Madras High Court
Mr.R.Murugan vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 12 February, 2025
W.P.No.26715 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 12.02.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
W.P.No.26715 of 2018 and
W.M.P.No.31079 of 2018
Mr.R.Murugan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Rural Development,
Chennai 600 009.
2.The Inspector of Panchayats cum
District Collector,
Office of the District Collectorate,
Salem District.
3.Thethigiripatti Village Panchayat,
Rep. by its President,
Thethigiripatti Village,
Mettur Taluk,
Salem District.
... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records
of the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.36075/2014/T3 dated 12.04.2018
and to quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to
Page No.1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.26715 of 2018
appoint the petitioner in the post of Panchayat Clerk in Maecheri
Panchayat Union.
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Srinivasa Mohan
For Respondents : Mr.T.Chezhiyan, AGP for R1 & R2
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed to issue a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent in
Na.Ka.No.36075/2014/T3 dated 12.04.2018 and to quash the same and
consequently, direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner in the post
of Panchayat Clerk in Maecheri Panchayat Union.
2. Heard Mr.J.Srinivasa Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Mr.T.Chezhiyan, learned Additional Government Pleader for the first and
second respondents and perused the materials available on record.
3. The Government has announced the age relaxation in respect of
upper age limit for entering into Government service by five years to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
enable the unemployed persons affected due to the ban order on
recruitment, to apply for Government jobs and issued in G.O.Ms.No.98
Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department dated 17.07.2006.
4. In the light of the above Government Order, the petitioner has
been appointed as part-time clerk on 19.07.2006 in the third respondent
Panchayat. The petitioner has also joined duty. After four months, the
second respondent issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner as to why
his appointment should not be cancelled in view of the reason that he was
over aged at the time of appointment.
5. The explanation given to the second respondent about the age
relaxation given in the Government Order was not accepted and hence,
the third respondent had cancelled the appointment of the petitioner by
its order dated 27.11.2006. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner has
filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 5522 of 2007 and the same was allowed
by issuing the directions. For the sake of convenience, the essential
paragraph of the above order is given as under:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
"10. The Appointment Committee held on
25.05.2006 on consideration of all applications, has
resolved to appoint the petitioner as a Part-Time Clerk
considering the fact that amongst all the candidates, the
petitioner is more qualified person possessing B.A. Degree.
Further, in the ordinary meeting of the Panchayat held on
13.07.2006 has unanimously accepted the resolution of the
Appointment Committee dated 25.05.2006 to appoint the
petitioner as a Part-Time Clerk. Pursuant to the said
resolution, the third respondent issued an order of
appointment to the petitioner on 197.7.2006 and the
petitioner has reported for duty on the same day. Thereafter,
the third respondent written a letter to the Block
Development Officer and the same was also forwarded to
the second respondent for his formal approval. The second
respondent has passed the impugned order on the ground
that the petitioner is over age on the date of his
appointment.
11. Further, from the perusal of the records, it is
seen that the petitioner has filed this writ petition
challenging the impugned order of the second respondent
along with M.P. No. 1 of 2007 for stay of operation of the
order passed by the second respondent and this Court at the
time of admission of this writ petition, passed an interim
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
order dated 16.02.2007, it runs as follows:
“The petitioner, as on today is working pursuant
to the resolution dated 13.07.2006 and his status
shall not be disturbed until further orders.”
Thereafter, the petitioner has also made a representation
dated 1.3.2007 to the second respondent along with a copy
of the interim order passed by this Court. Even then, he was
not allowed to work.
12. Now, the learned Special Government Pleader
appearing for the third respondent would submit that the
successor of the then President has appointed the new
incumbent by name S.Ravikumar as Panchayat Clerk in the
regular vacant place subject to the result of the writ petition
and he continued to work as Panchayat Clerk and as such
the third respondent has not disobeyed the interim order
passed by this Court. Therefore, the same will not affect the
relief sought for by the Petitioner in this writ petition. The
said submission made by the learned Special Government
Pleader is recorded.
13. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and
the impugned order of the second respondent in
Na.Ka.No.5751/2006/A5, dated 27.11.2006 is set aside and
the respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to
resume duty within a period of three weeks from the date of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
receipt of copy of this order. No costs. Consequently,
connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed."
6. Against the order passed in the above Writ Petition, a Writ
Appeal has been filed in W.A. Nos.16 and 1674 of 2014. Despite
direction has been given by the Division Bench of this Court in the above
writ appeal to ascertain whether any subsequent vacancy has arisen in
order to accommodate the petitioner in the light of the Government order
giving age relaxation, the second respondent did not consider and he had
chosen to reject the representation of the petitioner. The impugned order
appears to have been passed without understanding the true letter and
spirit of the direction given by the Division Bench of this Court in the
judgment dated 20.11.2017 in W.A. Nos.16 and 1674 of 2014.
7. The learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents
1 and 2 submitted that the resolution of the Panchayat has been passed on
25.05.2006 even two months prior to the date on which G.O.Ms.No.98
dated 17.07.2006 was issued for relaxing the age limit for five years.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Hence, it is submitted that on the date when the appointment of the
petitioner was made, there is no Government Order to relax the age
eligibility of the petitioner and hence, the appointment is in violation of
the rules which were in force at the relevant point of time.
8. To be noted that the Writ Appeal filed by the Government in
W.A.No.16 of 2014 did not touch on the merits of the order passed by the
learned Single Judge which is just disposed by correcting the clerical
error crept in the order of the learned Single Judge. On perusal of the
order of the learned Single Judge, it is found that during the Writ
Proceedings, the Government has made a representation stating that the
appointment order has been issued to the petitioner on 13.07.2006. In the
impugned order, it has been stated that the resolution of the Panchayat
has been passed on 25.05.2006. Even the factual details submitted by the
respondent Government, there are contradictions.
9. Whatever may be the case, the Government Order has been
issued on 17.07.2006 by relaxing the age limit only by taking into
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
consideration of the fact that all the appointments have been banned from
the year 2001. The resolution passed by the Panchayat alone will not
confer any appointment on the petitioner, unless it fructifies into an order
of appointment. The appointment order appears to have been given on
19.07.2006 which is two days after coming into force of the Government
Order dated 17.07.2006.
10. The very object of issuance of Government Order itself is to
give an opportunity to the persons who might suffer age ineligibility
issue in view of the long ban for appointment. So the second respondent
could have considered the representation of the petitioner and the
direction of this Court in an objective manner and passed an order by
granting age relaxation benefit to the petitioner. As the order has not been
passed neither in the spirit of the Government Order nor considering the
spirit of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.5522 of 2007 which
was confirmed in W.A.Nos.16 and 1674 of 2014, it is liable to be set
aside.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed and the order passed
by the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.36075/2014/T3 dated 12.04.2018
is set aside. The second respondent is directed to pass a fresh order by
considering the representation of the petitioner positively and pass orders
relaxing the age of the petitioner in terms of the Government Order in
G.O.Ms.No.98 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department
dated 17.07.2006 by considering the date of appointment of the petitioner
as 19.07.2006. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition
is closed.
12.02.2025
Index : Yes /No
Speaking / Non-speaking
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
gsk
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.N.MANJULA, J.
gsk
To
1.The Secretary,
Rural Development,
Chennai 600 009.
2.The Inspector of Panchayats cum
District Collector,
Office of the District Collectorate,
Salem District.
W.P.No.26715 of 2018 and
3.The President,
Thethigiripatti Village Panchayat,
Thethigiripatti Village,
Mettur Taluk, Salem District.
12.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
