R GANESAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions relate to selection to the post of Civil Judges (Junior Division) in Tamil Nadu Judicial Service, which is governed by Tamil Nadu Judicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment Rules),1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). The constitutionality of Rule 5 of the above Rules is in question.

(2.) In both the cases, the complaint is with regard to fixation of the maximum age limit of 38 years. The petitioner in W.P. No.18586 of 2003 belongs to Scheduled Caste community while in the latter writ petition W.P. No.20771 of 2003, the petitioner is a Vanniyakula Kshatriya, which is categorised as Most Backward Class.

(3.) The contention of Mr. R. Karuppan, learned counsel appearing for the MBC candidate as also Mr. Rajaram, learned counsel appearing for the Scheduled Caste candidate, is that the outer age limit should not have been fixed for the candidates belonging to the reserved categories. They also pointed out that when the notification was first issued for 31 candidates on 25.2.2003, it was correctly mentioned that the outer age limit is not applicable to the reserved categories and that in the latest notification dated 3.5.2003, the maximum outer age limit beyond 38 years is fixed with cut off date as 1.7.2003 and it is unconstitutional and illegal. Mr. R. Karuppan, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No.20771 of 2003, has relied upon the judgments rendered by the Supreme Court in (i) STATE OF KERALA v. N.M. THOMAS (AIR 1976 SC 490), (ii) P.G. INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH V. FACULTY ASSOCIATION (AIR 1998 S.C. 1764), (iii) AJIT SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB (AIR 1999 S.C. 3471) and (iv) STATE OF BIHAR v. BAL MUKUND SHAH (AIR 2000 S.C. 1296).