IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WP:

OF 2015

Mr.Mujeebur Rahman
No: 11/8, Vanakkara Kuppusamy Street,
East Pondi Road,
Villupuram 605602.

.Petitioner

Vs
1. The Managing Director
Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) Limited
Pallavan Salai,
Chennai.
2.The Managing Director
State Express transport Corporation (Tamilnadu) Limited,
Pallavan Salai,
Chennai.
3. The Managing Director,
Tamilnadu State Transport corporation (Kovai) Limited,
No: 37, Mettupalayam Road,
Coimbatore 43.

..Respondents

AFFIDAVIT OF MUJEEBUR RAHMAN

I, S.Mujeebur Rahman son of Sanjiyappa, aged about 40 years, residing at No:
11/8, Vaanakara Kuppu Samy Street, East Pondy Road, Villupuram 605 602,
now temporarily come down to Chennai, do hereby solemnly and sincerely
state as follows:
1.

I am the petitioner herein and I am well acquainted with the facts

and the circumstances of this case, and I am filing this writ petition
CERTIORARIFIED MANDAMUS calling for the records from the first respondent in
letter No: 21159/P.I.O/MTC/2015 dated 02.06.2015 and quash the same, and
consequently direct the respondents to consider and appoint the petitioner as
Junior Engineer (Trainee) in any one of the respondents corporation by relaxing
his age in view of the judgment passed this Honble Court in WP(MD):
11104/2012 dated 11.10.2012.
2.

I state that, I have completed my Diploma in Mechanical Engineering in

first class in the year of 1997, and subsequently registered my name in the
district employment exchange Villupuram on: 23.12.1997, and after that I have
completed my apprentice training in Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation

(Villupuram) Ltd, as per Central Government Apprenticeship Act, 1961 during

1998 - 1999, and registered the same with the district employment exchange
on: 17.11.1999, and I have renewed that employment registration periodically
for the past 18 years.
3.

I state that, the respondent corporations were recruiting Drivers,

conductors and Junior Engineer, etc through employment exchange seniority till
2013, and thereafter in view of the law laid down by the Honble Supreme
Court they prepared to issue a recruitment advisement in the daily news
papers.
4.

I state that, the respondent corporations issued an announcement in

Daily Thanthi (A Tamil daily news paper) on: 02.11.2014 for about recruitment
of Drivers, conductors, Junior Assistant, Junior Engineer and assistant engineer.
As per the said advertisement, educational qualification for the post of Junior
Engineer (Trainee) is Diploma in Mechanical Engineering and with one year
apprentice

certificate,

moreover

the

candidate

belongs

to

backward

community should be below 35 years to apply for the post of Junior Engineer
(Trainee).
5.

I state that, I have applied for the post of Junior Engineer (Trainee) on:

17.11.2014 with the 1st and the 2nd respondent, and I have applied for the same
post in 3rd respondent corporation on: 20.11.2014. While applying the above
mentioned posts I was 39 years old (date of birth 20.06.1975). I have applied
for this post in view of the G.O.Ms.No: 98 personal and administration reforms
(P) Department dated 17.07.2006. In this government order upper age limit for
entering in to the government service was relaxed by 5 years, and the same
was extended to the corporations like the respondent by the government.
6.

I state that, based on my application I was called by the first and the

second respondents to appear for interview on: 15.12.2014 and 13.12.2014. In

the said circumstances I have apprehended that I may be prevented from
attending an interview by the respondent due to my age, and therefore I have
moved a writ petition No: 32626/2014 before this Honble Court by quoting a
G.O.Ms: 98 personal and administration reforms (P) Department dated
17.07.2006 and sought a direction against the respondents to permit me take
part in the interviews.

7.

I state that, While I was filing the above mentioned writ petition I have

not received any call letter from the 3 rd respondent for attending an interview,
and after filing the above mentioned writ petition I have received a call letter
from the 3rd respondent and the interview was on: 22.12.2014. In the said
circumstances, I was permitted by the 1st and the 2nd respondent to take part in
the interview on: 15.12.2014 and 13.12.2014, and therefore I have withdrawn
the above mentioned writ petition on: 16.12.2014.
8.

I state that, thereafter I have filed another writ petition No: 33730/2014

with an apprehension that I may not be allowed by the 3 rd respondent to take

part in the oral interview due to my age, and this writ petition was dismissed
by this Honble Court on: 19.12.2014 at the admission stage by quoting its
earlier order in WP: 20290/2012, and in that judgment this Honble Court holds
that for the post of Technical, Traffic and administrative department in the
transport corporations shall not be filled based solely on the interview, and
further holds that the interview advertisement dated 02.11.2014 was after the
above mentioned judgment, and therefore the same is illegal.
9.

