By consent of both parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.
2.The present writ petition has been filed challenging the correctness of the impugned order dated 21.08.2017, in and by which the application of the petitioner was returned on the ground that she was over aged as per the age qualification mentioned in the notification for the post of Anganwadi Worker.
3.The petitioner who belongs to Backward Community, on completion of the school studies, have registered her name in the District Employement Exchange. Later, she has also completed M.Com and DTP in tailoring. When the third respondent herein invited applications for appointment to the post of Child Nutrition Worker at Pudukottai, the petitioner applied to the post of Anganwadi Worker Orathipatti Anganwadi Centre, Kolathur Taluk, Pudukottai on 26.11.2014. But, the selection process was cancelled by the respondent without any reason.
4.Now, the third respondent has again called for applications to fill up 1147 posts altogether, three types of Anganwadi Workers and 574 posts of Anganwadi Workers including Orathipatti Anganwadi Centre, Kolathur Taluk, Pudukottai district. Therefore, the petitioner again applied to the said post on 17.08.2017. Unfortunately, she was not called for the interview. Hence, the petitioner approached the fourth respondent and gave a representation in person, requesting him to grant age relaxation of three months. But, the third respondent vide proceedings in Na.Ka.No.153/2017 dated 21.08.2017, rejected the representation of the petitioner, citing the reason that the petitioner was above thirty five years as on 01.07.2017.
5.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the third respondent after inviting applications from the candidates for filling up the said post in the year 2014, had not cancelled the selection process, the petitioner would have participated successfully before attaining the age for disqualification. As the first respondent had cancelled the selection process, the learned counsel for the petitioner pleaded for a direction to the respondents to grant age relaxation to the petitioner.
6.This Court finds it difficult to entertain the request of the petitioner, as it is not known for what reason the previous selection process was cancelled by the first respondent. However, when the present notification was issued by the third respondent the cut-off age limit has been fixed as 01.07.2017. and the petitioner does not come under the aforementioned age limit namely 35 years as on 01.07.2017.
7.The Writ Petition stands dismissed, accordingly. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.
To
1.The Special Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Department, Secretariat, Chennai.
2.The District Collector, Pudukottai District, Pudukottai.
3.The Project Director, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Program, Pudukottai District.
4.The Integrated Child Development Project Officer, Office of the Integrated Child Development Project, Kunrandarkovil, Keeranur, Pudukottai District.
.