JOINT DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION), HIGHWAYS DEPARTMENT Vs. V MAGUDEESWARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellant and Mr.M.Govindan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

(2.) This appeal by the State is directed against the order made in W.P.(MD)No.21031 of 2015, dated 26.11.2015. The first respondent/writ petitioner filed the said writ petition to direct the appellant to consider his claim along with others for appointment to the post of Junior Draughting Officer by relaxing the maximum age limit fixed in the notification No.12390/NIr5/(1)/2014 dated 26.10.2015, calling for application for filing up the post of Junior Draughting Officer in the Highways Department in respect of the writ petitioner in terms of Rule 12(d) and Rule 50 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules. The writ petition was disposed of by the impugned order. Though the relief sought for was not granted, the Court issued the following directions:-

(3.) The State is on appeal, against the said order. The writ petitioner working as NMR candidate from 02.07.2000 to 31.10.2006 in the post of Technical Assistant. Thereafter, his services were disengaged and was not in employment with the appellant in any category of post. Further, when he applied for the post of Junior Draughting Officer on 26.10.2015, the notification stipulated age limit. As on the date of notification, the first respondent cannot apply as he was age bared. It appears that there was other similarly placed candidates as that of the first respondent/writ petitioner, who has also continued to work as NMR for a long number of years. Those candidates were also disengaged and they have approached the Court and obtained an order. Pursuant to the Court order, many were granted the benefit of absorption in the permanent post either at the discretion of the Government or by way of implementation of the order passed by this Court. One such candidate is S.Jayenthi, who had filed W.P.(MD)No.20836 of 2015, who had been granted identical relief as that of the relief sought the first respondent/writ petitioner in the impugned order.