S SAMARAJ Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 7.7.1999 passed by the Distict Employment Officer, Tiruvanamalai and to give a direction to the Secretary to the Government, Labour and Employment Department to relax the age limit of the petitioner and further direct the District Employment Officer, Tiruvanamalai, 4th respondent, to allot his original seniority in the employment exchange with effect from 13.10.1988.

(2.) Petitioner is the son of an Ex-serviceman and the certificate of Dependency of Ex-servicemen dated 12.10.1988 has been issued. As per G.O.Ms.No.1161, P& AR (Personnel-R) dated 22.11.1984, the petitioner is to be considered in the priority category under Group-III(i). The petitioners name was registered in the Employment Exchange at Vellore on 13.10.1988 within the North Arcot District. Subsequently North Arcot District was bifurcated into two districts, namely North Arcot Ambedkar District and Tiruvanamalai Sambuvarayar District. The petitioners name was continued in Tiruvanamalai district. During the year 1990, the petitioners name had been sponsored, but he was not selected. On enquiry, the petitioner found that though the petitioner should be considered in priority category under Group III(i), being the dependents son of Ex-serviceman, his priority was not taken into consideration. Subsequently, when these aspects were brought to the notice of the authorities concerned on the basis of the application of the petitioner, correction was made in Tiruvanamalai District Employment Exchange and the petitioners priority was entered on 3.1.1996. The petitioners grievance is that due to no fault of him, his priority category was illegally ignored and correction has been made only on 3.1.1996 and, therefore, his seniority in the Employment Exchange should be considered from 13.10.1998, when his name was registered in the Employment Exchange in the undivided district. It is further submitted that since the petitioner has reached the upper age limit in the meantime, the age limit should be relaxed so far as his concerned. For the aforesaid purpose, he had made several representations to the employment authorities and the fourth respondent by the impugned order informed the petitioner that the power to relax the upper age limit vests only with the Government. Said order is also impugned in this writ petition.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents wherein it is indicated that the petitioners seniority in the employment exchange can be counted only from 3.1.1996 in the priority category, as correction was made only on that date. It has been further indicated that the employment exchange does not have any power to relax the upper age limit.