I state that after the above mentioned order passed in WP: 33730/2014, I

was allowed by the 3rd respondent to take part in the oral interview on:
22.12.2014. Subsequently, the respondents corporations are also went for an
appeal against the order passed in WP: 20290/2012 by way of Writ appeal No:
1737/2014 and in which the Honble Division of this Honble Court granted an
interim stay on: 31.12.2015.
10.

I state that, after the above mentioned stay order of the Honble Division

Bench, the respondents are went ahead and processed the selection based on
the oral interview and most of the posts of drivers and conductors were filled.
11.

I state that, in the above mentioned situation I have written a letter to

the 1st respondent under the RTI act and requested them to provide the state of
my

selection.

The

1st

respondent

vides

their

letter

ref

No:

21159/P.I.O/MTC/2015 dated 02.06.2015 informed me that I was not selected

based on over aged. The said reason is not legally sustainable for the below
mentioned :

GROUNDS
(I)

The order of the 1st respondent is clearly against the G.O.Ms: 98 personal

and administration reforms (P) Department dated 17.07.2006 and the judgment
of this Honble Court in WP (MD): 11104/2012, and therefore the same is not
sustainable in the eye of law.
(II)

When the respondents permitted the petitioner to take part in the oral

interview, and thereafter they cannot deny the benefits on the ground of over
aged, thereby the rejection of petitioner candidature for an appointment to
the post of Junior Engineer (Trainee) by the 1 st respondent is illegal and not
legally sustainable.
(III)

Though the petitioner is having proper educational qualification from

1999 onwards, and he was within the prescribed aged limit, he could not apply
for recruitment of Junior Engineer (Trainee) till 2013 due to the reason that the
mode of empanelment of names only through employment exchange. When the
respondents now changed the mode of empanelment, but preventing the
petitioner to get the fruit on the ground that he is over aged, which is illegal
and against all the fairness, and thereby violation of Article 16 of the Indian
Constitution.
(IV)

Even getting benefits under G.O.Ms: 98 personal and administration

reforms (P) Department dated 17.07.2006 and the Judgment passed in WP

(MD): 11104/2012, this is the last opportunity for the petitioner to get a
government job, if he is not considered in this time, he cannot get the
government job in the respondent corporations at all, and therefore the
petitioner grievance need to be redressed.
(V)

When the respondents had admitted that they have issued a notification

to adopt G.O.Ms: 98 personal and administration reforms (P) Department dated

17.07.2006 to their corporations in the counter in WP(MD): 11104/2012,
therefore they cannot take the different stand now and reject the candidature
of the petitioner based on the over age. This action of the respondent is clearly
hit by the principle of estoppel.

12.

I state that, I am waiting for 18 years to get this opportunity, when got

this the respondents are acting arbitrarily and without applying their mind,
rejected my candidature based on over age, which is clearly illegal in view if
the above mentioned judgment. Further, I have 3.5% reservations in the said
appointment, and therefore I will get an appointment if the respondents are
applying their mind in the judgment passed by this Honble Court in WP (MD):
11104/2012.
13.

I state that, I hail from a very humble back ground, and completed my

education with 1st class and waiting for 18 years to take part in this interviews
conducted by the respondents, in this stage the respondents mercilessly
throwing me out for the flimsy ground of over age. In order to do complete
justice to me, interference of this Honble is absolute necessary. It is therefore
prayed that this Honble Court may be pleased to direct the 3 rd respondent to
keep one post of Junior Engineer (Trainee) vacant till the disposal of this writ
petition.
14.

I state that, I have no other alternative remedy except to approach this

Honble Court, and I have not filed any other writ petition for the relief sought
in this writ petition.
For the reason stated above it is prayed that this Honble Court may be
pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly a writ in the
nature of CERTIORARIFIED MANDAMUS calling for the records from the first
respondent in letter No: 21159/P.I.O/MTC/2015 dated 02.06.2015 and quash
the same, and consequently direct the respondents to consider and appoint the
petitioner as Junior Engineer (Trainee) in any one of the corporations by
relaxing his age in view of the judgment passed this Honble Court in WP(MD):
11104/2012 dated 11.10.2012, and pass any other or further orders and render
justice.
Solemnly affirmed at Chennai

()

This the 23rd day of November

()

2015 and signed his name in my

()

Presence.

()

MEMORANDUM OF WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WP:

OF 2015

Mr.Mujeebur Rahman
No: 11/8, Vanakkara Kuppusamy Street,
East Pondi Road,
Villupuram 605602.

.Petitioner

Vs
1. The Managing Director
Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) Limited
Pallavan Salai,
Chennai.
2.The Managing Director
State Express transport Corporation (Tamilnadu) Limited,
Pallavan Salai,
Chennai.
3. The Managing Director,
Tamilnadu State Transport corporation (Kovai) Limited,
No: 37, Mettupalayam Road,
Coimbatore 43.

