VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Madras High Court 2026 › High Court of Madras

R.Vimalraj v. The Union of India

DISMISSED
Court
High Court of Madras
Decided
11 June 2026
Bench
S. M. Subramaniamauthor, N.Senthilkumar
Case no.
WP 9084/2026

Judgment

ORDER (Made by S.M.Subramaniam J.) The present writ petition has been instituted challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, dated 14.11.2025 passed in O.A.No.310/00943 of 2025 and for a direction to first respondent to relax the age

criterion

specified

in

Part-IV

of

the

Notification No.1-22/ED/OSD/Estt./A4/2023, dated 04.04.2025 by 3 years for OBC candidates and 5 years for SC and ST Candidates in exercise of powers conferred in Recruitment Rule 6 to enable the second respondent to consider Page4 of 6 the applications filed by petitioners for the post of Construction Helper in the Pondicherry

Electricity

Department

pursuant

to

Notification No.1-22/ED/OSD/Estt./A4/2023, dated 04.04.2025, on merits by following clause 9 dealing with the Mode of Recruitment in the Notification dated

04.04.2025.

¶2The original applicants before the Central Administrative Tribunal are the writ petitioners before this Court. The application was filed seeking a direction to respondents to accept the offline application of writ petitioners and permit them to participate in the selection process for the post of Construction Helper, pursuant to recruitment notification dated 04.04.2025 by granting suitable age relaxation.

¶3The prescription of age, educational qualification criteria for appointment are policy matters and the prerogative of the employer. The criteria for recruitment has been notified. Thus, the age limit prescribed in the notification is binding on the candidates, who are aspiring to secure public employment through open competitive process. Admittedly, in the present case, the writ petitioners were over aged and not allowed to participate in the process of selection. Page5 of 6

¶4Learned Senior Counsel appearing for writ petitioners would submit that pursuant to the interim order of the Court, the writ petitioners were permitted to write the written examination. Such interim order would not confer any right to claim age relaxation or final order from the Tribunal or the High Court to relax the age limit fixed under the recruitment notification. Interim orders passed by the Courts are always subject to the final orders and if the case is finally decided against the petitioners, then the petitioners cannot claim any benefit from and out of the interim orders granted. Therefore, mere participating in the written examination pursuant to the interim order would not be a ground to seek age relaxation either before the Tribunal or before the High Court.

¶5Granting relaxation of age and educational qualification criteria for appointment cannot be considered by the Courts. In any event, granting any such relaxation of age would result in causing discrimination amongst candidates, who are all otherwise eligible in terms of the recruitment notification. That apart, it is a policy matter and therefore, would fall beyond the realm of the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Central Administrative Tribunal has considered the legal principles in right perspective and relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. This Court does not find any infirmity in the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, which is impugned. Page6 of 6

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND

N.SENTHILKUMAR, J. gm Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (S.M.S.,J.) (N.S.,J.) 11-06-2026 Index: Yes Speaking order gm To

¶1The Secretary, Electricity Department, Chief Secretariat, Government of Puducherry, Puducherry 605 001.

¶2The Superintending Engineer-cum-Head of Department, Electricity Department, No.137, N.S.C. Bose Road, Puducherry 605 001.

¶3The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, High Court Campus, Chennai 600 104. (2/2)

Case details

Parties and counsel

Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11-06-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR and W.M.P.No.9807 of 2026 1. R.Vimalraj S/o.R.Ramalingam 2. K.Narasimman S/o.Kaliyamoorthy 3. D.Bakkiaraj, S/o.Dhasal 4. A.Rajesh Kumar, S/o.Arumugam 5. A.Purushothaman S/o.M.Arumugam 6. V.Sankar S/o.Venkatesan 7. M.Chandiramavuleeswaran S/o.T.Mani 8. P.Selvaraju S/o.Poogavanam 9. A.Velmurugan, S/o.A.Anjapuly 10.G.Prabakaran S/o.G.Gnanasekar 11.V.Yogaraj S/o.R.Veeramani 12.B.Krishnachandran S/o.Boobalan Page2 of 6 13.V.Murugan S/o.R.Velu 14.V.Vaithilingam S/o.Varadhan 15.N.Ponnuswami S/o.Natarajan 16.S.Rajaraman S/o.Sundaram 17.S.Ananthakumaran S/o.Suntharamurthy 18.S.Vinothkumar S/o.Subramanian 19.V.Pathanjali S/o.K.Venugopal 20.M.Devanath S/o.Manohar ..Petitioners Vs 1. The Union of India represented by the Secretary, Electricity Department, Chief Secretariat, Government of Puducherry, Puducherry 605 001. 2. The Superintending Engineer-cum-Head of Department, Electricity Department, No.137, N.S.C. Bose Road, Puducherry 605 001. 3. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, High Court Campus, Chennai 600 104. ..Respondents Page3 of 6 Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Branch in O.A.No.310/00943 of 2025, dated 14.11.2025 and quash the same and direct the first respondent to relax the age criterion specified in Part-IV of the Notification No.1-22/ED/OSD/Estt./A4/2023, dated 04.04.2025 by 3 years for OBC candidates and 5 years for SC and ST Candidates in exercise of powers conferred in Recruitment Rule 6 to enable the second respondent to consider the applications filed by the petitioners for the post of Construction Helper in the Pondicherry Electricity Department pursuant to Notification No.1-22/ED/OSD/Estt./A4/2023, dated 04.04.2025 on merits by following clause 9 dealing with the Mode of Recruitment in the Notification dated 04.04.2025. For Petitioner : Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram, Senior Counsel for Ms.C.Uma For Respondents : Mr.R.Syed Musthafa, Special Government Pleader (Puducherry) [R1 & R2] Tribunal (CAT) [R3] *****

Source: High Court of Madras, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.