SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 13948

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
N Karunakaran – Appellant
Versus
M/o Home Affairs – Respondent
O.A./1386/2024



CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH (CIRCUIT SITTING AT PONDICHERRY)

O.A. No.310/01386 of 2024 &

M.A. No. 00420 of 2025 in O.A. No.310/01386 of 2024 DATED FRIDAY, THE 14th DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE CORAM :

HON'BLE MS. VEENA KOTHAVALE, MEMBER (J)

HON'BLE MR. M.L. SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER(A)

1. N. Karunakaran S/o. Narayanasamy, Aged about 38 years, Residing at No.21 VTC Street, Thirubuvanai & Post, Puducherry-605 107;

2. E. Prathibagaran, S/o. Ezhumalai, Aged about 35 years, Residing at No.15, School Street, T.N. Palayam & Post Puducherry-605 007; 3. P. Parthikrajan S/o. Packirisamy, Aged about 34 years, No.9, Market Street, Karaikal, Puducherry-609 602;

4. G. Jevadasan, S/o. Govindan, Aged about 38 years, No.76, Kurunji Street, Solai Nagar, Muthiyalpet, Puducherry-605 003;

5. R. Vimalraj, S/o. Ramalingam, Aged about 36 years, Residing at No.2, 1st Street, 3rd Plot, Pudu Nagar, Kanuvapet, Villianur, Puducherry-605 110;

6. K.Purushothaman, S/o. Kuppusamy, Aged about 34 years, Residing at No.92, 3rd Cross, Thendral Nagar, New Saram, Puducherry-605 013;

7. A. Parthiban, S/o. Arumugam, Aged about 33 years, Residing at No.77, Manaveli East, Kalitheerthalkuppam, Puducherry-605 107;

8. A. Thirumavalavan, S/o. Anbazhagan, Aged about 35 years, Residing at 24 Periyar Street, Manamedu Post, Puducherry-607 402. 9. P. Kanniappan, S/o. Palani, Aged about 35 years, Residing at, No.15, Hospital Road, Kariyamputhur, Bahour, Puducherry-605 106;

10. P. Baradhirasan, S/o. Pakkirisamy, Aged about 36 years, Residing at No.6, Pudunagar 2nd Street, Uruvaiyar, Mangalam Post, Villianur Road, Puducherry-605 110; 11. V. Mariammal, D/o. S. Velayudham, No.01, Kandhas Apartment, Devanoor Salai, Varichikudy, Karaikal, Puducherry 609 609; 12. J. Velanganni, D/o. Jayaraman, Aged about 44 years, Residing at, No.71, Old Colony, Netapakkam, Puducherry-605 106.

..Applicants / Applicants (Advocate: M/s. M. Gnanasekar )

Vs.

1. Union of India, rep.by The Secretary to Government, Home Department, New Delhi. 110001;

2. The Secretary to Government Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Personnel wing) Chief Secretariat, Gubert Avenue, Puducherry-605 001;

3. The Union Public Service Commission, UPSC Bhavan, Shahjahan Road, UPSC Monsing Area, New Delhi-110069.

..Respondents/Respondents (Advocate: Mr. R. Syed Mustafa)

O R A L O R D E R (Hon'ble Ms. Veena Kothavale, Member(J)

Applicants have filed this Original Application seeking the following relief:-

"(i ) To direct the Respondents to accept the offline applications of the Applicants and to permit the Applicants to participate in the selection process for the post of ASSISTANT pursuant to Notification No. A-34012/7/E1/2024/DP&AR (EXAM) dated 22.08.2024 by granting suitable age relaxation to the extent necessary and i. To direct the Respondents to appoint the Applicants to the posts of ASSISTANT pursuant to Notification No. A-

34012/7/E1/2024/DP&AR (EXAM) dated 22.08.2024 and ii. to award costs, adn pass such further and other orders as may be deemed and proper and thus render justice.”

2. When the matter was taken up for admission hearing, the learned counsel for the applicants submitted that all the applicants are fully qualified for appointment to the post of Assistant and they are meritorious candidates. The 2rd respondent issued notification dated 22.08.2024 calling applications for the post of Assistant (Group 'B' Non- Gazetted, Ministerial) in the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms ( Personnel Wing), Puducherry to be filled up by direct recruitment. Age limit prescribed was “not exceeding 30 years as on 24.04.2025”. The applicants could not apply online as all of them were over aged. The applicants had submitted representations requesting for age relaxation and to permit them to participate in the selection process. Since there is no response, they have filed this OA seeking the aforesaid relief.

3. The counsel representing Mr. R. Syed Mustafa, Ld. Counsel of the respondents submitted tha

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top