A. Srinivasan v. The Assistant Director District Employment Exchange Salem-72 & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 29.07.2009 CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRANWrit Petition No.22257 of 2008A.Srinivasan .. Petitioner vs. 1. The Assistant Director District Employment Exchange Salem-72. The Director of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services, D.M.S. Complex Anna Salai, Chennai-600 006 .. RespondentsWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying for a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents tosponsor the name of the petitioner for the post of VeterinaryInspector. For petitioner : Mr.K.Selvaraj For respondents : Mr.A.Arumugam Special Government Pleader(W)O R D E RThe petitioner belongs to Most Backward Class Community. Havingpassed the Higher Secondary Course Examinations as early as in theyear 1986, the petitioner has registered his educationalqualifications in the District Employment Exchange, Salem. It ispertinent to note that the lands of the petitioner's father had beenacquired by the Government of Tamil Nadu for providing house sites toAdi Dravidars. By a proceedings dated 12.12.2002, the SpecialTahsildar, (Adi Dravidar Welfare), Omalur, has certified that thepetitioner is entitled for the Land Acquisition Priority in theemployment, as per the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.188, (Personnel &Administrative Reforms Department) dated 28.12.1976. 2. Based on the certificate of the Special Tahsildar, on11.3.2002 the first respondent has also made an endorsement in the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ employment card of the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled forthe Land Acquisition Priority. As the first respondent has notsponsored the name of the petitioner by giving preference under theLand Acquisition Priority for any post, the petitioner made arepresentation dated 5.7.2004. Since no orders were passed, thepetitioner has filed a writ petition No.22243 of 2005 before thisCourt seeking for a writ of mandamus. This Court by an order dated11.7.2005 directed the respondents to pass orders on therepresentation dated 5.7.2004 in accordance with law within a periodof twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. 3. Pursuant to the order of this Court, dated 11.7.2005, theSecretary to the Personnel Department by a letter dated 4.1.2006 hadcommunicated to the petitioner that his employment registration hasbeen registered in the office of the first respondent under the LandAcquisition Priority and that his name would be sponsored when thesuitable post according to his qualification and age is called forand required the petitioner to wait for the same. 4. In spite of such letter of the Secretary to the Governmentdated 4.1.2006, the petitioner was not sponsored for a period of 1½years for any post. The petitioner again has moved this Court inW.P.No.23409 of 2007 praying for a direction directing the firstrespondent to sponsor the name of the petitioner in future vacanciessuitable to his qualification by giving preference as per the earlierproceedings. This Court by an order dated 11.7.2007, directed thefirst respondent to consider the grievances of the petitioner and tosponsor the name of the petitioner for future vacancies, if he isotherwise eligible. 5. The first respondent by a letter dated 5.11.2007 informed thepetitioner that the name of the petitioner would be sponsored as andwhen the list of eligible candidates is required for a suitable postaccording to his qualification. However, till date, the petitioner'sname has not been sponsored for any other post taking intoconsideration his priority list. According to the petitioner, he hasbeen waiting for the past 22 years right from 1986 onwards andatleast from the Land Acquisition Priority endorsement made in theemployment card in the year 2002 onwards. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner hascontended that the first respondent by a press statement published in"Dinamalar" daily dated 14.7.2008 informed that the first respondentis going to send the list of eligible candidates for the post ofVeterinary Inspectors and it was further stated that the prioritycandidates, who have registered upto 31.3.2008, would be sponsoredand the qualification for the post is a pass in Plus Two course orP.U.C. and the age limit for the Most Backward Classes is 37 years ason 1.7.2008. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner furthercontended that on such publication being made, the petitionerverified with the first respondent and also informed that he was acandidate in waiting. However, the first respondent had informed thepetitioner that since the age of the petitioner as on 1.7.2008 is 41years, his name would not be sponsored for the above said post.Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner has come forward with thepresent writ petition. