1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH Court DATED: 29.10.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN Writ Petition(MD)No.8161 of 2011 R.Theethakarai .. Petitioner Vs. 1. The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar. 2. The Block Development Officer (Panchayats), Narikudi Panchayat Union, Narikudi, Virudhunagar District. 3. The President, Pillayarkulam Village Panchayat, Narikudi Panchayat Union, Pulvaikarai (PO), Thirupuvanam via, Virudhunagar District. .. Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records in Na.Ka.A1/375/10 dated 6.1.2011 on the file of the second respondent herein and quash the same as illegal, and direct the second respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner for the post of Panchayat Clerk in the third respondent Panchayat. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Sudalai Muthu For Respondents : Mr.K.P.Krishnadoss, Government Advocate for R1 & R2 Mr.A.Muthukaruppan for R3 O R D E R The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition challenging an order passed by the second respondent rejecting the request of the petitioner for appointment as Panchayat Assistant, on the ground that he has crossed the upper age limit for appointment. 2.Heard Mr.N.Sudalai Muthu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.A.Muthukaruppan, learned counsel for the third respondent. Mr.K.P.Krishnadoss, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents 1 and 2. 3.Admittedly, the date of birth of the petitioner is 07.05.1973 and he had crossed 38 years of age as on date. The Government Order G.O.Ms.No.175, Rural Development and Panchayat Department, dated 05.12.2006, prescribes under Clause-IV of the Annexure to the Government Order that persons seeking appointment to the post of Panchayat Assistants, should not have completed 28 years of age in the month of July of the year in which the recruitment takes place. However, for candidates belonging to Backward classes, Most Backward classes, Adi- Dravidars and Schedules Tribes, the upper age limit was fixed as 33 as of the month of July of the year in which the recruitment is made. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4.The petitioner sought appointment in the year 2010 when he had already crossed the upper age limit at least by four years and more. Therefore, the second respondent was right in rejecting his request. 5.However, the only point on which the petitioner has come up before this Court is that the Government ordered relaxation in the upper age limit of aspirants to Government Service by five years in G.O.Ms.No. 114, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department, dated 11.08.2010. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner is that he is entitled to relaxation in the upper age limit by five years in pursuance of the Government Order. 6.However, there is no dispute that the Government Order G.O.Ms.No.114, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department, dated 11.08.2010, came into existence for the purpose of benefiting the unemployed youth affected by the ban on recruitment. The ban on recruitment was in force from 2001 to 2006. It was lifted in 2006. Therefore, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.98, Personnel and Administrative Reforms(S) Department, dated 17.07.2006 granting a relaxation of the upper age limit by five years. The post to which the petitioner seeks appointment, was not in Government Service. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of the Government Order. 7.Relying upon G.O.Ms.No.175, Rural Development and Panchayat Department, dated 05.12.2006, by which a time scale of pay was granted by the Government to the post of Panchayat Assistants, the petitioner contends that the post is in Government Service. But the said Government Order came into existence in December 2006. The ban order was in force from 2001 to 2006 and was lifted much prior to the issue of G.O.Ms.No.175. Therefore, the post was not in Government Service at the time when the ban order was passed. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be taken to be a person affected by the ban order insofar as the post of Panchayat Assistant is concerned. Hence, there are no merits in the writ petition and the writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2011 is closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Crl. Side) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar (C.S) To 1. The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar. 2. The Block Development Officer (Panchayats), Narikudi Panchayat Union, Narikudi, Virudhunagar District. 3. The President, Pillayarkulam Village Panchayat, Narikudi Panchayat Union, Pulvaikarai (PO), Thirupuvanam via, Virudhunagar District. + 1 cc to The Special Government Pleader, SR No.37198 W.P.(MD)No.8161 of 2011 KM/RJ/9.11.11/(2p/5c) 29.10.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/