Disposed¶20

K.Saveetha, v. The Government of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC10 Sept 2025WP/14444/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition closed as cause did not survive; challenge to TNPCB Notification No.1/2019 dated 06.03.2019 and addendum dated 16.04.2019 on fixation of maximum age limit; Article 226 certiorarified mandamus; selection process completed; petitioner secured less marks than selected candidate's cut-off mark; no orders on merits; no costs; Madras High Court; T. Vinod Kumar, J.; 10.09.2025.

What did the court decide?

Upon the first respondent's counter affidavit (adopted on 02.09.2025) disclosing completion of the selection process and the cut-off mark of the selected candidate being higher than the petitioner's marks, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted, and the Court recorded, that the cause in the Writ Petition does not survive for adjudication. ¶19

K.Saveetha, Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned Notification No.1/2019 dated 06.03.2019 and its addendum dated 16.04.2019 could be quashed insofar as they fixed the maximum age limit, and whether the second respondent ought to be directed to issue a fresh notification providing relaxation of the maximum age limit. (The court did not adjudicate this issue; the petition was closed as the cause did not survive.)

¶13

Ratio / Principle

¶19

Key takeaways

Recording the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the Writ Petition is closed and the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed, with no orders as to costs. No adjudication on the merits of the challenge to the notification.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MADRAS HIGH COURT (T. Vinod Kumar, J.) | W.P.No.14444 of 2019, decided 10.09.2025 | Writ petition under Article 226 sought a certiorarified mandamus to quash Notification No.1/2019 dated 06.03.2019 issued by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board and its addendum dated 16.04.2019, insofar as they fixed the maximum age limit, and to direct issuance of a fresh notification with age relaxation. On 02.09.2025 the first respondent's counter affidavit disclosed that the selection process was completed and that the petitioner had secured less marks than the cut-off mark of the selected candidate; learned counsel thereupon submitted that the cause did not survive for adjudication. Recording the submission, the Court closed the writ petition and the connected miscellaneous petitions, with no orders as to costs. No ruling on the merits of the age-limit challenge; no precedent value on the substantive issue.

¶1

W.P. No.14444 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 10.09.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶6

W.P.No.14444 of 2019 and

¶7

WMP.Nos.14452 & 14454 of 2019

K.Saveetha

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to the Government, Environment & Forest Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.

¶12

2.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Pollution Controal Board, No.76, Mount Salai, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. ... Respondents

¶13

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to this impugned Notification No.1/2019 dated 06.03.2019 and subsequent addendum dated 16.04.2019 to the above notification issued by the second respondent and quash the same insofar as the fixation of maxium age limit consequently direct the second respondent to issue fresh notification by providing relaxation of the maximum age limit.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Vasanthanayagam For Respondent-1 : Mr.V.Veluchamy, AGP For Respondent-2 : Ms.Madhri Dixti Reddy Standing Counsel

¶15

Page 1 of 4

¶16

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

¶17

W.P. No.14444 of 2019

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that by the adoption counter affidavit by the first respondent on 02.09.2025, it was learnt that the selection process is completed; and that the petitioner has secured less marks than the selected candidates. The learned counsel would further submit that as the counter affidavit had given the details of the cut off mark of the selected candidate, which is higher than the marks secured by the petitioner, the cause in the Writ Petition does not survive for adjudication.

¶20

Recording the submissions made by the learned counsel of the petitioner, the Writ Petition is closed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition(s) is/are also closed. There shall be no orders as to costs.

10.09.2025

Page 2 of 4

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

¶25

W.P. No.14444 of 2019

¶26

¶27