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contendedthat as per G.O.Ms.No.98, (Personnel & Administrative ReformsDepartment) dated 17.7.2006, the upper age limit for entering intothe Government service would be relaxed for 5 years to enable theunemployed youth affected by the ban order of recruitment to applyfor the Government job. Since the ban order was in force upto 2006,the said Government order had been passed by the Government of TamilNadu to overcome the difficulties and to enable the unemployed youthto get employment. The age limit fixed for the Most Backward Classesfor the post of Veterinary Inspectors is 37 years as on 1.7.2008 andif the Government order is applied and the five years relaxationperiod is added, the petitioner would be a eligible candidate and hisname could have been recommended for the post. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner furthercontended that since the petitioner has been a priority candidatewaiting from 1986 and as per the Land Acquisition Priorityendorsement made in the employment card in the year 2002, his nameought to have been recommended using the relaxation and otherGovernment orders, in view of the fact that his name has not beenrecommended, in spite of the earlier two proceedings of this Court. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner alsobrought to the notice of this Court that till date no selection hasbeen made as per the press statement published in "Dinamalar" dailydated 14.7.2008. 11. Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader (Writ)appearing for the respondents has pointed out that the petitioner wasnot qualified as per the norms published in the paper as on the dateof the notification. The only disqualification, which was brought tothe notice of this Court by the learned Special Government Pleader(Writ), is that the petitioner has crossed 37 years and hence, hisname could not be recommended and he was not eligible. However, thelearned counsel appearing for the petitioner has rightly pointed outthe G.O.Ms.No.98, (Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department)dated 17.7.2006 and submitted that as the petitioner belongs to MostBackward Class Community, there could have been no hesitation for therespondents to recommend his name for the post of Veterinary https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Inspector, if he is otherwise eligible. Only on the question of age,he could not have been barred from sending the name for selection. 12. The relevant paragraphs of the G.O.Ms.No.98, (Personnel &Administrative Reforms (S) Department) dated 17.7.2006, read asfollows:2. His Excellency the Governor of Tamil Nadu,in his address in the Tamil Nadu LegislativeAssembly on 24.5.2006, has among others, announcedthat the upper age limit for entering intoGovernment service will be relaxed by five years,to enable the unemployed youth affected by the banorder on recruitment, to apply for Government job.3. The Government after carefulconsideration, accordingly direct that the upperage limit for entering into government serviceshall be relaxed by five years, to enable theunemployed youth affected by the ban order onrecruitment, to apply for Government jobs. 4. Necessary amendments to the General Rulesfor the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Serviceswill be issued separately. 13. A reading of the above said Government Order would clearlyindicate that the Government in order to help those candidates whohave been prevented in view of the total ban of recruitment,specifically granted the relaxation insofar as the age is concerned,upto 5 years in the case of the Most Backward Class category.Admittedly, as the petitioner belongs to Most Backward Classcommunity and if the relaxation in respect of age is applied, even ason date he is definitely eligible, as the petitioner's date of birthis 21.6.1967, on the date of the notification, namely, 1.7.2008, heis exactly 41 years old and therefore, his name should have beenrightly recommended by applying the Government order, whichunfortunately has not been done by the respondents concerned. 14. It would be suffice for this Court, at this point of time,to order that the name of the petitioner should also be included forthe selection of the post of Veterinary Inspector as per the pressstatement published in "Dinamalar" daily dated 14.7.2008, if he isotherwise eligible.15. This order would operate only insofar as the relaxation ofage limit, as the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of priorityunder the Land Acquisition Priority candidate and invokingG.O.Ms.No.98, (Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department) dated https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

17.7.2006, the writ petition is allowed with the direction that thepetitioner's name should be recommended, if he is otherwise eligiblefor the said post as per the press statement published in "Dinamalar"daily dated 14.7.2008. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2008 isclosed. No costs. Sd/- Asst.Registrar/true copy/ Sub Asst.RegistrarlanTo:1. The Assistant Director District Employment Exchange Salem-72. The Director of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services, D.M.S. Complex Anna Salai, Chennai-600 006+1 cc to Mr.K.Selvaraj, Advocate, SR.No.326541 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.33265Writ Petition No.22257 of 2008KG {CO}TP/21.8.2009.