Madras High Court
The Chairman vs S.Arul Mary on 9 July, 2021
W.A.No.825 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09.07.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
W.A.No.825 of 2021
and CMP No.4657 of 2021
The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission
Frazer Bridge Road,
V.O.C.Nagar,
Park Town,
Chennai - 600 003 ... Appellant
Vs.
1.S.Arul Mary
2.The Director,
Directorate of Horticulture and Plantation
Ezhilagam,
Chepauk,
Chennai - 600 006. .... Respondent
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under clause 15 of Letter Patents Act, filed praying
to set aside the final order dated 19.06.2019 in W.P.No.15011 of 2015 passed
by the learned Single Judge.
For Appellant : Dr.R.Gowri
For 1st Respondent : M/s Bala and Daisy
For 2nd Respondent : Mr.C.Jayaprakash
Government Advocate
1/4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.825 of 2021
JUDGMENT
(delivered by MRS.PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA.J.,)
The writ appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned
Single Judge in W.P.No.15011 of 2015 dated 19.06.2019.
2. The writ petition was filed by the respondent herein challenging the
Order in Memo No.7312/OTD-E2/2013 dated 07.05.2015, wherein, her
application related to the direct recruitment to the post of Horiculture Officer
was rejected for the reason that she has not paid the examination fees when she
was not exempted from otherwise paying. The said order was put to challenge
by way of Writ Petition in W.P.No.15011 of 2015 and by virtue of an interim
order, the writ petitioner was allowed to take up the written examination as
well as the oral interview for the post and she has been placed in Sl.No.2 in the
Reserved List, belonging to Backward Community category.
3. By virtue of the interim order, the prayer in the writ petition has
become infructuous. However, when the matter was taken up finally, the
learned Single Judge, in paragraph No.6, observed as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.825 of 2021
"Taking note of the fact that the petitioner is
successful in the Interview and that she is placed in
Serial No.2 in the Selection list to the post of
Horticulture Officer, this Court directs the
Respondents to consider the case of the petitioner by
giving necessary relaxation to her age and
qualification, however, based on eligibility, for the
purpose of appointment to the post of Horticulture
Officer."
4. It is not the case of the writ petitioner that she requires age relaxation
or qualification for the purpose of appointment as admittedly, the writ
petitioner is within the required age or qualification.
5. Dr.R.Gowri, learned counsel for the appellant submits that paragraph
No.6 of the order may be expunged as otherwise it would lead to other
candidates to gain entry quoting this order.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents also agreed for the same.
7. Accordingly, paragraph No.6 of the order dated 19.06.2019 passed by
the learned Single Judge is expunged.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.825 of 2021
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA.J.,
AND
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY.J.,
sr
8. With the above modification, the writ appeal is disposed of. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(P.S.N.J.,) (K.R.J.,)
09.07.2021
sr
Index:yes/no
To
The Director,
Directorate of Horticulture and Plantation
Ezhilagam,
Chepauk,
Chennai - 600 006.
W.A.No.825 of 2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
