Age Relaxation Can Be Provided To Compete In Recruitment Process By Giving The Weightage For Being Engaged For A Significant Period Of Time: Madras High Court
A single judge bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Honourable Mrs. Justice L. Victoria Gowri while deciding Writ Petitions in the case of S. Sujatha vs The Director of Collegiate Education has held that age relaxation can be provided to a person to compete in the recruitment process by giving the weightage for having been engaged or worked in the department for a significant period...
A single judge bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Honourable Mrs. Justice L. Victoria Gowri while deciding Writ Petitions in the case of S. Sujatha vs The Director of Collegiate Education has held that age relaxation can be provided to a person to compete in the recruitment process by giving the weightage for having been engaged or worked in the department for a significant period of time.
Background Facts
S. Sujatha, S. Satheesh Kumar and C. Priya (Petitioners) were appointed as Junior Assistant, Watchman and Office Assistant respectively on temporary basis by the Respondents and were orally ensured that they would be regularized in any one of the regular aided post. Later they filed a writ petition for regularization of their services, to which Madras High Court directed the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioners. The respondents rejected the petitioner's request stating that the petitioners were working in the self finance stream i.e. on daily wage basis. Later the respondent started to fill up 12 vacant posts under the aided Section, to which all the petitioners sent their respective representations to the respondent requesting to appoint them in any of the suitable vacancies. The petitioners filed three more Writ Petitions before the Madras High Court, and challenged the proceedings of the respondent and sought for a direction to the respondent to absorb the petitioners in the suitable posts. The court held that the petitioners cannot claim appointment as a matter of right but they were at liberty to participate in the selection process. The respondent issued the notification dated 05.12.2023 inviting candidates for filling up the vacant posts where the respondent had fixed the age limit as 32 and 34 for general category and MBC category respectively. So respondent orally informed petitioners that the petitioner's application could not be considered as they were 44, 46 and 45 years old at that time. Aggrieved by the same, the Petitioners filed the aforesaid Writ Petitions, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned notification dated 05.12.2023.
The Petitioners contended that they have worked as Junior Assistant, Watchman and Office Assistant for more than a decade since their appointment and the respondent had denied their valid request to participate in the recruitment or selection process by citing age limit. The petitioners also contended that they have lost most productive years of their life by serving for the respondent and they were discharging their duties in the respondent College for more than a decade only on the fond hope they would be regularised or appointed at one point of time.
On the other hand, it was contended, inter alia, by the Respondent that the petitioners were engaged as daily wages staff in self finance section and they were not engaged in aided section at any point of time against the sanctioned post by following the recruitment process. It was further submitted that the factum of age limit and relaxation of age for some reserved categories are exclusively within the arena of the legislature and hence extension of relaxation of age against prevailing rules is beyond the scope of judicial review.
Findings of the Court
The court relied on the case of State of Karnataka v. Umadevi wherein the Supreme Court had permitted persons who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts to participate in selection process by waiving the age relaxation and giving the weightage for having been engaged or worked in the department for a significant period of time.
The court further observed that the petitioners were not at all appointed in any of the sanctioned post and they were appointed as daily wage employees in the self finance stream of the respondent college so they cannot claim regularization of their services. The court further relied on the case of Sathya Prakash & others vs. State of Bihar & others wherein the Supreme Court had held that the appellants were not entitled to get the benefit of regularization of their services since they were never appointed in any sanctioned posts but were only engaged on daily wages.
So the court directed the respondents to allow the petitioners to compete in the recruitment process by giving them age relaxation and giving the weightage for having been engaged or worked in the self-financing stream of the respondent College for a significant period of time.
With the aforesaid observations, the Writ Petitions were disposed of.
Case Name: S.Sujatha vs The Director Of Collegiate Education
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 145
Case No. : W.P.(MD) Nos.1345, 1433 and 4573 of 2024
Counsel for the Petitioner(s): Mr. T. Cibi Chakraborthy
Counsel for the Respondent(s) : Mr. N. Ramesh Arumugam (Government Advocate), Mr. B. Saravanan & Mr. R. Sankarganesh