R SHIVKUMAR Vs. MEMBER SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner entered the services of the second respondent as Planning Assistant Grade IV. He possessed a Postgraduate degree and is also a Member of Indian Town and Country Planning Institute as he has successfully completed the course, which according to him, is equivalent to Master of Town Planning prescribed for the post of Assistant Planner. Two ways of recruitment have been prescribed: one by promotion and the other by way of direct recruitment. The petitioner, being the Planning Assistant Grade III, is not eligible to be promoted to the post of Assistant Planner, since Planning Assistant Grade I alone is the feeder category for the said post to be filled up by way of promotion. So far as the posts earmarked for direct recruitment are concerned, the past experience shows that the number of vacancies earmarked for direct recruitment was on the increase and the number of candidates found in the list submitted by the Employment Exchange fell short of the number of vacancies with the result that several vacancies were left unfilled year by year. Though the petitioner is not in the zone of consideration for promotion, since he has got the qualification to be appointed as the Assistant Planner directly, he also applied to the first respondent praying that his name should be considered for direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Planner. However, his application was rejected on the premise that he has crossed the upper age limit for appointment as Assistant Planner through direct recruitment. Even the representation made by the petitioner that, being a departmental candidate already employed in the very same organisation, the condition regarding upper age limit could be relaxed and he should be considered for appointment as Assistant Planner, was rejected. His request for permitting him to attend the test/interview along with the other candidates for direct recruitment was turned down by the impugned order of the first respondent dated 03.04.2007 bearing Memo No.E2/4672/2007. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus for the quashing of the said order of the first respondent dated 03.04.2007 and a consequent direction directing the respondents to consider the name of the petitioner for appointment as Assistant Planner under direct recruitment category by relaxing the upper age limit in terms of the service regulations contained in G.O.Ms.No.210 dated 26.02.1980.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that long back in 2001 itself the alarming situation of ever increasing vacancies in the post of Assistant Planner without getting sufficient number of candidates sponsored from the Employment Exchange was discussed in the Board of the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority and it was resolved that when persons with same or higher qualifications as prescribed for direct recruitment posts are available within the organisation, they might be considered for direct recruitment provided, they would compete with the other candidates sponsored for direct recruitment either in the test or in the interview and that in view of such a resolution, a number of persons employed in the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority in the lower categories were allowed to compete with the candidates sponsored by the Employment exchange not only for the post of Assistant Planner but also for other posts and in such cases the first respondent appointed them relaxing upper age limit even though the selected departmental candidates had crossed the upper age limit. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that when a power was conferred on the first respondent to relax the age limit in respect of the departmental candidates for being considered for direct recruitment, such power cannot be exercised arbitrarily, that too, by showing discrimination by adopting pick and choose method. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the first respondent, having relaxed the upper age limit in respect of other candidates on previous occasions, surprisingly declined the request of the petitioner to relax the upper age limit in the case of the petitioner for being appointed as Assistant Planner by direct recruitment and that the said procedure adopted by the first respondent is discriminatory offending the equality clause and equal protection clause enshrined in article 14 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) The learned standing counsel for the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority has made an attempt to contend that the resolution dated 22.01.2001 simply permitted the authority to consider persons within the organization possessing same or higher qualification as prescribed for direct recruitment, provided they also compete with the other candidates sponsored for direct recruitment either in the test or in the interview and that the resolution does not contemplate relaxation of upper age limit.