The Court dismissed multiple writ petitions challenging the age limits for the Field Assistant (Trainee) post. Petitioners with SSLC/ITI qualifications exceeded age limits and could not rely on a previous Division Bench order as precedent. The Corporation is permitted to proceed with recruitment from the waiting list.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.01.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH
W.P.Nos.10954, 17859 & 9964 of 2016 and W.M.P.Nos.8933 to 8935, 9539, 9540, 15552 of 2016 18385, 19816 & 20186 of 2018
W.P.No.10954 of 2016
1.C.Arunachalam 2.S.Jayaprakash 3.Ananthan 4.G.Sakthivel 5.R.Janarthanan 6.M.Mahendiran 7.S.Manikandan 8.S.Senthilkumar 9.G.Kumar 10.S.Prabu 11.P.Venkatesan 12.Chakkaravarthi 13.K.Senthilkumar 14.K.Nandhakumar 15.N.Ilayaraja 16.D.Saravanan 17.G.Sankar 18.K.Narasimman 19.M.Vasanthakumar 20.M.Ayyadurai 21.R.Janarthan 22.S.Karuppasamy 23.K.Sheik Abdulla 24.G.Anantharaj 25.R.Rengayakumar 26.S.Arulkumaran 27.K.Prakasam 28.A.Manikandan 29.D.Jayamurugan 30.P.Sathiya 31.S.Mythili 32.K.Mohanasundaram 33.D.Baskaran 34.S.Venkateshwari 35.D.Balakrishnan
36.T.Pushpa 37.Selvi 38.M.Swaminathan 39.S.Suresh 40.B.Paneerselvam 41.S.Uthamaseelan 42.R.Jakkayan 43.A.Karuppaiyan 44.V.Saravanan 45.T.Marimuthu 46.C.Balamurugan 47.P.Anbarasan 48.S.Sidharasu 49.S.Govindan 50.G.Vijikumar 51.S.Govindaraj 52.S.Karuppasamy 53.G.Anantharaj 54.Rengayakumar 55.S.Arulkumaran 56.K.Praksam 57.P.Ramasamy 58.V.Sankar 59.J.Kalaiselvan 60.Sakthivel 61.L.Sundaramoorthy 62.T.Velautham 63.M.Vivekanandan 64.C.Madhayan 65.P.Rasaputhiran 66.S.Nadaraj 67.J.Arivalagan 68.S.Sureshsankar 69.B.Elanchezhian 70.S.Agastin 71.Illiyaraja 72.J.Sivanandham 73.G.Muthusamy 74.K.Senthil 75.K.Velmurgan ... Petitioners -Vs-
3.G.Rajesh 4.R.Mutharasu
5.G.Ramesh 6.Kanagaraj (R3 to R6 impleaded as per order dt. 5/2/2020 made in WMP.12638/ 2019 in WP.10954/2016) ...Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Declaration, declaring the action of the respondents in fixing the upper age limit for appointment to the 900 post of Field Assistant (Trainee) in the 1st respondent Corporation as 32 years for Backward/B.C.M/MBC and 35 years for SC/ST, fixing no age limit for persons having higher education (P.U.C/H.S.C/Diploma) other S.S.L.C and I.T.I and proceeding with Direct Recruitment for the post of Field Assistant (Trainee) through competitive written examination to be held on 03.04.2016 in notification No.1 of 2016, dated 28.02.2016 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and consequently direct the respondents to granting age relaxation to the petitioners have possessing S.S.L.C with I.T.I for the same age relaxation given no upper age limit to the candidates those who possess P.U.C/H.S.C(+2)/Diploma.
For P23 & 37 : Mr.N.Vignesh for Mr.S.Manikandan
For R1 & 2 : Mr.P.Subramanian, Standing Counsel
For R3 to 6 : M.R.Selvakumar
W.P.No.17859 of 2016
1.N.Raja
2.P.Muthukkumar 3.R.V.Monagaran 4.V.Karnesh 5.M.Kamalakannan 6.T.Murali
7.R.Kathiravan 8.G.Sathiesh Kumar 9.V.Lakshmanan 10.A.Sathiyagu Ponnudurai 11.M.Saravanan 12.T.Velmurugan 13.S.Illayaraja 14.S.Thirumaran 15.P.Aanantharajan 16.R.Muthuraja 17.P.Sathiyan 18.S.Aarumugam 19.R.Kausalya 20.G.Lakshmanan 21.V.Murugan 22.A.Manikkavelu 23.M.Bhaskar 24.S.Sivakumar 25.M.Rageswaran ...Petitioners
-Vs-
1.Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., Rep. by its Chairman, No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002. 2.Chief Engineer (Personnel), Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.
3.G.Rajesh 4.R.Mutharasu 5.G.Ramesh 6.Kanagaraj (R3 to R6 impleaded as per order dated. 16/09/2021 made in WMP.12639/ 2019 in WP.17859/2016) ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 2nd respondent notification No.1/2016 dated 28.02.2016 in so far as not giving age relaxation to the petitioners who are possessing S.S.L.C with I.T.I and quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to give age relaxation to the person who are having S.S.L.C and I.T.I qualification.
