Dismissed¶35

Nirmaladevy.J v. Union of India

Madras HC11 Aug 2025WP/26351/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court writ petition (certiorarified mandamus, Article 226) against CAT Chennai Bench order dated 03.07.2025 in O.A.No.681 of 2025; recruitment notification; upper age limit 33 years; Most Backward Community; overage candidates denied right to participate in selection process; Tribunal rejection upheld; Union of India / Collector cum Special Secretary (Revenue), Puducherry respondents; ASG AR.L.Sundaresan; writ dismissed, no costs, connected W.M.Ps. closed; O.A.No.495 of 2025 expressly unaffected.

What did the court decide?

None - the writ petition was dismissed; no costs were awarded and the connected miscellaneous petitions (W.M.P.Nos.29661, 29665 and 29666 of 2025) were closed. ¶35

Nirmaladevy.J Vs Union of India — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None - the writ petition was dismissed; no costs were awarded and the connected miscellaneous petitions (W.M.P.Nos.29661, 29665 and 29666 of 2025) were closed.

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners, who have crossed the upper age limit of 33 years prescribed in the recruitment notification for candidates belonging to the Most Backward Community, have a right to participate in the selection process. +1 more

¶31

Court's answer

Where the recruitment notification prescribes an upper age limit of 33 years for candidates belonging to the Most Backward Community, candidates (including the petitioners) who have crossed 33 years may not have a right to participate in the selection process.

¶31

Ratio / Principle

The Central Administrative Tribunal's rejection of the petitioners' plea through its order in O.A.No.681 of 2025 dated 03.07.2025 was upheld; the High Court found no reason to interfere with the impugned order and refused to quash it.

¶31

Key takeaways

Clarification: the dismissal of the present writ petition shall not have any bearing on O.A.No.495 of 2025, which is claimed to be pending before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench.obiter¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Madras (M.S. Ramesh and V. Lakshminarayanan, JJ.), 11.08.2025: Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench in O.A.No.681 of 2025 dated 03.07.2025 was dismissed. The recruitment notification prescribed an upper age limit of 33 years for candidates belonging to the Most Backward Community; the Court held that the petitioners, having crossed 33 years, may not have a right to participate in the selection process, took that aspect into account, and found no reason to interfere with the Tribunal's rejection of their plea. The Court clarified that the dismissal shall not have any bearing on O.A.No.495 of 2025, claimed to be pending before the Tribunal. No costs; connected miscellaneous petitions (W.M.P.Nos.29661, 29665 and 29666 of 2025) closed.

¶1

W.P.No.26351 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 11.08.2025

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶6

and

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN

¶8

W.P.No.26351 of 2025

¶9

and W.M.P.Nos.29661, 29665 and 29666 of 2025

¶10

1.Nirmaladevy J.

¶11

2.Zhamala Devi G.

¶12

3.Veeri Venkata Surya Vinay Kumar

¶13

4.Jagadish G.

¶14

5.Poornima Arunagiri

¶15

6.Raja I

¶16

7.Kathiravan Jeeva G

¶17

8.Pradish Kumar G

¶18

9.Raveendhar R.V.

¶19

10.B.Pradeeba ... Petitioners

¶20

Vs.

¶21

Union of India Rep. by Collector cum Special Secretary (Revenue) I Floor, New Revenue Complex Vazhudavur Road, Pettaiyanchattiram Puducherry 605 009 ... Respondents

¶22

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for

¶23

Page 1 of 4

¶24

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

¶25

W.P.No.26351 of 2025

¶26

the records relating to the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench in O.A.No.681 of 2025 dated 03.07.2025 and quash the same and consequently allow the said original application as prayed for in terms of various prayers contained in the said O.A.

¶27

F or Petitioners : Mr.Stalin Abhimanyu For Respondents : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, ASG Assisted by Mr.R.Syed Mustafa Spl. Govt. Pleader (Pondy)

¶28

ORDER

¶29

M.S.RAMESH, J. AND

¶30

V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.

¶31

When the recruitment notification prescribes an upper age limit of 33 years, sofaras the candidates belonging to Most Backward Community are concerned, the petitioners herein who have crossed 33 years, may not have a right to participate in the selection process. Taking this aspect into consideration, the Central Administrative Tribunal had rejeected the plea of the petitioners herein through the impugned order. Hence, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order.

¶32

Page 2 of 4

¶33

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

¶34

W.P.No.26351 of 2025

¶35

2.The Writ Petition stands dismissed accordingly. We hereby clarify that the dismissal of the present Writ Petition shall not have any

¶36

bearing on the O.A.No.495 of 2025, which is claiming to be pending before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶37

[M.S.R, J.] [V.L.N, J.] 11.08.2025

¶38

kas

¶39

Index: Yes / No Neutral Citation Speaking / Non Speaking

¶40

Note: Office to issue order copy on 12.08.2025

¶41

To.

¶42

1.The Collector cum Special Secretary (Revenue) Union of India I Floor, New Revenue Complex Vazhudavur Road, Pettaiyanchattiram Puducherry 605 009