IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 15.02.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN W.P. NO.1189 OF 2006 K.R.Kamala .. Petitioner Versus 1.The Government of Tamil Nadu rep. by, the Secretary to theGovernment, School Education Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009. 2.The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai – 600 006. 3.The District Educational Officer, Musiri, Trichy District. 4.The Head Master, Government High School, Kannanur, Trichy District. .. Respondents PRAYER: Writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the second respondent in O.Mu.No.65712/R8/2005 dated 17.11.2005 and quash the same and direct the respondents to appoint the Petitioner in regular time scale post with effect from 30.10.2001 (the date of appointment of her juniors in regular time scale posts) and grant her all consequential benefits. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Manoj Kumar For Respondents : Mr.S.Sivashanmugham, Government Advocate. O R D E R Heard the learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents. 2.It has been stated that the petitioner had been appointed by the fourth respondent, on 29.10.1990, as a part time sweeper. The appointment had been made through the employment exchange, Trichy. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The petitioner has been working, from the time of her appointment, till date, as a part time sweeper, in the fourth respondent school. 3.In such circumstances, the petitioner had submitted a request to the second and the third respondents, to regularise her service, as a sweeper. However, the second respondent had rejected her request, by his order, dated 17.11.2005, stating that she was overaged at the time of her appointment and that she had not obtained the necessary order for relaxing the age limit, for such appointment, from the first respondent. 4.At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had placed before this Court, an order passed by this Court, on 26.10.2009, in W.P.No.1838 of 2008, wherein a similarly situated person had been directed to be considered by the first respondent, for regularisation of her service, in the light of G.O.Ms.No.377 (Finance Department), dated 30.8.2008, and G.O.Ms.No.398 (Finance Department), dated 16.9.2008. 5.Mr.S.Sivashanmugham, the learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondents had relied on paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, which reads as follows: "5. I respectfully submit that in the above Government orders, the following conditions have been stipulated for bringing part time menials in to regular time scale of pay:- 1) At the time of initial appointment, they should be sponsored through the Employment Exchange. 2) Their Educational Qualification is to know "Read and Write" 3) At their first appointment, that is into part time menials post, they should satisfy the age rules. (i.e) 30 for others & 35 years for SC and ST. For age Criteria in Govt. Lr.33810/89-1, Dt.18.9.89 the following guidelines have been issued. "Probably they may be overaged while bringing into regular establishment. As such cases they may be appointed temporarily and then send the age relaxation proposal to the government. 4) Appointments made after 4.3.93 should not be brought into regular time scale of Pay. 5) In respect of persons who filed cases either in the Honourable Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal or in the Honourable High Court related with appointment, final orders may be passed after disposal of the case." 6.He had submitted that unless the petitioner complies with the conditions stipulated in the various orders passed by the Government, the request of the petitioner cannot be considered. However, he had https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ admitted that the only reason for rejecting the request of the petitioner, is that she was 33 years of age, at the time of her initial appointment, in the year 1990, when the age limit prescribed for such appointment was 30 years. 7.In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, it is noted that the only reason for the second respondent to reject the request of the petitioner, for regularisation of her service, is that she was overaged at the time of initial appointment in the year 1990. In such cases, it is the second respondent, who should have forwarded the request of the petitioner, to the first respondent, which is empowered to relax the age limit and the rules relating to the age limit fixed for the candidate, for such appointments. Instead, the second respondent has rejected the request of the petitioner, dated 4.7.2005, for regularisation of her appointment. 8.In view of the Government orders, in G.O.Ms.No.377 (Finance Department), dated 30.8.2008 and in G.O.Ms.No.398 (Finance Department), dated 16.9.2008, and the orders passed by this Court, on 26.10.2009, in W.P.No.1838 of 2008, the impugned order of the second respondent, dated 17.11.2005, is set aside and the second respondent is directed to forward the request of the petitioner, dated 4.7.2005, to the first respondent to obtain necessary orders for relaxing the rule fixing the age limit for making the appointment on necessary orders being passed by the first respondent, the third respondent shall pass appropriate orders, with regard to the request of the petitioner, for regularising her service, as a sweeper, in the fourth respondent school. The second respondent is directed to place of the necessary records before the first respondent, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such records, the first respondent shall pass appropriate orders thereon, within a period of twelve weeks thereafter. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar vs https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1.The Secretary to the Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, School Education Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009. 2.The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai – 600 006. 3.The District Educational Officer, Musiri, Trichy District. 4.The Head Master, Government High School, Kannanur, Trichy District. 1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.10259. 1 cc To Mr.P.Rajendran, Advocate, SR.10218. W.P. NO.1189 OF 2006 PUR(CO) RVL 24.03.2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/