Vengadapady Vs Mihir Vardhan (Madras High Court)
Madras High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by Vengadapady, seeking clarity on age relaxation for meritorious sportspersons (MSPs) in government employment in Puducherry. The court, in its order, stated that “nothing survives for further adjudication” in the present petition, as the Puducherry government has now formalized its policy on the matter.
The petition arose from a previous order by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Chennai Bench, in O.A./310/01285/2012 dated November 22, 2018. In compliance with the Tribunal’s directive, the Directorate of Agriculture, Puducherry, had taken up the applicant’s case with the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Personnel Wing) to establish a policy decision.
The Under Secretary to Government (Agriculture), Puducherry, on March 24, 2020, communicated the clarified policy. This clarification, derived from the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Government of India, via the Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, elucidated the following:
- MSPs are allowed age relaxation of up to 5 years, with a further 10 years for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (SC/ST) candidates.
- The instructions do not provide for any further relaxation for MSPs belonging to the Other Backward Classes (OBC) category.
- Crucially, there is no provision for cumulative age relaxation for MSPs who are also government servants when considering their candidature for direct recruitment to Central Government jobs. In such cases, age relaxation is admissible either as an MSP or as a Central Government Employee, whichever is more beneficial to the individual.
- Furthermore, age relaxation for MSPs is exclusively available for appointments under the sports quota.
Based on this official clarification, the Puducherry administration informed the applicant that age relaxation for MSPs is solely applicable for appointments made under the dedicated sports quota. This re-affirmed the department’s original stance on the matter.
The counsel for the petitioner sought liberty from the court to challenge this newly formalized policy decision by the Department. The Madras High Court granted this liberty, dismissing the current writ petition as “infructuous” (rendered ineffective due to intervening events or a lack of purpose).
The ruling highlights the government’s defined stance on age relaxation for sportspersons, limiting its applicability specifically to appointments made through the sports quota, and clarifies that cumulative age relaxation for MSPs who are also government employees is not permissible. This decision could impact other similar cases concerning age relaxation policies in government recruitment. No specific judicial precedents were detailed or discussed within the provided text of the judgment.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
