The age limit for appointment to skilled assistant positions can be relaxed based on prior service in the concerned institution.

(Judgment of the Court was made by G.R.Swaminathan J.)

The State has filed this intra-court appeal challenging the order dated 09.01.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing W.P.

(MD)No.16582 of 2019 filed by the 1^st respondent herein.

2. The Management of Kamaraj Polytechnic College, Pazhavilai issued the recruitment notification dated 04.10.2015 calling for applications from eligible candidates for filling up the post of skilled assistant (chemistry). The writ petitioner was one of the applicants. Interview was held on 17.11.2015. It is relevant to note that the selection committee comprised representatives from the Directorate of Technical Education and also the government nominees. Murugesan was selected and he was issued with the appointment order on 17.11.2015. The management submitted proposal to the Director of Technical Education on 23.11.2015 for approval of the appointment. However, vide order dated 03.09.2016, the proposal was rejected on the ground that the appointee was over aged by two years. The maximum age limit set out in the recruitment notification as well as in the relevant special Rules was 36, whereas Murugesan was 38 at that time when he applied for the post.

3. Challenging the said order passed by the Director of Technical Education, the college management filed appeal before the Government. The Government subsequently informed the Director of Technical Education that there was no scope for relaxation of the age limit. This was intimated to the College management vide communication dated 11.09.2018 and also to the appointee on 12.11.2018. Questioning these two communications dated 11.09.2018 and 12.11.2018, the appointee filed W.P.(MD)No.16582 of 2019. The learned single judge set aside the orders impugned in the writ petition and allowed the same on

09.01.2023. This order of the learned single Judge is the subject matter of this appeal.

4. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the State submitted that the learned single Judge erred in applying Rule 12(d) of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules for relaxing the age limit. Relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Division bench rendered in W.A.(MD)No.1562 of 2023 etc., batch dated 29.11.2023, he pointed out that when the Special Rules prescribe an age limit, it will prevail over and Rule 12(d) of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules will not have any application. He would also add that the writ petition itself had been defectively filed in as much as the original rejection order dated 03.09.2016 was not put to challenge. He called upon this Court to set aside the order passed by the learned single judge and allow this writ appeal.

5. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the College Management as well as the learned counsel appearing for the appointee submitted that the order passed in the writ petition deserves to be sustained.

6. We carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the materials on record. We do endorse the submission of the learned Special Government Pleader that the writ petitioner ought to have questioned the rejection Order dated 03.09.2016. But on this technical ground, we do not want to non-suit the writ petitioner. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the College management, when the entire issue is before us, we might as well overlook such considerations, more so when it concerns the livelihood of the writ petitioner.

7. The qualification as well as the other conditions for appointment are set out in G.O.(Ms).No.220, Higher Education (B1) Department, dated 06.07.2009. Rule 6(a) prescribes the maximum age limit for appointment of a skilled assistant at 36. Howe