Madras High Court

S.Balakrishnan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 11 April, 2022

                                                                  W.P.(MD) No.8068 of 2019


                                  BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                  DATED: 11.04.2022

                                                        CORAM:

                                    THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM


                                                W.P.(MD) No.8068 of 2019
                                                          and
                                   W.M.P.(MD) Nos.6373 & 6374 of 2019 & 15226 of 2020


                 S.Balakrishnan                                                 ... Petitioner
                                                          vs.


                 1.The State of Tamil Nadu
                   rep.by the Secretary to Government
                   Personnel and Administrative
                     Reforms Department
                   Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009

                 2.Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board
                   Rep.by the Member Secretary
                   No.807, P.T.Lee Chengalvaraya Naickar Maaligai
                   Annasalai, Chennai-600 002

                 3.The Director General of Police
                   Beach Road, Chennai-600 004                                  ... Respondents


                 PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for

                 issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records pertaining

                 to the impugned advertisement No.1/2019, dated 06.03.2019 for the common


                 _______________
                 Page 1 of 10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                     W.P.(MD) No.8068 of 2019


                 recruitment of Grade II Police Constable / Grade II Jail Warder / Firemen

                 -2019 and quash the serial No.7 by fixing the date i.e. on 01.07.2019 as age

                 limit as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to permit the

                 petitioner to take part in the recruitment process of Grade II Police

                 Constable / Grade II Jail Warder/Fireman-2019.



                           For Petitioner     : Mr.P.T.Ramesh Raja
                           For Respondents : Mr.Veera Kathiravan
                                             Additional Advocate General
                                             assisted by Mr.A.K.Manikkam
                                             Special Government Pleader


                                                       ORDER

The recruitment notification for selection and appointment to the

posts of Grade II Police Constable / Grade II Jail Warder / Fireman-2019 is

under challenge in this writ petition.

2. According to the petitioner, the cutoff date fixed in the

notification for age criteria is not proper and the date of notification i.e.

06.03.2019 is to be fixed as the cutoff date for age criteria. However, the

recruitment notification states the cutoff date as 01.07.2019 for age criteria.

_______________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.8068 of 2019

3. Fixing a cutoff date for selection is the prerogative of the

employer. Such cutoff date cannot be challenged in a routine manner. As per

the cutoff date, the petitioner is not eligible to participate in the selection

process. The issues regarding fixing cutoff date has been elaborately

considered by this Court, by order dated 25.04.2017 in W.P.(MD) Nos.2982

and 2081 of 2017 and the relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:

“16.In the case of Shankar k. Mandal and others v. State of Bihar and others reported in (2003) 9 SCC 519, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has made the position clear after taking support from earlier judgment in the following lines:

“What happens when a cut off date is fixed for fulfilling the prescribed qualification relating to age by a candidate for appointment and the effect of any non-prescription has been considered by this Court in several cases. The principles culled out from the decisions of this Court (See Ashok Kumar Sharma and Ors.v. Chander Shekhar and Anr. (1997 (4) SCC 18, Bhupinderpal Singh v. State of Punjab (2000 (5) SCC 262 and Jasbir Rani and ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr. (2002 (1) SCC 124) are as follows:

_______________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.8068 of 2019

(1) The cut off date by reference to which the eligibility requirement must be satisfied by the candidate seeking a public employment is the date appointed by the relevant service rules;

(2) If there is no cut off date appointed by the rules then such date shall be as appointed for the purpose in the advertisement calling for applications; and (3) If there is no such date appointed then the eligibility criteria shall be applied by reference to the last date appointed by which the applications were to be received by the competent authority.”

17.In another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A.P. Public Service Commission, Hyderabad and another v. B.Sarat Chandra and others reported in (1990) 2 SCC 669 similar issue arose for consideration. Recruitment to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police in 15 the State of Andhra Pradesh where Rule 5 of Andhra Pradesh Police Service Rules which is similar to the Rule in Tamil Nadu as regards qualifications. A candidate who was not qualified as on the date of 1st July of the year of recruitment claimed that the relevant date ought to be

_______________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.8068 of 2019

the date of preparation of list of selected candidates. Though the Tribunal accepted the contention of the candidates, the Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the Civil Appeal and held as follows:

“The Tribunal in fact does not dispute that the process of selection begins with the issuance of advertisement and ends with the preparation of select list for appointment. Indeed, it consists of various steps like inviting applications, scrutiny of applications, rejection of defective applications or elimination of ineligible candidates, conducting examinations, calling for interview or viva voce and preparation of list of successful candidates for appointment. Rule 3 of the Rules of Procedure of the Public Service Commission is also indicative of all these steps. When such are the different steps in the process of selection, the minimum or maximum age for suitability of a candidate for appointment cannot be allowed to depend upon any fluctuating or uncertain date. If the final stage of selection is delayed and more often it happens for various reasons, the candidates who are eligible on the date of application may find themselves

_______________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.8068 of 2019

eliminated at the final stage for no fault of theirs. The date to attain the minimum or maximum age must, therefore, be specific, and determinate as on a particular date for candidates to apply and for recruiting agency to scrutinise applications. It would be, therefore, unreasonable to construe the word selection only as the factum of preparation of the select list. Nothing so bad would have been intended by the Rule making authority.”

Though the above case is relating to the minimum age, the principles of law laid down in the above judgment is 16 applicable to the present case.

18.In the case of Mohd. Sartaj v. State of U.P. reported in AIR 2006 SC 3492 it has been held that eligibility/minimum qualification should be fulfilled on the date of recruitment. In the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court no other date was fixed or prescribed by the Rules.

19.In the case of State of Rajasthan v. Hitendra Kumar Bhatt reported in AIR 1998 SC 91 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:

_______________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.8068 of 2019

“A cut-off date by which all the requirements relating to qualifications have to be met, cannot be ignored in an individual case. There may be other persons who would have applied had they known that the date of acquiring qualifications was flexible. They may not have applied because they did not possess the requisite qualification on the prescribed date. Relaxing the prescribed requirements in the case of one individual may, therefore, cause injustice to others.”

20.In view of the principles of law reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Rule 14(1) and Annexure II of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules, this Court is not inclined to accept the case of the petitioners. As pointed out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court earlier, it is a policy decision of the Government and the Executive to fix the cut-off 17 date having regard to the various considerations and the Court is expected to observe judicial restraint and cannot interfere casually merely because some inconvenience is caused to individuals.

_______________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.8068 of 2019

21.For all the above reasons, I do not find any merits in the Writ Petitions and hence, both the Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected W.M.P.(MD) Nos. 2400 & 2401 and 1734 of 2017 are closed.”

4. In view of the above principles laid down, the case of the

petitioner deserves no merit consideration.

5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

11.04.2022 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

krk

_______________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.8068 of 2019

To:

1.The Secretary to Government, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, State of Tamil Nadu, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.

2.The Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, No.807, P.T.Lee Chengalvaraya Naickar Maaligai, Annasalai, Chennai-600 002.

3.The Director General of Police, Beach Road, Chennai-600 004.