(1.) This is a writ petition seeking a declaration that Section 20(4)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 [for brevity, "the 2016 Act"] and the Notification issued on 1.1.2020 by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission are unconstitutional, being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and for a further direction to permit the petitioners to participate in the selection for Group-I posts pursuant to the notification dated 1.1.2020, by reckoning the prescribed maximum age limit as on 1.7.2019 instead of 1.7.2020.
(2.) The petitioners, in essence, therefore seek a declaration to the effect that the prescription in Section 20(4)(iii) of 2016 Act should be read in a manner so as to treat 1.7.2019 as the cut-off date for the age prescription and not 1.7.2020. In order to understand the controversy, Section 20(4) of the 2016 Act is extracted herein under:
(3.) The contention of Mr.Giridhar, learned counsel is that the phrase "first July of the year in which the vacancy is notified" occurring in Clause (iii) of Section 20(4) of the 2016 Act should be construed as the year in which the vacancy is declared and is notified by the Government to the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission for proceeding with the recruitment. The argument is that if upon occurrence the vacancy had been intimated to the Public Service Commission in the year 2019, then the prescription of age has to be reckoned as on 1.7.2019. He contends that in the present case the advertisement issued on 1.1.2020 by the Public Service Commission cannot be the date of notification of the vacancy and, therefore, it is erroneous on the part of the respondents to advertise 1.7.2020 as the date of reckoning of the age prescription, which is 37 years in the present case. Admittedly, the petitioners had not completed 37 years of age as on 1.7.2019, but they are all beyond the age of 37 years as on 1.7.2020, thereby making them ineligible for appearing in the examinations under the impugned notification.