IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20.09.2010 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN W.P.No.2141 of 2007 (O.A.NO.4348 of 2001) S.Srikhan ... Petitioner Versus 1. The Divisional Engineer, Highways and Rural Development, Cuddalore – 1. 2. The Chief Engineer, Highways and Rural Development Department, Chennai – 5. ... Respondents PRAYER: This Writ Petition came to be numbered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus, by way of transfer of O.A.No.4348 of 2000, to quash the letter dated 28.01.2000 vide the first respondent's Lr.Ka.No.6897/99/AA3 and to direct the first respondent to issue an order of appointment to the petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Ganesh Babu For Respondents: Mrs.Lita Srinivasan Government Advocate O R D E R The second respondent issued a notification in Tamil Dailies calling for applications for the post of "Salai Paniyalar". 2. Based on the said notification, thousands of persons including the petitioner applied for the post of 'Salai Paniyalar' to the first respondent. The petitioner belongs to Chidambaram Taluk in Cuddalore District. He belongs to Scheduled Caste. He passed 9th standard. But, he failed in 10th standard. Already, he served in the road works carried out in Chidambaram Sub-Division of the Highways and Rural Development Department from 1994 to 1997. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. The Divisional Engineer, Cuddalore, the first respondent herein, issued a notification in Tamil Dailies calling for the applicants to appear for interview, at different places. The persons belonging to Chidambaram Taluk were directed to appear in the Travellers Bungalow at Kuringipadi on 06.09.1997 at 10.00 am, if the applicants passed the Standards V to X. It is also stated that the applicants should bring spade, Basket, Crowbar and billhook (1/kz;btl;o 2/ Til 3/ flg;ghiw 4/ mhpths;). The applicants were also directed to bring Community Certificate as well as Transfer Certificate issued by the School. 4.Since thousands of persons applied for the post, the method of selection was made by way of lots. The petitioner was also one among the total candidates, out of 22,000 'Salai Paniyalargal', who were selected. However, the petitioner was not issued the appointment order on the ground that he did not complete 18 years of age on the date of notification i.e., as on 15.07.1997. In the Transfer Certificate submitted by the petitioner, his date of birth is 12.01.1980. According to him, the parents of the petitioner gave wrong date of birth to the School, where he studied. Hence, the petitioner produced his Birth Certificate issued by the Deputy Tahsildar, Revenue Department, Chidambaram to the effect that his date of birth is 15.05.1978. But the respondents did not issue appointment order to the petitioner. Thereafter, the first respondent passed the impugned order dated 28.01.2000 stating that the petitioner did not complete 18 years in June 1997, as his date of birth could not be ascertained. 5. In these circumstances, the petitioner has filed the Original Application in O.A.No.4348 of 2000, to quash the order dated 28.01.2000 of the first respondent and for a consequential direction to the first respondent to issue an order of appointment to the petitioner. 6. On abolition of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.2141 of 2007. 7. The first respondent filed reply affidavit, stating that date of birth of the petitioner is 12.01.1980, as per the Transfer Certificate produced by him, when he appeared for the interview on 06.09.1997. 8. Heard Mr.R.Ganesh Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.Lita Srinivasan, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the notification issued by the second respondent calling for the applications, it is nowhere stated that the petitioner should be https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ above the age of 18 years. It is submitted that when the petitioner produced the Birth Certificate, the petitioner ought to have been given appointment order. It is also submitted that the petitioner has already worked in Chidambaram Sub-Division, as a Salai Paniylar, on temporary basis from 1994 onwards. It is also pointed out that the nature of the job is an unskilled one. 10. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate fairly submits that the lower age limit of 18 years was prescribed by Rule 12 (bbb) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules only with effect from 23.08.2005. She also fairly submits that the notification also does not prescribe lower age limit, while upper age limit is prescribed. The learned Government Advocate fairly submits that the lot was set-aside by the Court proceedings and a direction was issued to select all the persons and all the persons were selected. 11. I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 12. The notification calling for applications states the following as the required qualifications for the appointment of Salai Paniyalar and the same is extracted here-under:- "jFjp:- 1/ ey;y cly;thF bgw;wth;fs; 2/ me;je;j khtl;lj;ij nrh;e;jth;fs; 3/ taJ tuk;g[ 35f;F nkw;glhjth;fs; 4/ Ie;jhk; tFg;g[ tiuapyhtJ goj;jth;fs;" Nowhere it is stated that the applicants should be above 18 years of age, while it is stated that he/she should not be above 35 years of age. Admittedly, the petitioner satisfied all the qualifications prescribed in the notification. It is also admitted that he was one of the persons selected in the lot. As rightly contended by the learned Government Advocate the lot was set-aside and this Court directed to select all the persons and the direction was also complied with. Furthermore, the statement of the petitioner in the application form that he has already been in service as a temporary Salai Paniyalar from 1994, is not disputed. Moreover, when the first respondent issued a notification directing the applicants, who belong to Chidambarak Taluk, to appear on 06.09.1997 at Travellers Bungalow, Kurinigipadi, the applicants were directed to bring spade, Basket, Crowbar and billhook (1/kz;btl;o 2/ Til 3/ flg;ghiw 4/ mhpths;), as the work that is to be carried out by the applicants is of unskilled nature. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 13. The impugned order states that as per the Government guidelines the age should be 18 years for the applicants. But no such Government Guidelines was produced before this Court. In the notification, as stated above, the requirement was that the applicants should not be above 35 years of age. Nowhere it is stated in the notification that the applicants should not be lesser than 18 years of age. 14. As fairly stated by the learned Government Advocate, there is no special rule for the service and Rule 12 (bbb) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rule prescribes 18 years as the minimum age, which came into effect only on 23.08.2005. The Rule 12 (bbb) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rule is extracted here-under:- "12 (bbb) No person shall be eligible for appointment to any service by direct recruitment including appointment on compassionate grounds, unless he has completed 18 years of age on the first day of July of the year in which the vacancy is notified with effect from 23.08.2005" 15. Under such circumstances, the impugned order is arbitrary and is opposed to the very notification issued by the second respondent calling for the applications for the post of Salai Paniyalar. 16. Hence, the impugned order is quashed and the respondents are directed to issue appointment order to the petitioner as Salai Paniyalar, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 17. The writ petition is allowed on the above terms. No costs. Sd/- Asst.Registrar /True Copy/ Sub.Asst.Registrar r n s https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1. The Divisional Engineer, Highways and Rural Development, Cuddalore – 1. 2. The Chief Engineer, Highways and Rural Development Department, Chennai – 5. + 1 cc to Mr.R. Ganesh Babu, Advocate SR.SR.68882 + 1 cc to the Government Pleader SR.69290 W.P.No.2141 of 2007 (O.A.No.4348 of 2000) GR(CO) Eu 5.10.2010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/