D MANGAYARKARASI Vs. DISTRICT BACKWARD CLASSES WELFARE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a Post-Graduate in Economics and a Graduate in Education (B.Ed.,). She registered her name with the Employment Office at Alankayam North Arcot District, in 1978. There is no dispute that she belongs to Hindu Backward Class. She was informed by the Employment Office by a Communication dated 12.11.1987 that she should appear for an interview on 19.11.1987 before the District Backward Classes Welfare Officer, Vellore - 1, North Arcot District, the respondent herein, for the post of Tutor-cum-Warden. She appeared for the interview and she was selected by the respondent. By order dated 7.12.87 she was appointed temporarily as Tutor-cum-Warden in the Government Backward Class Welfare Women's Hostel, Tiruvannamalai. The order of appointment made it clear that it was purely temporary and the services could be terminated at any time without any prior notice. By order dated 19.4.1988 her services were terminated with the closure of the Hostel at the end of the academic year 1987-88. It was also stated in the said order that whenever any vacancy arose in the District in Backward Classes Welfare Hostels or Schools for the post of Warden, the persons whose services were terminated by the said order should be considered for reappointment. By order dated 26.5.1988, the petitioner was reappointed as Tutor-cum- Warden in the same Hostel. The services of the petitioner and two others were terminated by order dated 2.6.1988 on the ground that they were not qualified to be appointed for the post as they had crossed the age of 35 years at the time of appointment. The petitioner is challenging the validity of the said order in the present writ petition.

(2.) The contention advanced by the petitioner is that the age limit prescribed in the Special Rules framed for the Tamil Nadu Backward Classes Welfare Subordinate Service will not apply to persons belonging to Backward Classes/Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes in view of the provisions contained in Rule 12(d)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules (General Rules)- Reliance is placed on the Government Letter No. 100862/per.P/80-2, dated 20.12.1980 from the Deputy Secretary to Government to the Director of Employment and Training, in which it is stated that there is no age limit for candidates belonging to B.C./S.C./S.T. holding a degree is the prescribed qualification unless age limit is specifically prescribed in the concerned Special Rules about B.C./S.C./S.T. candidates.

(3.) The Learned Government Pleader, who appeared for the respondent on issue of notice of motion contended that Rule 12(d) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules (General Rules) would operate only with reference to services for which Special Rules were already in existence as on 1.1.1955 when the General Rules came into force. It was also contended by the learned Government Pleader that when the Special Rules have fixed the age limit, they would exclude the applicability of the General Rules since Rule 2 of the General Rules provides that the Special Rules shall prevail over the provision in the General Rules in the event of repugnancy between" the provision in the General Rules and the provision in the Special Rules. It was argued by the learned Government Pleader if the contention of the petitioner is accepted, it would lead to disastrous consequences in that members of B.C./S.C./S.T. classes could get appointed at any age before the age of superannuation.