Writ Petition No.9912 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON

11.02.2026

PRONOUNCED ON

20.02.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR . JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN

AND

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

Writ Petition No.9912 of 2022

H.Santhila PRemkumar ... Petitioner

Vs

1.The Registrar,

Central Administrative Tribunal,

Chennai – 600 104.

2.Union of India,

Represented by its Secretary (HFW) &

Chairman of Governing Boady of

Pasteur Insistute of India, Coonoor,

Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,

Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi – 110 011.

3.The Director & Disciplinary Authority,

Pasteur Institute of India,

Coonoor – 643 103,

Nilgiris District. ... Respondents

PRAYER:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the

records on the file of the first respondent bearing O.A.No.310/000723 of

1/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Writ Petition No.9912 of 2022

2019 dismissing the Original Application dated 11.02.2022 and quash the

same and consequently direct the respondents 2 & 3 to take into account the

8 years of service of the petitioner in second respondent institution and

regularize her services in the post of Research Assistant (Group C post) by

relaxing the age as per the Recruitment Rules for the Post of Research

Assistant of the second respondent and based on the Office Memorandum

No.F.4/4/74-Esst.(D) dated 20.07.1976, No.15012/1/88-Estt.(D) dated

30.01.1980, 20.05.1988, 30.01.1990 of the Ministry of Personnel, Public

Grievances & Pensions Department of Personnel & Training with effect

from the date of her initial appointment as Research Assistant and to grant

her all consequential service, attendant and monetary benefits and pass

further orders.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Viduthalai

Senior Counsel

for Ms.A.V.Bharathi

For R1 : Tribunal

For RR2 & 3 : Mr.T.V.Krishnamachari

Senior Panel Counsel

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by Mr.K.KUMARESH BABU.,J.)

This writ petition has been filed by petitioner challenging the order of

the Tribunal made in O.A.No.310/000723 of 2019 dated 11.02.2022 and for

a consequential direction to the second and third respondents to take into

account the 8 years of service of the petitioner in second respondent

2/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Writ Petition No.9912 of 2022

institution and regularize her services in the post of Research Assistant

(Group C post) by relaxing the age as per the Recruitment Rules for the Post

of Research Assistant based on the Office Memorandums with effect from

the date of her initial appointment as Research Assistant and to grant her all

consequential service, attendant and monetary benefits

2. Heard Mr.R.Viduthalai, learned Senior Counsel appearing on

behalf of Ms.A.V.Bharathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and

Mr.T.V.Krishnamachari, learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing on behalf

of the second and third respondents.

3. Mr.R.Viduthalai, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of

the petitioner would submit that the petitioner pursuant to the advertisement

issued by the third respondent in the year 1996 had joined the third

respondent Institute at Coonoor as a Lab Technician which was followed by

Junior Research Fellow and Senior Research Fellow on contract basis. In

view of the training programme of Department of Virology, she was posted

in Vaccine production Units.

3/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Writ Petition No.9912 of 2022

4. When that being so, an advertisement was issued by the third

respondent in the year 2005 inviting applications to the post of Research

Assistants Group-C. The petitioner had also submitted an application

indicating her date of birth as 20.05.1967. He would submit that the

petitioner was appointed as Research Assistant on 01.05.2006. On

completion of 2 years of satisfactory probation period, she had made a

representation on 03.11.2008 seeking to declare her probation. However, the

petitioner was terminated by order dated 09.04.2009 by the third respondent

on the sole ground that the petitioner was over aged at the time of

appointment. He would further submit that the petitioner had challenged the

said order of termination before the Central Administrative Tribunal in

O.A.No.418 of 2009, which by order dated 11.12.2009 set aside the order of

termination. The third respondent had challenged the same before this Court

in W.P.No.9131 of 2011, wherein by order dated 29.10.2013, this Court

upholding the order of Tribunal in setting aside the termination, however

modified the same by granting liberty to the respondents to initiate

proceedings if required to be taken and proceed in accordance with law.

5. He would submit that on 17.02.2015, a charge memorandum was

4/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Writ Petition No.9912 of 2022

issued to the petitioner alleging that on the date of advertisement, the

petitioner was over aged and was not qualified to be appointed and that the

appointment was made in violation of the Recruitment Rules and the bye-

laws of the Institute. The imputation to the said charge was that the

misconduct and misbehaviour of the petitioner in supressing the age criteria

which was in violation of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter

referred to as 'the Rules'). He would submit that a reply by way of defence

was also submitted by the petitioner and the same was also came to be

challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.399 of

2016. However, the said O.A. came to be dismissed vide order dated

09.03.2016.

6. Again the petitioner had submitted a detailed representation on

22.03.2016 indicating that the petitioner had disclosed the date of birth in

her application and only after taking note of the same, the petitioner had

been appointed and there was no misconduct on the part of the petitioner.

However, after the enquiry, the petitioner was visited with an order of

dismissal on 31.05.2016 which came to be challenged by the petitioner in

O.A.No.937 of 2016 which was disposed of by the Tribunal with a direction

to the petitioner to exhaust the appellate remedy. Therefore, the petitioner

5/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Writ Petition No.9912 of 2022

had preferred an Appeal and the same came to be rejected without a

speaking order. The same came to be challenged by the petitioner in

O.A.No.23 of 2017 and after recording the admission made by the

respondents that the order of the Appellate Authority was summary in

nature, had directed the Appellate Authority to consider all relevant issues

and pass a detailed speaking order. He would submit that in furtherance to

the same, the Appellate Authority had revisited his order, but however

reiterated that the punishment had been justified and rejected the case of the

petitioner. Challenging the same, the petitioner had approached the Tribunal

in O.A.No.723 of 2017, however the same had been rejected by the Tribunal

holding that the Tribunal exercising the power of judicial review cannot

interfere with the punishment that had been imposed on the petitioner.

