1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED 08.03.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN W.P(MD)No.2669 of 2011 And M.P.(MD)Nos.1 & 2 of 2011 C.Vasikaran .. Petitioner Vs The District Employment Officer, Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District. .. Respondent PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for impugned records of respondent in his proceedings A1/8571/2009 dated 08.10.2010 and to quash the same and consequently directing the respondent to sponsor the name of the petitioner for employment at th level of eligibility of the petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr.F.Deepak For Respondents : Mr.V.Rajasekaran, Spl.Govt.Pleader O R D E R The petitioner has come up with the present writ petition challenging the impugned order of the respondent dated 08.10.2010 and consequently directing the respondent to sponsor his name for employment. 2.The case of the petitioner is that he had passed 9th Standard in the year 1995 and registered his name in the Employment Exchange on 09.10.1986. On 21.07.1989 he registered a certificate as additional qualification as experience and renewing his registration with the respondent office. The respondent had sponsored some of his juniors but however the case of the petitioner was not considered. The petitioner therefore made a representation to the respondent to sponsor his name for employment. By proceedings dated 15.07.2010, the respondent has replied that his name has been properly recorded in the records and there is no overlooking of his seniority. However, the respondent has sponsored the junior most candidates. While so, by an order dated 08.10.2010 he was informed that he has attained the age of 37 on 17.07.2005 and as per the Government Rules, he cannot be considered for appointment after attaining the age of 37 years, he belongs to Most Backward community. The said order is under challenge in the present writ petition. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the respondent had failed to sponsor the name of the petitioner and because of his fault the petitioner cannot be put hardship. Even assuming that such argument is to be accepted, I am of the considered view that since the petitioner has attained the age of 37 on 17.07.2005, he cannot be considered for appointment at all. In such circumstances, I am of the considered view that there exists no ground to quash the impugned order of the respondent dated 08.10.2010. 4.In view of the above said position, I am also not inclined to direct the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 10.01.2011. 5.In fine, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. It is open to the petitioner to claim damages against the respondent, if he chooses to do so and in such circumstances, it has to be decided on merits and in accordance with law. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. SD DEPUTY REGISTRAR ( ACCOUNTS ) /TRUE COPY/ ASST REGISTRAR MPK To The District Employment Officer, Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District. 1CC TO THE SPL. GOVT PLEADER SR: 5561: DM:2011::MARCH:23::: ORDER MADE IN W.P(MD)No.2669 of 2011 08.03.2011 2P:3C:: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/