1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 25.01.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. DHANAPALAN W.P.(MD) No.912 of 2011 P.Gowdul Auklam S/o.K.Pakkir Mohamed No.97 Chinnammal Koil Street, Sitharevu, Iyampalayam Via, Dindigul District,Dindigul. ... Petitioner vs. 1.The Managing Director, Tamilnadu Police Housing Corporation, Chennai. 2.The Director (Employment Wing) Directorate of Employment and Training, Guindy, Chennai-32. 3.The District Employment Officer, District Employment Office, Dindigul. ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the first respondent to call the petitioner for interview for recruitment to the post of Technical Assistant (Civil) and appoint the petitioner accordingly in the said post if found eligible. For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy For Respondents : Mr.V.Rajasekaran Special Government Pleader O R D E R By consent, the Writ Petition is taken up for disposal. Heard Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, counsel for the petitioner and Mr.V.Rajasekaran, Special Government Pleader for the respondents. 2.This writ petition has been filed praying to direct the first respondent to call the petitioner for interview for recruitment to the post of Technical Assistant (Civil) and appoint the petitioner accordingly in the said post if found eligible. 3.The grievance of the petitioner appears to be that he belongs to backward Muslim category and having qualified in Higher Secondary Course with Diploma in Civil Engineering registered his name with the third respondent employment exchange on 06.07.1989 and thereafter he was waiting for employment, but however, his name was not sponsored till date. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 On 07.10.2010, he came to know that the third respondent sponsored the name of the petitioner to the second respondent and his name find place in Serial No.54. However, he has not received any call letter, therefore he has sent a representation to the second respondent. Till date, his representation has not been considered and hence this petition. 4.After elaborate argument and discussions, the learned counsel would make a plea that the petitioner has represented to the second respondent on 06.01.2011, if that representation is disposed of, the grievance of the petitioner would be redressed. Therefore, he restricted his relief to the extent of directing the second respondent to consider the representation. 5.The learned Special Government Pleader on going through the material records annexed in the typed set of papers submits that there is age restriction. For which, the learned counsel replied by pointing out that the list sponsored by the third respondent for the age limit and the prescribed age limit is upto 57 years and therefore, there is no such restriction. 6.In that view of the matter, without going into the merits of the case, the second respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 06.01.2011 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and on merits within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs. Sd/- Deputy Registrar(W) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To : 1.The Managing Director, Tamilnadu Police Housing Corporation, Chennai. 2.The Director (Employment Wing) Directorate of Employment and Training, Guindy, Chennai-32. 3.The District Employment Officer, District Employment Office, Dindigul. +One cc to Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, Advocate, SR.No.3169 +One CC to The Spl. Govt. Pleader, SR.No.3011 RR rl/6c – 7.2.2011 W.P.No.912 of 2011 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/