IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 26.02.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. VENUGOPAL W.P.No.7033 of 2003 S.Mohideen Batcha .. Petitioner vs 1.Government of Tamilnadu, Rep. by Secretary to Government, Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009. 2.The Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Chennai 600 010. 3.The Managing Director, Salem District Central Co-operative Bank Limited,Salem 636 001. 4.The District Employment Officer, Salem. .. Respondents Writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner in the Salem District Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Salem in a suitable post commensurate with his qualification. For Petitioner ... Mr.M.Ravi For 1st, 2nd and 4th Respondents ... Mrs.C.K.Vishnupriya AGP (writs) For 3rd Respondent ... No Appearance https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E R The petitioner has filed this Writ of Mandamus in directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner in the third respondents/Bank, Salem in a suitable post commensurate with his qualification. 2.According to the petitioner, at the time of filing the writ petition, he has studied up to B.A. (Corporate Secretariateship) Degree Course and is yet to appear for the examination and he had undergone Diploma Course in Co-operation in Nachiappa Co-operative Training Institute, Salem during the year 1988-89 and passed in Second Class. 3.Later, he registered his name in the District Employment Exchange, Salem on 28.7.1989 in order to secure suitable employment commensurate with his Educational and other qualifications. Further, he had undergone Diploma Course in Co- operation and successfully passed the examination. His name was sponsored in August 1997 by the Employment Exchange to the third respondent/Co-operative Bank for recruitment as Assistant, but he was not selected. 4.The third respondent/Co-operative Bank took steps to fill up the vacancies in the post of Assistants, Junior Assistants, Typists, Office Assistants etc. and obtained a list of candidates from the District Employment Exchange, Salem and interview call letters were sent to so many candidates to appear for the interview. The District Employment Officer, Salem had sent the lists by his Lr.No.X.2/41/2001, dated 08.02.2001 and 09.09.2001 and interview call letters were sent to the candidates to appear for interview on 27.02.2001 as per reference in Na.Ka.No.2395/92/Ni.1, dated 15.02.2001. 5.The petitioner and others had not received the call letter because they came to know that their names were not sponsored by the Employment Exchange for this recruitment, in as much as they crossed the upper age limit prescribed viz., 30 years for General candidates and 35 years for BC/MBC/DNC/SC/ST communities. 6.The upper age limit prescribed for appointment in any post in Co-operative Institution was 30 years in the case of General Candidates and 35 years in the case of BC/MBC/DNC/SC/ST communities, as per Rules 149 (4) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules 1988. The petitioner crossed the upper age limit of 35 years as on 01.03.2000 and he was advised that he could not get appointment in any Co-operative institution unless the Government pass the orders in respect of considering the upper age limit for him. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7.Therefore, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation dated 12.04.2001 to the Government to grant relaxation in his favour from the provision of Rule 149 (4) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules with regard to the upper age limit so as to enable him to get himself appointed as Assistant in the third respondent/Co-operative Bank. 8.Earlier, the petitioner filed W.P.No.12027 of 2001 praying for the relief of issuance of a Writ of Mandamus in directing the first respondent to pass orders in granting relaxation of Rule pertaining to the upper age limit. However, the said writ petition came to be dismissed on 02.07.2001 with an observation that such relief could not be granted. 9.Though the first respondent/Government had not passed orders on his representation dated 12.04.2001, since the Government had passed orders in the case of other similarly placed persons rejecting their claim for relaxation of a wrong view, Writ Petition Nos.7989 to 7995 of 2002 were dismissed by a common order passed by this Court on 02.07.2002 and hence Writ Appeals were filed. 10.The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that except the fact that the petitioner had crossed the upper age limit prescribed for the post of Assistant, he was fully qualified and eligible in other respects for appointment as Assistant in the third respondent/Co-operative Bank and as per Rule 141 (4) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules he was not in a position to get any appointment in Co-operative institution and even otherwise as per Rule 12 (d) of General Rules for Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service, the upper age limit prescribed in the Rules for a post would be applied to persons belonging to BC/MBC/SC/ST who possess higher educational qualification than the prescribed in the Rules and since the petitioner possesses higher qualification, the upper age limit should not be applied. In any case and no relaxation was necessary at all and further, the petitioner submitted his representation dated 10.08.2002 to the authorities explaining the above facts but no orders were passed and considering the petitioner's educational and other qualifications coupled with seniority in the registration of his name in Employment Exchange, he was entitled to be appointed in a suitable post commensurate with his qualification in the third respondent/Co-operative Bank and therefore prays for allowing the writ petition to secure the ends of justice. 