For P1, 3 to 25 : Mr.V.Stalin For P2 : Mr.N.Vignesh for Mr.S.Manikandan For R1 & 2 : Mr.P.Subramanian, Standing Counsel For R3 to 6 : M.R.Selvakumar W.P.No.9964 of 2016 1.P.Ramesh 2.V.Selvakumar 3.K.Mahesh 4.V.Kesavan 5.P.Ranjith 6.K.Rajeswaran 7.V.Udhayakumar 8.S.Gunasekaran 9.P.Jayabal 10.P.Gunasekaran 11.G.Senthilkumar 12.N.A.Palani 13.D.Selventhiran 14.P.Venkatesan 15.P.Sundaram 16.P.Ramasamy 17.J.Sakthivel 18.Palani 19.R.Sadhasivam 20.P.Balamurugan 21.C.Arumugam 22.C.Mathiyalagan 23.D.Kavitha 24.G.Suresh 25.P.Murthy 26.Mumoorthy 27.Nagarajan 28.G.Kannan ... Petitioners
-Vs-
Distribution Corporation Ltd., No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.
3.G.Rajesh 4.R.Mutharasu 5.G.Ramesh 6.Kanagaraj (R3 to R6 impleaded as per order dated. 16/09/2021 made in WMP.12638/ 2019 in WP.9964/2016) ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Declaration, declaring the action of the respondents in fixing the upper age limit for appointment to the 900 post of Field Assistant (Trainee) in the 1st respondent Corporation as 32 years for Backward/B.C.M/MBC and 35 years for SC/ST, fixing no age limit for persons having higher education (P.U.C/H.S.C/Diploma) other S.S.L.C and I.T.I and proceeding with Direct Recruitment for the post of Field Assistant (Trainee) through competitive written examination to be held on 03.04.2016 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and consequently direct the respondents to granting age relaxation to the petitioners have possessing S.S.L.C with I.T.I for the same age relaxation given no upper age limit to the candidates those who possess P.U.C/H.S.C(+2)/ Diploma.
COMMON ORDER
All the petitioners herein are aggrieved against the action of the respondents in not promoting them for participation in the selection process for the direct recruitment to the post of Field Assistant (Trainee) conducted pursuant to a competitive written examination held on 03.04.2016.
(iv)J.Selvi (Reg.No.1111170985) and (v)P.Muthukumar (Reg.No.1411171989), all the other petitioners have not qualified themselves in the written examination and hence, they have not been called for participation in the further process of the recruitment. This aspect is not under dispute.
| Reg. No. |
Name | Case No. | Date for Reckoning of Age as per Notificati on |
Date of Birth |
Communi ty |
Age as on 01.07.2 015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1111170 996 |
G.Senthil Kumar |
WP.No. 9964 of 2016 |
01.07.2015 | 15.08. 1980 |
MBC/DC | 34 years 10 months 16 days |
| 1311171 880 |
D.Kavitha | WP.No. 9964 of 2016 |
01.07.2015 | 21.06. 1979 |
BCO | 36 years 10 days |
| 1411171 998 |
K.Sheik Abdulla |
WP.No. 10954 of 2016 |
01.07.2015 | 10.04. 1983 |
BCM | 32 years 2 months 21 days |
| 1111170 985 |
J.Selvi | WP.No. 10954 of 2016 |
01.07.2015 | 05.02. 1982 |
MBC/DC | 36 years 24 days |
| 1411171 989 |
P.Muthuku mar |
WP.No.1785 9 of 2016 |
01.07.2015 | 07.06. 1979 |
MBC/DC | 35 years 1 month 24 days |
Ltd., passed in W.A.No.1045 of 2016, dated 10.01.2020, had relaxed the age limit and consequently granted appointments to one of the appellant therein, who had crossed the prescribed age limit by 1 month and 24 days.
"2. In pursuance of the said directions, the learned counsel for respondents Mr.Karthik Rajagopal has submitted a chart before this Court, which shows that the only selected candidate ie., the 4th appellant herein K.Ramalingam, S/o.M.Kuzhanthaivellu, No.27, Thanalakshmi Nagar, Unnamalichetti Savadi, Koondur Post, Cuddalore District, had crossed the prescribed age bar of 35 years only by a short period of one month and 24 days as on the cut-off date of 01.07.2015. The said chart is taken on record. Since all the other appellants except the fourth appellant in the present writ appeal were not selected in the selection process for the post of Field Assistant and the fourth appellant had crossed the age bar of 35 years only by a very short period of one month and 24 days, and since almost five years have passed from the date of the notification, we are not inclined to delay the matter any further. Though the names of the learned counsel for the appellants Ms.P.M.Jayachandran and v.Indumathi are printed in the cause list, none appeared on behalf of the appellants.
[emphasis supplied}
Sd/-
Deputy Assistant Registrar(CS)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
hvk
To:
Chennai - 600 002.
+1cc to Mr.S.Manikandan, Advocate, S.R.No.1213 +1cc to Mr.P.Subramanian, Advocate, S.R.No.570 +4ccs to M.R.Selvakumar, Advocate, S.R.No.519
W.P.Nos.10954, 17859 & 9964 of 2016
NR(CO) CT 14/02/2022
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioners relying on a Division Bench order in J.Pandian case are entitled to age relaxation despite exceeding the prescribed limit in the SSLC/ITI category.
Whether the operating age limit for Field Assistant (Trainee) posts prescribed in notification No.1 of 2016 can be relaxed by the High Court to include SSLC/ITI holders.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
J.Pandian and others Vs. Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd.Distinguished¶44
J.Pandian and others Vs. Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., passed in W.A.No.1045 of 2016, dated 10.01.2020
1.C.Arunachalam 2.S.Jayaprakash 3.Ananthan 4.G.Sakthivel 5.R.Janarthanan 6.M.Mahendiran 7.S.Manikandan 8.S.Senthilkumar 9.G.Kumar 10.S.Prabu 11.P.Venkatesan 12.
1. Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., Rep. by its Chairman
2. Chief Engineer (Personnel), Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd.
3. G.Rajesh
4. R.Mutharasu
5. G.Ramesh
M.S.Ramesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
