Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 493
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.
P. Chandrasekaran - Appellant
Versus
The Government of Tamilnadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Personnel & Administrative (Reforms) Department, Chennai & Others - Respondent
W.P. No. 17110 of 2012 & W.P. Nos. 2 & 3 of 2012 & 1 of 2013 & 1 of 2014
Decided on : 30-04-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:A. Suresh Sakthi Murugan, Advocate.
For the Respondents: P.S. Siva Shanmugasundaram, Special Government Pleader.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the correct interpretation and application of age relaxation and eligibility criteria under relevant government orders for Livestock Inspector Training.
Headnote:
Age Relaxation - Livestock Inspector Training - G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 17.07.2006, G.O.Ms.No.10 dated 27.01.2012, G.O.Ms.No.75 dated 01.08.2002, G.O.Ms.No.181 dated 07.11.2007, G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 29.11.2001, G.O.Ms.No.14 dated 07.02.2006 - The court discussed the application of age relaxation under G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 17.07.2006 and the eligibility criteria for Livestock Inspector Training under G.O.Ms.No.10 dated 27.01.2012. The interpretation of the age limit and registration requirements influenced the court's decision to quash the impugned order and direct the consideration of the petitioner for appointment as Livestock Inspector Grade-II.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought age relaxation under G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 17.07.2006 to be considered for Livestock Inspector Training, but was not recommended due to exceeding the age limit. The petitioner claimed to meet the necessary educational qualifications and experience.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner met the educational qualifications and training requirements for Livestock Inspector Training, and the reasons given by the respondents for not recommending the petitioner were not justified.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's eligibility for age relaxation and consideration for Livestock Inspector Training, as well as the interpretation of registration requirements and age limits under the relevant government orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the petitioner's fulfillment of educational qualifications and training, and the incorrect application of age relaxation and registration requirements by the respondents.
Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned order and directed the consideration of the petitioner for appointment as Livestock Inspector Grade-II, emphasizing the petitioner's qualifications and the misapplication of age relaxation and registration criteria by the respondents.
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus after calling for the records pertaining to the order No.A1/1507/2012 dated 28.06.2012 passed by the 5th respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to adhere the G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 17.07.2006 issued by the 1st respondent and consider the petitioner for the post of Livestock Inspector Grade II in the 2nd respondent Department pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.10 dated 27.01.2012 passed by the 2nd respondent.)
1. This petition had been filed by the writ petitioner seeking issuance of a writ of certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order No.A1/1507/2012 dated 28.06.2012 and to direct the respondents to adhere the G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 17.07.2006 issued by the 1st respondent and consider the petitioner for the post of Livestock Inspector Grade II in the 2nd respondent Department pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.10 dated 27.01.2012 passed by the 2nd respondent.
2. The writ petitioner, P.Chandrasekaran had registered his qualification of passing the Higher Secondary examination in March 1998 with Employment Exchange, Thiruppur on 18.06.1998. He then underwent training in Cattle Insemination. He claimed that he had also obtained certificates for such training. He had attended the courses conducted by the Tamil Nadu Livestock Development Agency and Tamilnadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences University and also attended the basic training on artificial insemination organized by the Tamilnadu Livestock Development Agency under the Government of India Project for Cattle and Buffalo breeding. He claimed that he had performed an average of about 100 artificial inseminations in a month. He also claimed to have necessary training and experience in the field of Livestock Management.
3. In the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition, it had been stated that the second respondent had issued G.O.Ms.No.10 dated 27.01.2012 permitting the third respondent to conduct Livestock Inspector Training to 350 candidates for the year 2011-2012 in accordance with stipulation of G.O.Ms.No.75 dated 01.08.2002 and G.O.Ms.No.181 dated 07.11.2007. Further, permission was granted to conduct similar training to two more batches in the year 2012-13 and 2013-14. The fifth respondent issued a press release for the post of Livestock Inspector with the names of those who had registered with the Employment Exchange. The required qualification was pass in Higher Secondary examination. The upper age limit was 35 years for SC and ST candidates, 32 years for BC and MBC candidates and 30 years for others as on 01.07.2011. The petitioner expected that his name would be included in the list for training. However, it was not done. When he enquired the reason, it was stated that he was over-aged by one year and 15 days as per G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 17.07.2006. He claimed that he was entitled for age relaxation till 16.07.2011.
4. It was stated that the first respondent had banned direct recruitment in the Government Department by G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 29.11.2001 and the ban was lifted by G.O.Ms.No.14 dated 07.02.2006. The Government had passed G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 17.07.2006 to help the unemployed youth who were affected by the ban order The age was relaxed for the period from 17.07.2006 till 16.07.2011. The petitioner claimed that he is entitled for application of G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 17.07.2006 and entitled for age relaxation. However, the fifth respondent did not sponsor the name of the petitioner for selection for the post of Livestock Inspector in the second respondent, Department. The petitioner gave a representation on 02.05.2012. This was not responded. He then filed W.P.No.13493 of 2012 in the nature of Mandamus, directing that his name should be included.
5. This Court by an order dated 12.06.2012, directed the fifth respondent to consider t
