B.Soundararajan Vs The Member of Secretary

2.The petitioner had filed a writ of mandamus seeking for a direction to the respondents to award marks to the petitioner in respect of the question paper A series exam held on 17.09.2006 to the first respondent notification 01/2006-2007 for Post Graduation Teacher in Economics 2006 and forbearing examination held on Feb 2022.

¶23

3.The contention of the appellant/petitioner is that he was chosen by the Parent Teacher Association and was working as a Post Graduate Teacher in Economics in Palani Corporation School. writ petition in W.P(MD)No.22562 of 2022 seeking to regularize him and the same was dismissed by this Court, vide order dated 26.09.2022. Thereafter, the appellant/petitioner has come up with the writ petition in W.P(MD)No.7276 of 2023 seeking for a direction to the respondents to award marks to the petitioner in respect of question paper A series exam held on 17.09.2006, wherein, the learned single Judge found that the

¶24

Page 2 of 5

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

W.A.(MD)No.1770 of 2025

¶27

petitioner had approached this Court after a period of 17 years and that the Government had introduced the age limit as 45 for teachers and thereby, no purpose would be served by considering the petitioner's contentions and dismissed the said writ petition. Challenging the same, the present Writ Appeal is filed.

¶28

4.The appellant, party-in-person would submit that if the appellant's request had been considered, earlier he would have been selected, whereas the Government has not considered his representation.

¶29

5.Mr.T.Amjadkhan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that the appellant/petitioner has not cleared the Post Graduate Teacher Examination conducted by the Teachers Recruitment Board, and thereby he was not eligible. The petitioner had worked as a teacher approved by PTA and Corporation is not an authority to regularize the appointment.

¶30

6.The appellant/petitioner has come up with the grievance that his case was not properly considered in the year 2006. Admittedly the appellant/petitioner has now completed 60 years. The petitioner had come before this Court for not considering his regularization in the year 2006. Admittedly, the petitioner had not cleared the eligibility test conducted by TRB and he had also completed 60 years

¶31

Page 3 of 5

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

W.A.(MD)No.1770 of 2025

¶34

as on date. The learned single Judge rightly holding that no purpose would be

¶35

served by considering the petitioner's request at this stage had dismissed the writ petition.

¶36

7.In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by this learned single Judge. Hence, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No costs.

¶37

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶38

[A.D.J.C., J.] & [R.P., J.]

¶39

07.07.2025

¶40

NCC:Yes/No Index:Yes/No Ns

¶41

To

¶42