JUDGMENT :

S. Vaidyathan, J.

(Prayer: Writ Appeal as against the order dated 05.03.2021 passed in W.P. No. 21070 of 2014.)

1. The present appeal has been preferred as against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 05.03.2021 passed in W.P. No.21070 of 2014.

2. The respondent herein had challenged the order dated 29.04.2014 passed by the 1st appellant herein rejecting his request to grant exemption from passing the departmental tests and the consequential order dated 30.04.2014 passed by the 2nd appellant terminating the service of the respondent herein. The learned Single Judge, following the order passed by the Madurai Bench of this Court in W.P.(MD) No. 6421 of 2008, involving a similar issue, allowed the writ petition with regard to settlement of terminal benefits, to be disbursed within a stipulated time. Challenging the said order, the present writ appeal has been filed by the Department.

3. According to the appellants, as per the Special rules for Tamil Nadu Survey and Land Records Subordinate Services, the respondent/writ petitioner should pass the departmental tests, either in old pattern or in the revised pattern, so as to enable him to get his probation declared and for promotion. The contention of the appellants is that though the respondent/writ petitioner was given the opportunity to take part in all the four papers of Revenue Draughtsman Test, which are mandatory to be cleared, he could not clear two papers, even after five years of service and in the extended period also, which resulted in removal from service. According to the appellants, though the respondent/writ petitioner sought exemption from passing the test, placing reliance on G.O.Ms. No. 1120 Personnel & Administrative Reforms dated 30.10.1984, there is no evidence produced by the respondent/writ petitioner that he made five attempts prior to attaining 53 years of age and in view of the same, the learned Single ought not to have interfered with the impugned order referring to the earlier judgment of this Court reported in CDJ 2015 MHC 1821 (K. Ramasubramanian V. The Agriculture Production Commissioner & Secretary to Government & Others). In the case referred to by the learned Single Judge, the employee therein had not completed 53 years of age and that it had been held that it was open to the Government to consider his case in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 1120 dated 30.10.1984 after completion of required age and conditions stipulated therein. As the respondent/writ petitioner did not satisfy the conditions with regard to clearance of tests and did not produce hall tickets in terms of the above Government Order to prove the attempts made by him, the order impugned in the writ petition, passed by the 1st appellant is perfectly valid and the interference by the learned Single Judge is uncalled for and the orders passed by the appellants require to be restored.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the respondent had joined the Survey Department as a Section Writer in the year 1984. In the year 1997, while he was working as Draughtsman, his services were regularised on 10.12.1997. The respondent had to clear the Special Test for Draughtsman Category (Survey Department) within a period of five years for declaration of probation and future promotion. Even though he had cleared Papers I and IV, he could not clear Papers II and III of the Special Test for Draughtsman category, even after attaining the age of 53 years and therefore, sought an exemption which was negatived by the appellants by the impugned order dated 29.04.2014. The said order was interfered with by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the three conditions mentioned in G.O.Ms.No. 1120 dated 30.10.1984 would be squarely applicable to the case of the respondent/writ petitioner and that he would be entitled to all the benefits sought in the writ petition. According to the learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner, when the respondent satisfies all the thr