The petitioner, a Scheduled Caste and physically disabled candidate, sought appointment as a Sweeper, claiming age relaxation. The Court found she was 46 years old, exceeding the age limit of 35 years, and dismissed the writ petition.
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.No.16694 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02.09.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH
W.P.No.16694 of 2021 and W.M.P.No.17678 of 2021
L.Dhananimal
... Petitioner
Vs.
... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the third respondent to appoint the petitioner in the post of Sweeper in the Schools/ Colleges coming under the control of the third respondent.
Page 1 of 6
W.P.No.16694 of 2021
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Karunagaran For Respondents : Mr.R.U.Dinesh Rajkumar, AGP for R1to R3
O R D E R
This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner for a direction to the third respondent to appoint him as a Sweeper in the Schools/ Colleges coming under the control of the third respondent.
material available on record.
Page 2 of 6
W.P.No.16694 of 2021
petitioner made a representation to the Chief Minister's Cell and the same was forwarded to the Competent District Level Authorities. As a result of which, a call letter dated 23.11.2016 came to be issued for an interview to the post of Sweeper. But the respondents had not selected the petitioner to the said post. Against which, the petitioner has filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.4637 of 2017 and this Court by an order dated 24.02.2017, had directed the petitioner to submit one more representation to the third respondent seeking the result of the interview attended by her pursuant to the call letter dated 23.11.2016 within a period of two weeks and upon the receipt of the same, the third respondent has directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders within a period of two weeks thereafter. As per the directions of this Court, the petitioner made a representation to the third respondent on 06.04.2017. On receipt of the representation of the petitioner, the respondents had replied for the same stating that the petitioner was rejected for the job for the reason that the petitioner has been over aged. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner has filed the present petition.
to the Sweeper/Cook comes under the Class IV of the Tamil Nadu Basic Service Rules wherein the upper age limit fixed for the Scheduled Caste Page 3 of 6
W.P.No.16694 of 2021
candidate is 35 years, but Section 64 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servant (Condition of Service) Act, 2016 contemplates that the age concession is 10 years for the physically disabled persons. In such event, the petitioner being a Scheduled Caste community and a physically disabled person, fully eligible for the said post of Sweeper/ Cook. The respondents ought not to have rejected the appointment of the petitioner stating the reason that she is over aged.
5.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 submitted that the qualification to be appointed for the post of Sweeper/ Cook is that the applicant should not have crossed the age of 35 years as on 01.07.2016. But the petitioner has aged 46 years at the time of interview and hence, the respondents have rejected the petitioner stating the reason that she is over aged. Hence, the prayer sought for by the petitioner in this Petition has become infructuous.
W.P.No.16694 of 2021
interview. Therefore, the direction sought for by the petitioner cannot be considered.
02.09.2024
vkr Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No
To
VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.
Page 5 of 6
W.P.No.16694 of 2021
vkr
W.P.No.16694 of 2021 and W.M.P.No.17678 of 2021
02.09.2024
Page 6 of 6
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner, a physically disabled Scheduled Caste candidate, was eligible for age concession under Section 64 of the TN Government Servant (Condition of Service) Act, 2016 despite being ov
2 provisions across 2 enactments
L.Dhananimal
The District Collector, Dharmpuri District, Dharmapuri
The District Employment Officer, District Employment Office, Dharmapuri
The Director/ Welfare Officer, District Backward Class and Minority Welfare Department, Dharmapuri
Elumalai
Vivek Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
