP
7. MDD1993 00005897 29.05.199 P.Parimala 04.01.1978 GT GT-GL-NP
8. MDD1993F 00005264 30.05.199 T.Sujatha 12.06.1978 GT GT-GL-NP W.P.(MD)No.15214 of 2018:
Sl .
No .
Regn.No.
& Seniorit y Name of the candidate Date of birth/ Community/ Priority Category 1.
DGD1993F 00002792 27.05.19 K.Palaniammal GT 06.05.1978 GT- WNP 2.
DGD1997F 00006804 27.05.19 M.Sathya GT 06.03.1978 GT- WNP 3.
DGD1998M 00001974 30.05.19 D.Manikandan GT 27.03.1978 GT- GL-NP 4.
DGD2006F 00001220 30.05.19 Silosilin Rani GT 16.07.1978 GT- GL-NP 6/9
W.P.(MD)No. 20555 of 2018:
SL .
No PERMITTE D AGE AGE DURING SUBMISSI ON AS ON 01.07.20 LOKESHWARI B TND1995F000015 NAME OF THE REGISTRATION AND REGISRATION NO.
DATE OF BIRTH REGISRATI ON SENIORITY AND COMMUNITY 03.02.1 29.05.199 GT - W - NP 35 Years 34 Years JEYA G TND1998F000093 09.05.1 29.05.199 GT - W - NP 35 Years 34 Years MEENAKSHI S TND1999F000025 02.04.1 30.05.199 GT - GL - NP 35 Years 34 Years LAKSHMI TND1993F000043 12.05.1 30.05.199 GT - GL - NP 35 Years 34 Years LATHA M TND1999F000011 23.05.1 30.05.199 GT - GL - NP 35 Years 34 Years
6. A perusal of the tabulations as above would reveal that the critical age of all respondents as on 01.07.2012, falls within the limit as prescribed for their category of selection that is, in cases of open selection 30, in cases of backward class 32, in case of scheduled tribe and schedule tribe 35.
7. The operative portion of the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petitions is based on the identical details that were furnished before this court in the earlier batch of writ petitions as well.
8. The details of age furnished by the respondents have not been disputed in any manner by the petitioners and in light of this critical finding of fact that the private candidates in all cases were within the prescribed age limit, I see no call for interference.
7/9
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners refers to Rule 12 (d) of the General Rules for Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1955, referred to in the application proforma. The Rule stipulates that the maximum age limit prescribed in the Special Rules shall not apply to candidates belonging to scheduled caste, scheduled tribe, backward classes, most backward classes and denotified communities, or destitute widows where such candidates had obtained General Educational qualifications higher than those referred to in the terms prescribing educational qualifications.
10. In the present case, reference to Rule 12(d) is itself unnecessary insofar as none of the private candidates arrayed in these writ petitions seek benefit under that Rule. As admittedly, all private respondents fall within the age limit prescribed in the Rules, without needing the benefit of relaxation as set out in Rule 12 (d), reference to the Rule would not advance the case of the petitioners.
11. No case has been made out warranting interference in the impugned notifications or in the appointments of the private respondents, who have been in service since 2015, and these writ petitions are thus, dismissed. The Division Bench in writ appeal, has protected the interest of the candidates that have been appointed pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.10, the Bench stating categorically that such appointments shall not be disturbed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS-II) // True Copy // / /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) mnr Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned To
1. The Secretary to Government, Department of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries (AH.I), Fort St. George, Secretariate, Chennai - 9.
8/9
2. The Director of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services, Chennai - 6.
3. The Director of Employment and Training, O/o. The Director of Employment and Training, Guindy, Chennai - 32.
5. The District Employment Officer, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.
6. The District Employment Officer, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.
7. The District Employment Officer, Madurai District, Madurai.
8. The District Employment Officer, Dindigul District, Dindigul.
+1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-38118[F] dated 10/12/2021 ) +1 CC to M/s.M.R.SREENIVASAN, Advocate ( SR-38483[F], 38480,38484,38485,38479 dated 13/12/2021 ) +1 CC to Mr. M.E.Ilango,Advocate, SR.No.38005 dated 09/12/2021 and W.M.P.(MD) Nos.2277 to 2279, 11454 to 11456, 11485 to 11487, 13754 to 13756 and 18298 to 18300 of 2018 09.12.2021 ps(CO) KB(21.02.2022) 9P 16C 9/9