R. RAMAMOORTHY Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, DINDIGUL DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in this writ petition is seeking for a mandamus, forbearing the second respondent from appointing any person to the post of part-time Clerk, contrary to G.O.Ms.No.175, dated 05.12.2006.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that he is a resident of Eluvanampatti village and belongs to Schedule Caste Community. A post of part-time Clerk fell vacant at the second respondent Panchayat during the year 2006. Therefore, the petitioner preferred an application on 20.04.2007 to the second respondent Panchayat. The Government of Tamil Nadu issued G.O.Ms.No.175, dated 05.12.2006 prescribing qualification to the post of part-time Clerk. As per the said G.O., the individuals should have completed 28 years at the time of appointment. The second respondent, though received many applications from the eligible candidates, including the petitioner, had chosen to appoint the third respondent to the said post. The third respondent was only 20 years old at the time of appointment and therefore, such appoint was in violation of G.O.Ms.No.175, dated 05.12.2006. Though, the Panchayat had passed a resolution to appoint the third respondent to the said post, he was not appointed so far and therefore, the present writ petition is filed seeking for a mandamus as stated supra.

(3.) IT is further stated by the second respondent that the age limit prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.175 is only an upper age limit and not as contended by the petitioner. The third respondent was aged 21 years and therefore, he was well within the upper age limit of 28 years. Several applications were received and after careful consideration and interviewing the candidates, the third respondent was appointed, based on his merit and ability and also by considering his educational qualification with computer knowledge.