Three writ petitions filed by candidates seeking appointment as cooks in ADW hostels. The High Court dismissed the petitions, finding that petitioners were ineligible for age relaxation and had obtained lower marks than successful candidates.
None.
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.
W.P Nos.1412, 1418 & 1419 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 12.10.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
W.P Nos.1412, 1418 & 1419 of 2021
R.Selvarani
... Petitioner in WP.No.1412/2021
A.Ramesh ... Petitioner in WP.No.1418/2021
S.Rekha ... Petitioner in WP.No.1419/2021
Vs.
1.The Govt. of Tamil Nadu rep. by Sec. To ADW Dept., Chennai 600 009.
Page No.1 of 6
W.P Nos.1412, 1418 & 1419 of 2021
(R2 to R4- Selection Committee Members) ... Respondents in all WPs.
Common Prayer: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to include the petitioners out of the 3 eligible candidates omitted to be included in the list of cooks to be appointed in the ADW Hostels in Perambalur District, in pursuant to the Interview held by the respondents 2 to 4 as per Interview letter dated 09.10.2020 in Na.Ka.No.Ja/5805/2018 of the 4th respondent to the petitioners, if necessary, creating a supernumerary post of cook over and above 28 persons selected as cooks and to appoint them as cook.
In all WPs.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Kalyanasundaram, Senior Counsel for Mr.R.Vasudevan
For Respondents : Mr.T.Arunkumar , Government Advocate
COMMON ORDER
These Writ Petitions have been filed seeking issuance of Writ of
Mandamus, to direct the respondents to include the petitioners as one of the eligible candidates and to include them in the list of cooks to be appointed in the Adi Dravidar and Trible Welfare Department Hostels in Perambalur District, in pursuant to the interview letter dated 09.10.2020
Page No.2 of 6
W.P Nos.1412, 1418 & 1419 of 2021
in Na.Ka.No.Ja/5805/2018, interview held by the respondents 2 to 4 (selection committee members).
2. The main contention of the petitioners is that the respondents without following the rules, have omitted these petitioners to be included in the list the candidates to be appointed for the post of cooks in AD&WD hostels in Perambalur District. So far as:
(i) The petitioner in WP.No.1412/2021 namely R.Selvarani is concerned, she is a widow, aged 40 years belonging to scheduled caste community and hence, five years age relaxation ought to have been given to her;
(ii)The other petitioner in WP.No.1418/2021 namely, A.Ramesh aged about 37 years belonging to scheduled caste community and he is also to be given with age relaxation in view of the G.O.Ms.21,Labour and Employment dated 02.02.2000 and
(iii) the other petitioner in WP.No.1419/2021 namely S.Rekha is within the age limit of 35 years and she has been waiting from 30.11.2011 after registering herself in the employment exchange. It is further submitted that all the petitioners have got cooking experience and
Page No.3 of 6
W.P Nos.1412, 1418 & 1419 of 2021
belonged to scheduled caste community with required education qualifications.
3. As per G.O.Ms.21 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (conditions of Service) Act 2016, a candidate belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Class Muslim, Backward Classes, Most Backward Classes and denotified communities or of destitute widow of all castes who hold a degree of any University recognised by University Grants Commission, without colour or caste, the maximum age limit prescribed in the special rule shall apply for any post in a service of a candidate belonging to the above communities.
4 . If the degree held by the should not be the degree prescribed in the special rules. The age relaxation can be given at the rate of one year for each three years of waiting up to five years.
(i) But The petitioner in WP.No.1412/2021 namely R.Selvarani has registered in employment exchange only on 20.08.2018 and she has not completed three years of waiting from the date of registration. Hence she cannot claim any relaxation of age. Since the petitioner is not eligible for getting 5 years age relaxation as per the rules, she cannot claim the
Page No.4 of 6
W.P Nos.1412, 1418 & 1419 of 2021
said benefit.
(ii) So far as the other petitioner in WP.No.1418/2021 namely, A.Ramesh is concerned, he is said to have got 6/10 marks in personal interview held by the Selection Committee and the petitioner in WP.No.1419/2021 namely S.Rekha is concerned, she has also obtained 5 / 10 marks in the personal interview. Since their marks were below than the marks obtained by the candidates selected, they did not get the opportunity.
5. The petitioners have not furnished any Government Order to
their rescue and it has not been substantiated that the respondents have violated any rules or regulations in the selection process and the appointment. Hence, I find no grounds for interference.
In the result, these Writ Petitions are dismissed . No costs.
12.10.2023
jrs
Index : Yes Internet : Yes/No
Page No.5 of 6
W.P Nos.1412, 1418 & 1419 of 2021
R.N.MANJULA, J.
jrs
To
W.P Nos.1412, 1418 & 1419 of 2021
12.10.2023
Page No.6 of 6
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the court should direct the selection committee to include petitioners who omitted from the final list due to lower interview marks.
R.Selvarani
A.Ramesh
S.Rekha
Govt. of Tamil Nadu rep. by Sec. To ADW Dept.
R.N. Manjula
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
