N UMA SUNDARI Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT RURAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN G.O.Ms.No.70, Rural Development (E-4), dated 20.3.2000, the Government under Article 309 of the Constitution of INdia, issued Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Development Engineering Subordinate Service (hereinafter referred to as "Rules"). Para-4 of the said Government Order dealing with fixation of cut of date pertaining to age, with reference to the year of selection for the post of Overseer or Road inspector by direct recruitment is under challenge in W.P.(MD) No.1753 of 2009.

(2.) IN W.P.(MD) Nos.753, 756 and 1503 of 2009, the petitioners have sought for a mandamus, to consider their case for appointment to the post of Overseer/Junior Draughting Officer by re-fixing the crucial date for selection to the post of Overseer/Junior Draughting Officer for the year 2008-2009 as 1.7.2008, instead of 1.7.2009 within a time frame fixed by this Court.

(3.) SHORT facts in W.P.(MD) Nos.753, 756 and 1503 of 2009 are as follows: The petitioners were born on 3.3.1969, 22.4.1969 and 5.6.1969 respectively. They have registered their educational and other particulars with the District Employment Office, Tirunelveli. On 9.1.2009, the first respondent, the District Collector issued a news item in a regular Tamil Daily calling for the posts of Overseer/Junior Draughting Officer for the period 2008-2009. The District Employment Officer, the second respondent ought to have sponsored the names of the petitioners. Though, they have approached the second respondent on 10.1.2009 requesting him to sponsor their names as they were fully qualified, the second respondent informed them that they have crossed the maximum age limit prescribed for the post as per the crucial fixed by the first respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners represented to the first respondent to consider their case for appointment to the posts of Overseer but the same was not responded. Since the notification passed by the Government for the post of overseer for the period 2008-2009 as well as the letter of the first respondent directing the second respondent to sponsor the eligible candidates is not available, the petitioners could not challenge the said Government Order. The petitioners have enrolled themselves in the District Employment Office and waiting for sponsorship for more than 20 years. Due to the delay in recruitment to the above said posts by the administration, the employment opportunities of the petitioners should not be denied. In the above circumstances, they have prayed that the respondents ought to have fixed 1.7.2008, as the cut off date for determining the maximum age limit prescribed for the notified posts. It is also the contention of the petitioners that Rule 12(v) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services would be applicable to the facts of this case.