IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 28.09.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN W.P.No.2345 of 2007 (O.A.No.5883 of 2001 Tmt.N.Chandra ... Petitioner Versus 1 The District Educational Officer, Virudhachalam, Cuddalore District. 2 The Secretary, Govt. of Tamil Nadu, Higher Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 9. ... Respondents (The second respondent was impleaded as party to the writ petition on suo motto by order dated 28.09.2011) This petition came to be numbered by transfer of O.A.No.5883 of 2001 from the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, to call fortherecords and quash the order in Na.Ka.No.6277/A1/2000 dated 3.9.2001 of the first respondent and direct the first respondent to retain the petitioner in the same post of full time Sweeper-cum- Gardener and regularise her service from the date of appointment and grant consequential benefits. For Petitioner : Mr.G.Elanchezhian For Respondents : Mr.M.C.Swamy Spl. Govt. Pleader ***** O R D E R The petitioner was initially appointed as Part time Sweeper in Govt. Girls High School, Thittakudi, South Arcot District, by an order dated 16.11.1990 issued by South Arcot District Girls School Inspector. While so, the petitioner was appointed on regular post by the District Educational Officer, Virudhachalam by an order dated 16.3.2001. While the petitioner was working on regular basis, the first respondent issued show cause notice dated 5.8.2001 calling for the petitioner to show cause as to why she should not be reverted https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ from the regular post to part time Sweeper on the ground that she was overaged at the time of initial appointment on 16.11.1990. The petitioner submitted an explanation on 16.8.2001 requesting the first respondent to send a proposal to the Government for relaxation of age. 2 The first respondent passed the impugned order dated 03.09.2001 reverting the petitioner from regular post to Part time Sweeper. The petitioner filed O.A.No.5883 of 2001 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal to quash the impugned order dated 03.09.2001. 3 On 17.9.2001 the Tribunal granted interim order to the petitioner, by which the petitioner continued in the regular post. 4 The first respondent has filed reply affidavit refuting the allegations made in the writ petition. In the counter, it is stated that the petitioner was overaged at the time of initial appointment and therefore the petitioner was reverted. 5 Heard both sides. 6 The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that as per the Government letter No.27293/Per.F/88-1 issued by P & AR Department, the first respondent should send proposal to the Government for relaxation of age as per Rule 5(1) of Tamil Nadu Basic Rules. Therefore, the first respondent ought to have sent proposal for relaxation of age to the second respondent. Instead, the first respondent reverted the petitioner from the regular post to part time Sweeper. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner brought to notice of this Court, the following G.Os. 1 G.O.Ms.No.4565 Public Dept. Dated 29.11.2007 2 G.O.Ms.No.1401 Public Dept. Dated 29.12.2008 3 G.O.Ms.No.141 School Education Dept. Dated 19.05.2010 wherein the Government granted age relaxation in the case of regularisation of part time Sweeper as regular Sweeper. The copies of the said G.Os. are placed on record in the additional typed set of papers. 7 On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate sought for dismissal of the writ petition based on the reply affidavit. 8 I have considered the submissions made on either side. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 9 The petitioner was appointed as part time Sweeper by order dated 16.9.1990 in Tamil Nadu Govt. Girls High School, Thittakudi and her service was regularised by order dated 16.03.2001 by the second respondent. However, the first respondent passed the impugned order dated 03.09.2001 reverting the petitioner from regular post to part time post on the ground that the petitioner was overaged at the time of initial appointment on 23.11.1990. 10 As rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the Government issued G.Os. cited above, in the matter of age relaxation for regularisation of service of Part time Sweeper as regular Sweeper and therefore, same yardstick should have been applied in the case of the petitioner. In fact, the first respondent was regularised to send proposal seeking relaxation of age for the purpose of regularisation. But the first respondent did not do so. In view of the interim order passed by the Tribunal, the petitioner continued in the regular post. 11 Under these circumstances, the impugned order dated 03.09.2001 is quashed. The first respondent is directed to send proposal regarding relaxation of age for regularisation of service of the petitioner to the second respondent within a period of four weeks from today and the second respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders granting relaxation of age in terms of G.O.Ms.No.4565 Public Dept. Dated 29.11.2007, G.O.Ms.No.1401 Public Dept. Dated 29.12.2008 and G.O.Ms.No.141 School Education Dept. Dated 19.05.2010. 12 In the result, the writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs. Sd/ Asst. Registrar /True Copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar vaan https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1 The District Educational Officer, Virudhachalam, Cuddalore District. 2 The Secretary, Govt. of Tamil Nadu, Higher Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 9. +1CC to Mr.G.Elanchezhiyan Advocate SR.60897 +1CC to The Government Pleader SR.60841 W.P.No.2345 of 2007 (O.A.No.5883 of 2001 DM (CO) KSA (29/11/2011) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/