The petitioner before this Court challenges the order of the 3rd respondent, whereby the 5th respondent was appointed as driver in the office of the 2nd respondent.
2.The case of the petitioner is that he has completed S.S.L.C in the year 1995 and obtained ITI certificate in Motor Mechanic and also have license to drive heavy vehicle. The petitioner belonged to Scheduled Community and he registered his name before the 4th respondent on 23.06.1995. The petitioner was placed in top of seniority list in open competition (General Term Non- priority) category. In the meanwhile despite of his full eligibility and being senior most in the category of open competition (General Term Non- priority), excluding the name of the petitioner, the 4th respondent has sponsored a list of panel which contained the name of the 5th respondent, who is not eligible and over aged as against the prescribed age in government orders.
3.On considering and conducting interview from the sponsored panel list, the 3rd respondent has illegally and erroneously appointed the 5th respondent as Driver, without considering the fact that the 5th respondent is over aged as he was 39 years old on the date of appointment, whereas the prescribed age limit was 35 years to a candidate to be appointed in open competition (General Term Non-priority).
4.Based on the above said panel sent by the 4th respondent, the 2nd & 3rd respondent erroneously and without considering the age and seniority list has appointed the over aged 5th respondent in the post of driver.
5.Hence the petitioner by challenging the said appointment order of the 5th respondent, the present writ petition has been filed with further prayer for a direction to the 2nd and 3rd respondent to conduct the selection a fresh for appointment made in the place of 5th respondent open competition (General Term Non-priority).
6.The 3rd respondent filed counter and contented that two posts in the cadre of Jeep Driver fell vacant in his office. Hence for filling up the two vacancies, list of names containing the eligible candidates was called for from the 4th respondent. Among the two vacancies, one post reserved for B.C- non priority and another for General Turn non priority. Accordingly the 4th respondent forwarded a list of 5 eligible candidates, wherein the 5th respondent stood arrayed in serial number 5. Thereafter interview was conducted and the 5th respondent came to be appointed on merits.
7.The Learned Special Government Pleader further submitted that the writ petition is devoid of merits on factual grounds too, that the present writ petition is being filed belatedly after a period of two years from the date of joining of duty by the 5th respondent, whereas the 5th respondent has joined duty as early as on 16.11.2010. Further it is contended that if at all the petitioner is having any grievance regarding the non inclusion of his name in the seniority list sent by the 4th respondent, he ought have challenged the said list, however, the petitioner failed to challenge it. Hence, he prayed this Court for dismissal of the writ petition.
8.I heard Mr.S.Sukumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.K.Guru, learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents 1 to 4.
9.Admittedly in the case on hand, there is no dispute on either side over the age of 5th respondent that he is 39 years old. The main contention put forth by the petitioner is also the same, contending that a candidate who has crossed the age of 35 years is ineligible to be appointed under open competition (General Term Non-priority). At this juncture, it is to be noted that the present appointment of the 5th respondent is made under Rule 3 of Adhoc rules for the post of driver of District Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (E3) Department, dated 14.12.2009 wherein the maximum age limit as on 01.07.2010 for S.C/S.T candidates is 40 years and in respect of the other candidates remains 30 years.
10.In view of the above said age relaxation for the S.C/S.T candidates, the 5th respondent who is aged about 39 years is found to be eligible. Further on perusal of typed set of papers filed by the petitioner itself, it is noticeable that all the 5 candidates sponsored by the 4th respondent do have their date of registration much prior to the date of registration of the petitioner. Further, from the typed set of papers filed by the petitioner, it is evident that the 5th respondent has joined the service as early as on 15.02.2011 and a service register is also being duly maintained. However, the petitioner having been idle for about 1 year from the date of appointment of the 5th respondent, has come up with the present writ petition on 28.02.2012 and hence, the petitioner is not make out the case and the same is liable to be dismissed on the ground of latches.
11.Thus in the above said factual and legal background, this Court is of the view that there is no illegality committed by the 3rd respondent in appointing the 5th respondent under open competition (General Term Non- priority) at the age of 39 years, provided that the rules permits 40 years as the cut off age for the appointment of candidates belonging to the SC/ ST community.
12.In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
To
1.The Commissioner of Rural Development and Panjayat Raj, Panagal Building, Saidapettai, Chennai ? 600 015.
2.The Project Officer, Rural Development, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
3.The District Collector, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
4.The District Employment Officer, District Employment Office, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District..