IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
Senthamarai – Appellant
Versus
The Secretary to Government - Respondent
W.P.No.29910 of 2024 and W.M.P.No.32613 of 2024
Decided on : 02-04-2025
Advocate Appeared :
For the Appellant : Mr.S.Kamadevan
For the Respondent : Mr.V.Nanmaran, AGP
ORDER :
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
The Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of a Certiorarified Mandamus seeking records relating to an order of the 3rd respondent dated 26.09.2024 and to quash the same and direct the 1st respondent to pass necessary orders on the representation given by the petitioner on 18.09.2024. The petitioner seeks relaxation of the age of the petitioner to continue in the post of 'Cook'.
2. The petitioner belong to Schedule Caste community. She had completed her 10th standard. She had registered her name in the Employment Exchange. She was then recruited as Cook and appointed in the Government Adi-Dravidar Welfare Residential Middle School, Pereri. Thereafter, the appointment was cancelled, since it is contended that she had crossed the age of 35 years. This Writ Petition has been filed questioning that particular cancellation of the order.
3. The issue is no longer res integra. The Division Bench of this Court in a batch of writ appeal in W.A.No.3809 of 2024 and batch, the Secretary to Government, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department , Chennai Vs. K.Manonmai, had held as follows:
“2. The State is on appeal against the orders of the writ Court quashing the cancellation of appointment of the respondents in all these Writ Appeals, on the ground that the respondents were over aged on the date of appointment and on the ground that the respondent in W.A.No.3809 of 2024 has produced a false Transfer Certificate.
3. All the respondents were appointed as Cooks in the hostels attached to the Adi-dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department. The appointment orders were issued on 26.02.2021. The orders impugned in the Writ Petitions came to be passed on 19.04.2023. The writ Court had found that the respondents were not over aged, on a reading of Rule 5 of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Basic Service read with Section 20 (8) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 .
4. It is not in dispute that the posts to which the respondents were appointed are covered by the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Basic Service . For the post of -Cook- the educational qualification is that a person should be able to read and write Tamil. Rule 5(1) prescribes an age-limit of 30 years on the date of appointment. Proviso to Rule 5(1) grants an additional 5 years to candidates who belong to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. Therefore, the upper age limit as per the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Basic Service is 35 years. Admittedly, all the respondents were aged above 35 years on the date of their appointments. Therefore, the order impugned came to be passed cancelling their appointments. The writ Court found that proviso to sub-section (8) of Section 20 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 would apply and there would be an extension of another 5 years for the post to which the respondents had been appointed.
The first proviso to sub-section (8) of Section 20 reads as follows:-
Provided that, for direct recruitment to a post included in a service for which the minimum qualification required is not higher than the minimum general educational qualification, the age limit prescribed shall be increased by five years in respect of candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes or in respect of destitute widows of all castes, who do not possess a general educational qualification, which is higher than the minimum general educational qualification;
5. Rule 5(1) of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Basic Service , which deals with -Age- reads as follows:-
(1) Age: Candidates for appointment by direct recruitment to any of the posts other than those in Classes I and II must not have completed 30 years of age on the date of appointment.
Explanation:-
For the purpose of the sub-rule, the age limit, in the case of candidate appointed through Employment Exchange, be reckoned from the date of sponsoring of the candidate by the Employment Exchange concerned for appointment to t
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.