..Respondents

WRIT PETITION
The address for service of all notices and processes on the Petitioner is that of
his counsel D.Muthukumar No.155/319, 1st Floor, Lingi Chetty Street, Chennai
600 001.
The address for service of all notices and processes on the Respondent are as
stated above.
For the reason mentioned in the accompanying affidavit it is prayed that
this Honble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more
particularly a writ in the nature of CERTIORARIFIED MANDAMUS calling for the
records from the first respondent in letter No: 21159/P.I.O/MTC/2015 dated
02.06.2015 and quash the same, and consequently direct the respondents to

consider and appoint the petitioner as Junior Engineer (Trainee) in any one of
the corporations by relaxing his age in view of the judgment passed this
Honble Court in WP(MD): 11104/2012 dated 11.10.2012, and pass any other or
further orders and render justice.
Dated at Chennai this the 23rd day of November 2015
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER

WRIT MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MP.No:

OF 2015
IN

WP:

OF 2015

Mr.Mujeebur Rahman
No: 11/8, Vanakkara Kuppusamy Street,
East Pondi Road,
Villupuram 605602.

.Petitioner/petitioner

Vs
1. The Managing Director
Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) Limited
Pallavan Salai,
Chennai.
2.The Managing Director
State Express transport Corporation (Tamilnadu) Limited,
Pallavan Salai,
Chennai.
3. The Managing Director,
Tamilnadu State Transport corporation (Kovai) Limited,
No: 37, Mettupalayam Road,
Coimbatore 43.
..Respondents/respondents
DIRECTION PETITION
For the reason stated in the accompanying affidavit It is therefore prayed that
this Honble Court may be pleased to direct the 3 rd respondent to keep one post
of Junior Engineer (Trainee) vacant till the disposal of this writ petition.
Dated at Chennai this the 23rd day of November 2015
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER/PETITIONER

Batta:
1. The Managing Director
Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) Limited
Pallavan Salai,
Chennai.
2.The Managing Director
State Express transport Corporation (Tamilnadu) Limited,
Pallavan Salai,
Chennai.
3. The Managing Director,
Tamilnadu State Transport corporation (Kovai) Limited,
No: 37, Mettupalayam Road,
Coimbatore 43.

..Respondents

Dated at Chennai this the 23rd day of November 2015

COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WP:

OF 2015

Mr.Mujeebur Rahman
No: 11/8, Vanakkara Kuppusamy Street,
East Pondi Road,
Villupuram 605602.

.Petitioner

Vs
1. The Managing Director
Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) Limited
Pallavan Salai,
Chennai and others.
Respondents
INDEX TO THE TYPED SET OF PAPERS FILED BY THE PETITIONER
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------S.NO
DATE
DESCRIPTION
PAGE NO
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------01.

April 1997

Diploma in Mechanical Engineering

02.

23.12.1997

Employment Exchange card

03.

25.10.1999

Certificate issued by Villupuram

Corporation

04.

19.02.2001

Certificate issued by Board of Apprenticeship

Training (Southern Region)

05.

17.07.2006

G.O.Ms.No: 98

06.

11.10.2012

Order passed in WP: 11104/2012

07.

02.11.2014

Recruitment advertisement issued

By the respondents

08.

17.11.2014

Petitioner applications

09.

20.11.2014

Petitioner application

10.

29.11.2014

Interview call letter issued by the 1st

Respondent

11.

03.12.2014

Interview call letter issued by the 2nd

Respondent

12.

08.12.2014

Interview call letter issued by the 3rd

Respondent

13.

09.12.2014

Writ petition and affidavit in WP: 32626/2014

14.

17.12.2014

Writ petition and affidavit in WP: 33730/2014

15.

19.12.2014

Order passed in WP: 33730/2014

16.

30.12.2014

Order passed in WA: 1737/2014

17.

02.06.2015

Reply given by the 3rd respondent (Impugned)

18.
24.07.2015
Reply given by the 3rd respondent
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------It is stated that the above mentioned documents are true to the best of
knowledge and belief.
Dated at Chennai this the 23rd day of November 2015
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT

MADRAS
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WP:

OF 2015

WRIT PETITON

D.MUTHUKUMAR
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER
E.NO: 2187/2003
PH: 9884982853

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT

MADRAS
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WP:

OF 2015

AFFIDAVIT

D.MUTHUKUMAR
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER
E.NO: 2187/2003
PH: 9884982853

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT

MADRAS
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WP:

OF 2015

TYPED SET OF PAPERS

D.MUTHUKUMAR
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER
E.NO: 2187/2003
PH: 9884982853

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT

MADRAS
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WP:

OF 2015

DIRECTION PETITION

D.MUTHUKUMAR
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER
E.NO: 2187/2003
PH: 9884982853