V MANIVASAGAM Vs. DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER THANJAVUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved against the order of the State Administrative Tribunal dated 22.09.2003 passed in O.A.No.3914 of 1993.

(2.) THE brief facts which are required to be stated are that the petitioner and the fourth respondent applied for the post of Village Assistant of Neithalur Village, Papanasam Taluk. THE petitioner came to be appointed for the said post by an order of appointment dated 29.07.1991. THE order of appointment stated that the petitioner had passed tenth standard and that previously he had temporarily worked as an Assistant, apart from the fact that he was living in that village itself. On the above grounds, the appointment of the petitioner was preferred. Aggrieved against the order of appointment issued to the petitioner, the fourth respondent preferred an appeal before the second respondent. THE second respondent, after considering the appeal and after hearing the petitioner held that the petitioner attained the age of 21 years only on 09.04.1991 and therefore, his past temporary experience when he was below the minimum age cannot be taken into account.

(3.) MR.G.Rajan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner took us through the Transfer Certificate issued to the petitioner by the School in support of his stand, that in the said Certificate in column No.10 which specifically mentions as to the class in which the concerned student was studying at the time when the Transfer Certificate was issued, wherein it is stated that the petitioner was doing his tenth standard at that point of time. The learned counsel for the petitioner therefore contended that when the petitioner produced the Certificate which has also been referred to by the second respondent in his order, there was no reason for the petitioner to claim that he passed tenth standard for the purpose of securing the appointment.