[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
The State Of Tamil Nadu vs V.Murugesan on 17 March, 2026
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
W.A.(MD)No.2018 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 17.03.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
W.A(MD)No.2018 of 2023
&
C.M.P.(MD)No.15900 of 2023
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Secretary,
Department of Higher Education,
Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner,
The Directorate of Technical Education,
Guindy, Chennai-600 025. ... Appellants /
Respondents
Vs.
1.V.Murugesan
Skilled Assistant (Chemistry),
Kamaraj Polytechnic College,
Pazhvilai-629 501. ... 1st Respondent /
Writ Petitioner
2.The Secretary cum Correspondent,
Kamaraj Polytechnic College,
Pazhavilai-629 501,
Kanyakumari District. ... 2nd Respondent /
3rd Respondent
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 06:35:21 pm )
W.A.(MD)No.2018 of 2023
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside
the order dated 09.01.2023 made in W.P.(MD)No.16582 of 2019 and
allow the writ appeal.
For Appellants : Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar
Special Government Pleader
For Respondents : Mr.Isaac Mohanlal
Senior Counsel
for M/s.Isaac Chambers
for R1
: Mr.N.Dilipkumar
for R2
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by G.R.Swaminathan J.)
The State has filed this intra-court appeal challenging the order
dated 09.01.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing W.P.
(MD)No.16582 of 2019 filed by the 1st respondent herein.
2. The Management of Kamaraj Polytechnic College, Pazhavilai
issued the recruitment notification dated 04.10.2015 calling for
applications from eligible candidates for filling up the post of skilled
assistant (chemistry). The writ petitioner was one of the applicants.
Interview was held on 17.11.2015. It is relevant to note that the selection
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 06:35:21 pm )
committee comprised representatives from the Directorate of Technical
Education and also the government nominees. Murugesan was selected
and he was issued with the appointment order on 17.11.2015. The
management submitted proposal to the Director of Technical Education
on 23.11.2015 for approval of the appointment. However, vide order
dated 03.09.2016, the proposal was rejected on the ground that the
appointee was over aged by two years. The maximum age limit set out
in the recruitment notification as well as in the relevant special Rules
was 36, whereas Murugesan was 38 at that time when he applied for the
post.
3. Challenging the said order passed by the Director of Technical
Education, the college management filed appeal before the Government.
The Government subsequently informed the Director of Technical
Education that there was no scope for relaxation of the age limit. This
was intimated to the College management vide communication dated
11.09.2018 and also to the appointee on 12.11.2018. Questioning these
two communications dated 11.09.2018 and 12.11.2018, the appointee
filed W.P.(MD)No.16582 of 2019. The learned single judge set aside the
orders impugned in the writ petition and allowed the same on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 06:35:21 pm )
09.01.2023. This order of the learned single Judge is the subject matter
of this appeal.
4. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the State
submitted that the learned single Judge erred in applying Rule 12(d) of
Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules for relaxing the age
limit. Relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Division bench rendered in
W.A.(MD)No.1562 of 2023 etc., batch dated 29.11.2023, he pointed out
that when the Special Rules prescribe an age limit, it will prevail over
and Rule 12(d) of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules will
not have any application. He would also add that the writ petition itself
had been defectively filed in as much as the original rejection order
dated 03.09.2016 was not put to challenge. He called upon this Court to
set aside the order passed by the learned single judge and allow this writ
appeal.
5. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
College Management as well as the learned counsel appearing for the
appointee submitted that the order passed in the writ petition deserves to
be sustained.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 06:35:21 pm )
6. We carefully considered the rival contentions and went through
the materials on record. We do endorse the submission of the learned
Special Government Pleader that the writ petitioner ought to have
questioned the rejection Order dated 03.09.2016. But on this technical
ground, we do not want to non-suit the writ petitioner. As rightly
pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the College management,
when the entire issue is before us, we might as well overlook such
considerations, more so when it concerns the livelihood of the writ
petitioner.
7. The qualification as well as the other conditions for
appointment are set out in G.O.(Ms).No.220, Higher Education (B1)
Department, dated 06.07.2009. Rule 6(a) prescribes the maximum age
limit for appointment of a skilled assistant at 36. However, the proviso to
Rule 6(a) states that no age limit shall apply to persons falling under the
rule 2(b) of the special rule. Rule 2(b) of the special rules states that
members of the service shall also be eligible to be recruited direct to any
category in the service appointment to which is made by direct
recruitment. In other words, if the candidate is a member of Tamil Nadu
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 06:35:21 pm )
Technical Educational Subordinate Service, the upper age limit would
not apply to him. Admittedly, these Rules have been issued under
Article 309 of the Constitution of India and are intended to apply to
Government employees. However, appointment to posts in aided
Technical Education Institutions are also governed by the Special Rules.
When the Special Rules are applied to the private aided institutions, the
terms set out in the Special Rules will have to acquire an appropriate
meaning depending on the context. We therefore hold that a member of
Tamil Nadu Technical Educational Subordinate Service would mean an
in-service candidate of the concerned institution which issues the
recruitment notification. This is because, an employee of a private aided
institution cannot be a member of the Tamil Nadu Technical Educational
Subordinate Service. Rule 2 (b) of the Special Rules will have to be
understood and applied in the manner indicated above. Admittedly,
Murugesan has been discharging the duties of a skilled assistant in the
very same Institution since 24.03.2006. Since he is an in-service
candidate, the upper age limit will not apply to him.
8.Looked at from this perspective, we are of the view that the
refusal of the authority to approve the writ petitioner's appointment must
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 06:35:21 pm )
be considered as unreasonable and arbitrary. When a proposal is
evaluated, all the relevant factors must be taken into account. The
authorities failed to note that Murugesan had been serving the aided
institution as an employee on consolidated pay and that he would fall
within the scope of the proviso to Rule 6(a) of the Special Rules. We are
now in 2026 and Murugesan has been serving the institution for 20
years. It is a sanctioned vacancy. Murugesan admittedly has all the
requisite qualifications. In fact, he is over qualified. There is no rival
claim. The selection was made by the committee which comprised the
representatives as well as the Government nominees. The Government
will not be put to any kind of financial loss. Though the vacancy falls
under general turn under priority category, there has been no application
from any person belonging to the priority category. No person has
challenged the appointment of Murugesan. Taking into account all these
equitable circumstances, we decline to interfere with the order of the
single Judge.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 06:35:21 pm )
9. The Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[G.R.S., J.] [R.P, J.]
17.03.2026
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
rmi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 06:35:21 pm )
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
AND
R.POORNIMA, J.
rmi
17.03.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 06:35:21 pm )
