N.SENTHILKUMARWrit Petition Nos.8888 & 9048 of 2026andW.M.P.Nos.9768 & 9769 of 2026 P.ParthikrajanS/o.D.Packirisamy v. Government of Puducherry
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. Granting relaxation of age and educational qualification criteria for appointment cannot be considered by the Courts. In any event, granting any such relaxation of age would result in causing discrimination amongst candidates, who are all otherwise eligible in terms of the recruitment notification. That…
Judgment
2026:MHC:2152Writ Petition Nos.8888 & 9048 of 2026__________Page1 of 6IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 11-06-2026CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAMANDTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMARWrit Petition Nos.8888 & 9048 of 2026andW.M.P.Nos.9768 & 9769 of 2026P.ParthikrajanS/o.D.Packirisamy..Petitioner in both W.Ps.Vs1.Government of Puducherry, represented by its Secretary to Government, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department (Personnel Wing),Chief Secretariat, Gubert Avenue, Puducherry - 605 001.
The Under Secretary to Government, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, (Personnel Wing),Government of Puducherry, Chief Secretariat, Gubert Avenue, Puducherry - 605 001.
The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench,(Circuit Sitting at Pondicherry)High Court Campus, Chennai-600 104...Respondents in both W.Ps.W.P.No.8888 of 2026 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the order dated 14.11.2025 in O.A. No.310/01386 of 2024 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench (Circuit sitting at Pondicherry) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2152Writ Petition Nos.8888 & 9048 of 2026__________Page2 of 6the third respondent herein and quash the same and direct the first respondent to recommend to the LG/Administrator to exercise power under Rule 6 of the Recruitment Rules and relax the age criterion specified in Clause 3 of the Notification No.A-34012/7/E1/2024/DP & AR (EXAM) dated 22.08.2024 issued by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Personnel Wing) Government of Puducherry, second respondent herein, for being eligible to writ the Tier-I and Tier-II by another two years for the OBC communal categories for the post of Assistant (Group “B” Non-Gazetted, Ministerial) in the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Personnel Wing) Puducherry in the peculiar circumstances of the case.W.P.No.9048 of 2026 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to open the sealed cover containing the results of candidates with their Roll Nos. including the roll number 79007 of the petitioner and select and appoint the petitioner as Assistant (Group “B” Non-Gazetted, Ministerial) in the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Personnel Wing), Puducherry pursuant to Notification No.A-34012/7/E1/2024/DP & AR (EXAM), dated 22.08.2024 issued by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Personnel Wing), Government of Puducherry if the petitioner comes within the zone of selection for the post of Assistant under the OBC category based on the marks secured by the petitioner in the Tier-II examination conducted on 22.06.2025 by the second respondent.
For Petitioner :[in both W.Ps.]Mrs. Nalani Chidambaram, Senior Counsel for Ms.C.UmaFor Respondents :[in both W.Ps.]Mr.R.Syed Musthafa, Special Government Pleader (Puducherry)[R1 & R2]Tribunal (CAT) [R3]*****https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2152Writ Petition Nos.8888 & 9048 of 2026__________Page3 of 6COMMON ORDER(Made by S.M.Subramaniam J.)The present writ petitions have been instituted challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, dated 14.11.2025 passed in O.A. No.310/01386 of 2024 and for a direction to the second respondent to appoint the petitioner as Assistant (Group “B” Non-Gazetted, Ministerial) in the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Personnel Wing), Puducherry, pursuant to Notification No.A-34012/7/E1/2024/DP & AR (EXAM), dated 22.08.2024 issued by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Personnel Wing), Government of Puducherry.2.
The original applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal is the writ petitioner before this Court. The application was filed seeking a direction to respondents to accept the off line application of the writ petitioner and permit him to participate in the selection process for the post of Assistant, pursuant to recruitment notification dated 22.08.2024 by granting suitable age relaxation.3. The prescription of age, educational qualification criteria for appointment are policy matters and the prerogative of the employer. The criteria for recruitment has been notified. Thus, the age limit prescribed in the notification is binding on the candidates, who are aspiring to secure public employment through open competitive process. Admittedly, in the present https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2152Writ Petition Nos.8888 & 9048 of 2026__________Page4 of 6case, the writ petitioner was over aged and not allowed to participate in the process of selection.
Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner would submit that pursuant to the interim order of the Court, the writ petitioner was permitted to write the written examination. Such interim order would not confer any right to claim age relaxation or final order from the Tribunal or the High Court to relax the age limit fixed under the recruitment notification. Interim orders passed by the Courts are always subject to the final orders and if the case is finally decided against the petitioner, then the petitioner cannot claim any benefit from and out of the interim orders granted. Therefore, merely participating in the written examination pursuant to the interim order would not be a ground to seek age relaxation either before the Tribunal or before the High Court.
Operative part
Granting relaxation of age and educational qualification criteria for appointment cannot be considered by the Courts. In any event, granting any such relaxation of age would result in causing discrimination amongst candidates, who are all otherwise eligible in terms of the recruitment notification. That apart, it is a policy matter and therefore, would fall beyond the realm of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Central Administrative Tribunal has considered the legal principles in right perspective and relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. This https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2152Writ Petition Nos.8888 & 9048 of 2026__________Page5 of 6Court does not find any infirmity in the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, which is impugned. Accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. (S.M.S.,J.) (N.S.,J.) 11-06-2026Index: YesSpeaking orderNeutral Citation: YesgmTo1.The Secretary to Government, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department (Personnel Wing),Chief Secretariat, Gubert Avenue, Puducherry - 605 001.2.The Under Secretary to Government, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, (Personnel Wing),Government of Puducherry, Chief Secretariat, Gubert Avenue, Puducherry - 605 001.3.The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench,(Circuit Sitting at Pondicherry)High Court Campus, Chennai-600 104.https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2152Writ Petition Nos.8888 & 9048 of 2026__________Page6 of 6S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.ANDN.SENTHILKUMAR, J.gmWrit Petition Nos.8888 & 9048 of 202611-06-2026https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.