The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of the petitioner's candidature for Village Assistant post due to age. The court held the petitioner failed to establish legal rights and could not rely on vague affidavits regarding other candidates' sponsorship.
The writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 15.07.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.(MD)No.2918 of 2013
and
M.P.(MD).Nos.1 and 2 of 2013
C.Jesuraj
... Petitioner
Vs.
Tirunelveli District.
PRAYER: Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in O.Mu.A5/6632/2012 dated 04.09.2012 on the file of the respondent No.3 and quash the same as illegal and consequently, direct the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider the petitioner for appointment to the post of Village Assistant in Sankarankovil Taluk, Tirunelveli District within the time stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Rajasekar For R1 to R3 : Mr.C.Ramar Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
The order rejecting the candidature of the writ petitioner for appointment to the post of Village Assistant on the ground that the writ petitioner is over aged, is under challenge in the present writ petition.
2.The learned counsel for the writ petitioner states that the writ petitioner registered his name in the Employment Exchange in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the year 1996. Though the writ petitioner belong to Schedule Caste Community, she could not able to secure any opportunity for appointment to any post for many years. When his name was
2
sponsored for appointment to the post of Village Assistant during the year 2010, his case was rejected on the ground that he was over-aged.
3.The learned counsel for the writ petitioner states that many other candidates, who had registered their names subsequent to the writ petitioner were appointed in other posts. Therefore, the case of the writ petitioner also to be considered for appointment to any suitable posts.
4.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents made a submission that the case of the writ petitioner was rightly rejected with reference to his age. The details and qualifications as per the records are narrated in the counter affidavit, which is extracted hereunder:
“It is submitted that the petitioner registered his qualification in the office of 2nd respondent namely District Employment Office, Tirunelveli and as per the records available in that office his registration particulars as under:
Name : C.JESURAJ Date of Birth:25.10.1979 Registration No:TND1996M00007065 Address :S/o.O.K.Chelliah
No.2/161, South Colony Street, Sangupatti Village, Thiruvenkadam Post, Sankarankoil Taluk, Tirunelveli Dist.
Category : BC Qualification:(BSSLC)X0210SF30.06.1988 Registered with:Driver Light 986.40 SF 5.12.91 Driver Heavy 986.60 SF 24.6.1996
It is submitted that during the year 2012 notification for the post of Thalayari that is Village Assistant was received from Thasildar Sankarankoil and sponsored candidates to the employer for the particular vacancy strictly followed by the age limit and reservation given by the employer in the notification form. It is further submitted the age limit prescribed by the Employer was 30 years for OC and 35 years for others. It is further submitted that the candidate comes under over aged category. Copy of the notification form enclosed herewith. Hence, the petitioners name was not sponsored to the Employer.”
5.In view of the fact that the name of the writ petitioner was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ not even considered on the ground of age limit, the respondents are not at all responsible for not considering the name of the writ
3
petitioner.
6.Even if the complaint of the writ petitioner is to be considered, the petitioner has to establish that any of his junior in employment seniority had already been sponsored with reference to his qualification, the post for which, he is eligible and other details. Contrarily, a blanket statement has made in the affidavit that the Employment Exchange has sponsored some other names under the SC category, cannot be considered by this Court. Even the Schedule Caste category considered for sponsoring the name based on the nature of the post for their educational qualification and other criteria.
7.This being the factors to be considered while sponsoring the name of the candidates, the very allegation in the affidavit will not be a ground to allow the writ petition as prayed for. Under these circumstances, the writ petitioner has not established even a semblance of legal rights so as to consider the relief as such sought in the present writ petition. If at all if the writ petitioner wants to secure public employment, he has to participate in the process of selection through open competitive process or if his name is sponsored in accordance with his seniority in the Employment Exchange.
8.With the above observations, this writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
Assistant Registrar // True Copy //
Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)
Ns
To
1.The District Collector, Collectorate, Tirunelveli District.
4
3.The Tahsildar, Sankarankovil Taluk Office, Sankarankovil, Tirunelveli District.
+1CC TO MR.T.LAJAPATHI ROY, Advocate Sr. No.75635 +1CC TO THE SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SR.No.75677
W.P.(MD)No.2918 of 2013 and M.P.(MD).Nos.1 and 2 of 2013 15.07.2019
GKG(CO) TR (24.07.2019) 4P 6C
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the rejection of the petitioner's candidature for the post of Village Assistant on the ground of being over-aged is legal and sustainable.
Whether the petitioner has established a legal right to be appointed through blanket statements that other similar candidates were sponsored.
C.Jesuraj
District Collector, Collectorate, Tirunelveli District
District Employment Officer, O/o. The District Employment Officer, Tirunelveli District
Tahsildar, Sankarankovil Taluk Office, Sankarankovil, Tirunelveli District
S.M.Subramaniam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