11.In response, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1, 2 and 4 contends that the petitioner registered his name at the District Employment Exchange https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Office, Salem under Registration No.15265/96/89 on 28.7.1989 with his qualification of Higher Secondary Course and Diploma in Co- operation and his Date of Birth was 01.05.1965 and he belonged to Labbai Community (Backward community) and the third respondent/Co- operative Bank, Salem notified 148 vacancies for the post of Assistant as per Notification No.2395/92/Ni.1 dated 01.03.2001 to the District Employment Office, Salem and the upper age limit for the post of Assistant was 35 years as determined by the third respondent and the qualification for the said post was either in Graduation and Diploma in Co-operation or Degree in Co-operation and further, the petitioner was not a graduate and since he completed Higher Secondary Course and Diploma in Co-operation only, he was not eligible and therefore, his name could not be sponsored by the third respondent/Co-operative Bank and as such, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is de-void of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed by this Court. 12.Advancing the arguments, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1, 2 and 4 contends that in pursuance of the notification issued in G.O.Ms.No.57, Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection Department dated 21.2.2001, the second respondent had called for list of candidates on 1:1 ratio basis for the following posts from Salem District Employment Exchange which runs as follows: Sl.No NAME OF THE POST No. 1 Assistants including Steno-Typist, Typist Jewel Appraiser and Telephone Operator 160 2 Sub Staff 61 Total 221 and the Assistant Director, District Employment Exchange, Salem sponsored the list of candidates on various dates for the aforesaid cadre and the verification of records of the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange was done at the Headquarters on 22.03.2001 and on this process, the candidates who had crossed the age limit of 35 years were disqualified and the details of which are as follows: Sl.No Item Assistants Sub-Staff 1 No.of candidates sponsored by the employment exchange 157 61 2 Candidates disqualified in respect of age qualification 5 --- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sl.No Item Assistants Sub-Staff 3 Candidates disqualified in respect of Employment in other institutions including those who have produced no objection certificate from their employees. 47 --- 4 Those who have not produced specified certificate 2 --- 5 Total No. of candidates disqualified 54 --- and notwithstanding the fact that the Employment Exchange had sponsored the candidates who crossed the age limit prescribed and who were already employed in other institutions, the third respondent/Co-operative Bank had not considered their applications and rejected them and that process was over only in the late- evening (night) of 22.03.2001 and the appointment orders were despatched on the morning of 23.03.2001 by courier service and in the instant case on hand, the petitioner's Date of Birth was 01.03.1965 as mentioned by him in his affidavit and therefore, he had crossed the maximum age limit of 35 years on 1.03.2000 itself for entering into Co-operative Service and the Bank had called for the eligible candidates for recruitment only on 1.3.2001 and that the District Employment Exchange had not sponsored his name because of the fact that he was over aged in the list of candidates and therefore, the question of considering his name for appointment in the Bank does not arise on any score. 13.On a careful consideration of the respective contentions and taking note of the fact that the petitioner had crossed the maximum age limit of 35 years on 01.03.2000 itself for entry into Co-operative Service and in as much as the third respondent/Co- operative Bank had called for the list of eligible candidates for recruitment only on 01.03.2001 and all the more when the District Employment Exchange had not sponsored the petitioner's name because of the obvious reason that he was over aged, the issue of considering his name for appointment in the third respondent/Co- operative Bank does not arise on legal plane and viewed in that perspective, the writ petition is de-void of merits and the same fails. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 14.In the result, the writ petition is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Sd/- Asst.Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar. cla To 1.The Secretary to Government, Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009. 2.The Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Chennai 600 010. 3.The District Employment Officer, Salem. 1 cc to Government Pleader, Sr. 13820 1 cc to Mr. M. Ravi, Advocate, SR. 13626 W.P.No.7033 of 2003 MDR (CO) kk 12/3 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/