P KUMARESAN Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the B.E (Mechanical Engineering) Graduate. He passed the said degree in the year 1992 with 59% marks. After undergoing apprenticeship training, he got himself registered with the Professional and Executive Employment Exchange, Santhome, Chennai on 05.03.1996. THE petitioner's land was acquired by the Government of Tamil Nadu for Adi-Dravidar Welfare Scheme and consequently, the petitioner became entitled to priority employment in terms of G.O.No.188 P & AR Department dated 20.12.1976.

(2.) ON 12.05.1998, the petitioner received an interview card from the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, Salem, to attend the interview on 06.06.1998. However, the petitioner was not allowed to attend the interview stating that he did not hold I class in the B.E. degree. According to the petitioner, for the recruitment to the post of Assistant Engineer (Mechanical), as per the Transport Corporation service rules, the required qualification is a degree in Automobile or Mechanical Engineering awarded by a recognised university. The petitioner made a representation and since it did not evoke any response, he filed W.P.No.8839 of 2008 and this Court passed an order directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 14.03.2008. While considering the said representation, the authorities rejected the application by order dated 09.05.2008 holding that the petitioner does not have a 1st class in the B.E., degree course. This was challenged in W.P.No.22510 of 2008 and the learned single Judge interpreting the service rules held that the rejection of the petitioner's claim was bad and the authorities were directed to sponsor the name of the petitioner for appointment as Assistant Engineer in the Transport Corporation, within the time frame. The Transport Department went on appeal. The Division Bench in W.A.No.758 of 2010 dismissed appeal filed by the Transport Depoartment, on 08.06.2010, confirming the order of the learned single Judge.

(3.) MR.K.Duraisamy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner stated that the candidate belongs to Backward Class Community and he is entitled to appointment upto the age of 40 (35 + 5) in terms of Government Order No. 73865/BPE/2006 dated 04.12.2006. The rejection of the petitioner's claim on 24.07.2010 prior to the petitioner attaining the age of 40 is bad. Even on the date when the impugned order was passed, the petitioner did not reach the age of 40 and therefore the rejection order is premature and shows total non-application of mind and arbitrariness. It is a malafide act on the part of the respondents to reject the claim which has been granted by Court after considering the merits of the petitioner's claim. It is contended that the benefit that will flow to the petitioner will be the date of order of the single Judge which has been confirmed by the Division Bench and not the date of the impugned order. Therefore, the authorities are bound to accept the petitioner's claim for appointment atleast from the date of the order of the single Judge. The plea now raised by the respondents was not canvassed before the learned single Judge or before the appellate Court.