Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
2. The petitioner has stated that he had passed Diploma in Electrical Engineering in the month of May, 1982. He had passed S.S.L.C. in the year, 1978 and Pre-University Course in the year, 1979. He had got his name registered in the District Employment Exchange, Dindigul, on 9.5.1983. While so, he had received a call letter for an interview for appointment to the post of Technical Assistant in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board in the year, 1987. Even though, he had attended the interview he had not been selected on the ground that he had not completed the apprenticeship training in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. Thereafter, he had completed the apprenticeship training in the year 1989-1990, in a private concern. Even thereafter, his name had not been sponsored for the appointment to the post of Junior Training Officer, in spite of the fact that all his juniors registered in the year 19931994 had been sponsored by the Employment Exchange. The interview for the said post had been conducted in the month of December, 2000 and the petitioner had not received any call letter for the said post. Later, he had learnt that the reason for not being called for the interview was that he was over aged, as he had crossed the age of 35 years.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that since the petitioner had passed Pre-University course, he should have been given the age relaxation. The failure on the part of the Employment Exchange to sponsor the name of the petitioner for the appointment to the post of Junior training Officer, is arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
4. In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, the claims made by the petitioner have been denied. It has been stated that since the petitioner was over aged his name could not be sponsored by the District Employment Officer, Dindigul. Since the age limit prescribed for the post of Junior Training Officer was 35 years, as on 1.7.2000, the name of the petitioner had not been sponsored by the Employment Exchange. However, as per the interim directions issued by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal ,in O.A.No.325 of 2001, the petitioner's name had been sponsored to the Directorate of Employment and Training, Chennai, vide Letter No.C1/X2/IOA.30/2000, dated 29.1.2001. The Tribunal by its order, dated 17.1.2001, had directed the second respondent to sponsor the name of the petitioner to the first respondent for the interview which had been conducted from 22.1.2001. It was also directed that on the name of the petitioner being sponsored, the first respondent should interview him along with the others. However, the results of the interview was directed to be withheld until further orders.
5. This writ petition had been adjourned on several occasions seeking relevant information from the respondents, with regard to the result of the interview. However, no such information has been furnished by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
6. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that it would suffice if the first respondent is directed to publish the results of the interview conducted from 22.1.2001 onwards and to communicate the same to the petitioner, within a specified time.
7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has no objection for this Court passing such an order.
8. In such circumstances, the first respondent is directed to publish the results of the interview that had been conducted from 22.1.2001 and communicate the same to the petitioner, if it had not been done till date, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. No costs.
csh To
1.The Director of Employment and Training, Chennai-5.
2.The District Employment Officer, Dindigul