W.A. No. 1408 of 2014 and M.P. No. 1 of 2014. Case: The General Manager Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Coimbatore Ltd.) Vs M. Arularasu. High Court of Madras (India)
| Case Number | W.A. No. 1408 of 2014 and M.P. No. 1 of 2014 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: S. Sairaman, Adv. |
| Judges | Satish K. Agnihotri and K. K. Sasidharan, JJ. |
| Issue | Motor Vehicles Act |
| Judgement Date | November 12, 2014 |
| Court | High Court of Madras (India) |
Judgment:
-
The instant intra-Court appeal arises from the order dated 19.12.2013 passed in W.P.No. 20376 of 2013.
-
The respondent, having passed SSLC in October 1993, passed Mechanic (Motor Vehicle) course in July 1996. Thereafter, he had undergone training with the appellant under the provisions of the Apprentices Act, 1961 from 23.01.1997 to 22.01.1998 and also passed the Trade test as a regular candidate in May 1998. The respondent had worked as a casual worker in the appellant corporation for some time in the year 2001. The District Employment Exchange recommended the name of the respondent for consideration for appointment on the post of Junior Tradesman (Mechanic ITI) on 3.7.2013. He was called for interview to be held on 10.7.2013. At the time of interview, he was informed that he was over-aged as having completed 35 years of age. The respondent came up with the writ petition seeking a direction to consider his name for the post of Mechanic MV (ITI).
-
The case of the respondent herein before the Writ Court was that relaxing the maximum age limit from 35 to 40 years granted under G.O.Ms.No. 98, P & AR(S) Department dated 17.7.2006 was not considered.
-
It was contended by the appellant that the respondent herein was over-aged by 17 days and as such, he was not eligible for consideration.
-
The contention of the respondent / writ petitioner was that the benefit of relaxation of 5 years of age granted under the said G.O. dated 17.7.2006 was rejected on the ground that relaxation of 5 years in case of upper age limit was granted till 16th July 2011 only as per the subsequent letter dated 10.11.2010 and as such, the respondent was not entitled to age relaxation under the said G.O. dated 17.7.2006.
-
An identical issue came into consideration in the case of The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai)...
To continue reading
Request your trial