REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

P. Pandyrajan, Tirunelveli District Appellant

V/S

General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Nellai) Ltd., Tirunelveli District And Another Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

UNION OF INDIA VS. N HARGOPAL [REFERRED TO]
DELHI DEVELOPMENT HORTICULTURE EMPLOYEES UNION VS. DELHI ADMINISTRATION DELHI [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. PIARA SINGH [REFERRED TO]
EXCISE SUPERINTENDENT MALKAPATNAM KRISHNA DISTRICT A P VS. K B N VISWESHWARA RAO [REFERRED TO]
ARUN TEWARI VS. ZILA MANSAVI SHIKSHAK SANGH [REFERRED TO]
BINOD KUMAR GUPTA VS. RAM ASHRAY MAHOTO [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL FERTILIZER LTD VS. SOMVIR SINGH [REFERRED TO]
PRINCIPAL MEHAR CHAND POLYTECHNIC VS. ANU LAMBA [REFERRED TO]
ARUN KUMAR NAYAK VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
AVTAR SINGH HIT VS. DELHI SIKH GURDWARA MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE [REFERRED TO]
PUNJAB STATE WAREHOUSING CORPN CHANDIGARH VS. MANMOHAN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
B BHARAT KUMAR VS. OSMANIA UNIVERSITY [REFERRED TO]
TELECOM DISTRICT MANAGER VS. KESHAB DEB [REFERRED TO]
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD VS. RAKESH KUMAR ARORA [REFERRED TO]
MAN SINGH VS. COMMISSIONER GARHWAL [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BIHAR VS. UPENDRA NARAYAN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF M P VS. MD ABRAHIM [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. MAMATA MOHANTY [REFERRED TO]
RABINDRA NATH MAHATA VS. STATE OF W B [REFERRED TO]
R AMIRTHAVENI VS. DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE OFFICER [REFERRED TO]
S S SEETHAVASAN VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
P M MALATHI VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION CHENNAI [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS common order shall dispose of W.P. (MD) Nos. 11104 to 11110, 12797, 11150, 11285 to 11294, 12740, 12773, 11485 to 11489, 12494 to 12496, 11840, 11841, 11823, 12209, 12162, 12281 to 12284, 12335, 12513, 12336, 12519, 12555, 11686 to 11692, 11953, 11964, 11713, 12058, 12059, 12075 to 12079, 12161, 12148, 12541, 12528 to 12530, 12354 to 12356, 12170, 12288 to 12289, 11477, 12936 and 12973 of 2012, as the question of law raised in all these writ petitions are identical. In all the writ petitions, the petitioners pray for issuance of Writ, in the nature of mandamus, to consider the cases of the petitioners, for appointment, by giving five years age relaxation as per G.O. Ms. No. 98 Personnel and Administrative Reforms(S) Department dated 17.7.2006, and the petitioners have also challenged the process of selection, for the post of Conductors and Technicians, being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, as the selection is being conducted, by inviting applications through Employment Exchange alone, without inviting applications from all eligible candidates through Press Notification.

(2.) FOR the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from W.P. (MD) No. 12336 of 2012.

(3.) DURING the years 2007, 2010 and 2011, the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Nellai) limited, selected 800 candidates, for the post of Conductor, and the recruitment was made through the District Employment Exchange. At the time of those selections, the upper age limit was fixed at 40 years, for Backward and Most Backward Community, by giving five years age relaxation as per G.O. Ms. No. 98 Personnel and Administrative Reforms(S) Department dated 17.7.2006.

Click here to view full judgment.

P. PANDYRAJAN, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT Vs. GENERAL MANAGER, TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION (NELLAI) LTD., TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT AND ANOTHER

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address