appeals Vs.
P.Elangovan : 1st Respondent/writ petitioner in W.A.(MD) No.822 of 2017 S.Marimuthu : 1st Respondent/writ petitioner in W.A.(MD) No.823 of 2017 The District Employment Officer, O/o. District Employment Office, Theni District, Theni. : 2ndRespondent/2ndRespondent in both appeals COMMON PRAYER: Writ Appeals are filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order of this Court in W.P.(MD)Nos.11771 and 11800 of 2010 on the file of this Court dated 02.12.2014.
[Judgment of the Court was made T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.] Heard Mr.V.Muruganantham, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellant and Mr.M.Ajmal Khan,learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent.
2. By consent of either side, these writ appeals are taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission.
3. These appeals are directed against the order passed in W.P.(MD)Nos.11771 and 11800 of 2010 on the file of this Court dated 02.12.2014.
4.The issue that arose for consideration is whether the 1st respondent / writ petitioners, who did not acquire the required qualification on the cut of date fixed by the appellant board, but, had acquired and registered the said qualification on the date when the list was called for from the appellant board for selection, are eligible to be considered for selection as Graduate Assistants.
5.The Writ Court took into consideration an earlier order passed by this Court in P.Baskaran Vs. Teachers Recruitment Board, represented by Member-Secretary (2014) 6 MLJ 232 and also the case of one Ramasubbu, who was also a similarly placed person as that of the 1st respondent/writ petitioners, who did not possess the requisite qualification on the cut of date but acquired the required qualification on the date when the list was sponsored by the appellant.
6.It is pointed out by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellant that the said Ramasubbu was considered for selection under a different category as he belongs to Scheduled Cast Community.
7.However, the question is whether Ramasubbu could have been considered when he did not have the requisite qualification as on the cut of date, namely, 23.08.1994, but only acquired the qualification only in April, 2006. This alone is the point to be considered and not the category under which the said candidate was selected. Thus, the view taken by the learned Single Judge following an earlier decision does not call for any interference.
8.For the above reasons, these Writ Appeals fail and are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed.
To The District Employment Officer, O/o. District Employment Office, Theni District, Theni..