IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 09.02.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA W.P. No.8018 of 2009 & M.P.No.1 of 2009 V.Saravanan .. Petitioner. Vs. 1. The Secretary to Government, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Secretariat, Chennai 2. The Chief Engineer Recruitment and Administrative Section Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai-2. .. Respondents. Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 15.04.2009 and to recruit the petitioner to the post of typist. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Marudhachalamurthy For Respondents : Mr.B.Sekar O R D E R The petitioner has approached this Court with the prayer for issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondents to dispose of the representation filed by the petitioner. 2. The case set up by the petitioner, is that the petitioner, being fully eligible for the post, applied for appointment, with the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. In response to the application, the petitioner was directed to fill up form, and produce it before selection committee on 15.10.2008. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that in pursuance to the letter dated 29.09.2008, the petitioner appeared before the selection committee, but thereafter, till date, he has not received any information regarding selection. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was informed, that he was not selected, being over age. 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the reason given is not available to the respondents, in view of G.O. laying down, that bar of age limit is not applicable to Backward class candidates, if they possess qualification higher than minimum general qualification. 6. In the writ petition, no case is made out to show that the petitioner was eligible. In any case, for the reasons best known to the petitioner, he has not chosen to challenge the order, rejecting his candidature for appointment being over age. The selected candidates have also not been made party to this writ. 7. In view of the admitted position, that candidature of the petitioner was rejected, rightly or wrongly, no writ of Mandamus can be issued to consider his representation, as the remedy, if any with the petitioner, is to challenge the order, rejecting his candidature. If copy is not available, it could be got under RTI Act. 8. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar ar To 1. The Secretary to Government, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Secretariat, Chennai 2. The Chief Engineer, Recruitment and Administrative Section Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai-2. 1 cc To Mr.R.Marudhachalamurthy, Advocate, SR.9931 W.P. No. 8018 of 2009 & MP NO.1 of 2009 BUR (CO) RH (3.3.11) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/