Employment cannot be claimed as legal if the appointment violated established recruitment age criteria, regardless of prior service or the rules governing age relaxations.

ORDER :

K.KUMARESH BABU., J.

This writ petition has been filed by petitioner challenging the order of the Tribunal made in O.A.No.310/000723 of 2019 dated 11.02.2022 and for a consequential direction to the second and third respondents to take into account the 8 years of service of the petitioner in second respondent institution and regularize her services in the post of Research Assistant (Group C post) by relaxing the age as per the Recruitment Rules for the Post of Research Assistant based on the Office Memorandums with effect from the date of her initial appointment as Research Assistant and to grant her all consequential service, attendant and monetary benefits

2. Heard Mr.R.Viduthalai, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Ms.A.V.Bharathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.T.V.Krishnamachari, learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing on behalf of the second and third respondents.

3. Mr.R.Viduthalai, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that the petitioner pursuant to the advertisement issued by the third respondent in the year 1996 had joined the third respondent Institute at Coonoor as a Lab Technician which was followed by Junior Research Fellow and Senior Research Fellow on contract basis. In view of the training programme of Department of Virology, she was posted in Vaccine production Units.

4. When that being so, an advertisement was issued by the third respondent in the year 2005 inviting applications to the post of Research Assistants Group-C. The petitioner had also submitted an application indicating her date of birth as 20.05.1967. He would submit that the petitioner was appointed as Research Assistant on 01.05.2006. On completion of 2 years of satisfactory probation period, she had made a representation on 03.11.2008 seeking to declare her probation. However, the petitioner was terminated by order dated 09.04.2009 by the third respondent on the sole ground that the petitioner was over aged at the time of appointment. He would further submit that the petitioner had challenged the said order of termination before the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.418 of 2009, which by order dated 11.12.2009 set aside the order of termination. The third respondent had challenged the same before this Court in W.P.No.9131 of 2011, wherein by order dated 29.10.2013, this Court upholding the order of Tribunal in setting aside the termination, however modified the same by granting liberty to the respondents to initiate proceedings if required to be taken and proceed in accordance with law.

5. He would submit that on 17.02.2015, a charge memorandum was issued to the petitioner alleging that on the date of advertisement, the petitioner was over aged and was not qualified to be appointed and that the appointment was made in violation of the Recruitment Rules and the bye- laws of the Institute. The imputation to the said charge was that the misconduct and misbehaviour of the petitioner in supressing the age criteria which was in violation of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). He would submit that a reply by way of defence was also submitted by the petitioner and the same was also came to be challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.399 of 2016. However, the said O.A. came to be dismissed vide order dated 09.03.2016.

6. Again the petitioner had submitted a detailed representation on 22.03.2016 indicating that the petitioner had disclosed the date of birth in her application and only after taking note of the same, the petitioner had been appointed and there was no misconduct on