7. He would submit that the petitioner cannot be held responsible for

the appointment that had been made, on the ground that the petitioner was

over aged at the time of appointment. Firstly, he would submit that the

Authorities are emnpowered to relax the age for grant of appointment. He

would also contend that the petitioner being an in-service candidate on

contractual basis is more suitable that an open market candidate as the

petitioner is aware of the Rules and procedures and also the work

6/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Writ Petition No.9912 of 2022

environment in the third respondent Institute. He would further submit that

even assuming that the petitioner was at fault for an act that had happened

prior to the petitioner being borne into regular service, the Rules could not

have been applied.

8. He would submit that for any conduct of which there is a violation

of the Rules after the recruitment had been made can only be a subject

matter of the disciplinary proceedings under the Rules and not otherwise. He

would submit that the authorities are well aware of the date of birth of the

petitioner and the petitioner's selection had been made by the Committee

and therefore, the appointment of the petitioner pursuant to the notification

of the year 2005 cannot be faulted with. He would further submit that the

appointment cannot be said to be illegal and utmost could only be irregular

as the petitioner has all the qualification necessary for the appointment of

the post apart from having experience in a similar post in the very same

Institute, andhas further been appointed by a open recruitment process.

9. Drawing attention to the Report filed by the Central Bureau of

Investigation, he would submit that there are two other similarly placed

persons whose appointment was also found to be not in consonance with the

7/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Writ Petition No.9912 of 2022

Recruitment Rules, however, it is his case that they had been continued in

service even as of today. In such an event, he would submit that the same

benefit could also be extended to the petitioner and the petitioner had been

singled out and therefore, there is a violation of Article 14 of the

Constitution of India. He had also placed reliance upon the Office

Memorandums of the third respondent of succeeding years to contend that

relaxation of age can be given to the recruitment in Group-C post. He would

submit that all these aspects have been fully over-looked by the Tribunal in

dismissing the Original Application which is impugned herein. Hence, he

seeks indulgence of this Court to the order impugned in this Writ Petition.

10. Countering his arguments, Mr.T.V.Krishnamachari, learned

Senior Panel Counsel appearing on behalf of the second and third

respondents would submit that it is true that the petitioner had been

originally appointed on contract basis. He would submit that as per the

Recruitment Rules, the minimum age of 30 years had been prescribed for

direct recruitment to the post in a Group-C cadre. He would submit that it is

true that the petitioner had also disclosed her correct age in the application

submitted by her.

8/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Writ Petition No.9912 of 2022

11. He would submit that the entire recruitment process was found

malicious as being in violation of the Recruitment Rules and based upon a

source information, the CBI had registered an FIR under the Provisions of

the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC. After a thorough investigation,

the same was closed by its closure Report in the year 2008, where also it had

been found that there has been a violation of the Recruitment Rules, but

there was no evidence to prove that the Selection Committee members had

conspired to cheat the Institute and abuse their official position in making

the recommendations. It had further recommended that regular departmental

action for major penalty against the members of the respective Selection

Committees for violation of the Rules.

12. He would contend that the members of the Selection Committees

were also departmentally proceeded by initiating appropriate disciplinary

proceedings against them and in respect of the members of the Selection

Committee who were in service, punishments were imposed and in respect

of members who had superannuated they were also imposed with

punishment of with holding a percentage of their pension for a definite

9/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Writ Petition No.9912 of 2022

period and in respect of persons who had superannuated and gone beyond

the limitation prescribed under the Pension Rules were not proceeded with.

Therefore, he would submit that the selection of the petitioner had been in

violation of the Recruitment Rules and being employed in public

engagement cannot be allowed to continue in service.

13. He would submit that it is misnomer to place reliance upon the

Office Memorandums as claimed by the learned Senior Counsel for the

petitioner. He would submit that such Office Memorandums have been

issued for direct recruitment of Department candidates who were already

working in the Department on regular basis alone and as the petitioner was

not in a regular service and was only on a contractual service and therefore

cannot be benefitted with the said Office Memorandums.

14. He would further submit that Article 14 of the Constitution of

India as claimed by the learned Senior Counsel cannot also be made

applicable to the facts of the case. Even if it is assumed that the similarly

placed persons are permitted to be continuted in service, it is only an

illegallity and the principles of Article 14 cannot be extended to a illegallity

10/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Writ Petition No.9912 of 2022

on the part of the respondents. He would further submit that as the petitioner

had been over aged and she was not entitled to be appointed in the service.

Further service rendered by her on contract basis cannot also enure to her

benefit for relaxation of her age, apart from the fact that the entire Selection

Committee had been found fault with for violation of the Recruitment Rules.

The petitioner who had been appointed in violation of the Recruitment Rules

cannot claim to continue in service and therefore, he would submit that there

is no infirmity either in the orders passed by the third respondent or the

Appellate Authority as upheld by the Tribunal in the orders impugned

herein. Hence, he seeks dismissal of the Writ Petition.

15. We have considered the submissions made by the learned

counsels appearing on either side and perused the materials available on

record.

16. It is not disputed that the petitioner was over aged at the time of

appointment as Research Assistant which is a Group-C post. It is also

admitted that as per the Recruitment Rules, the age limit had been

prescribed as 30 years. It is the case of the petitioner that she had been in

contractual basis with the Institute and only on the oral instructions by her

11/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Writ Petition No.9912 of 2022

superiors, she had applied for the post and in open recruitment, the Selection

Committee had recommended the name, pursuant to which her appointment

was given. This would mean that the petitioner's appointment was not in

consonance with the Recruitment Rules.

17. The learned Senior Counsel had tried to impress us by raising that

it was not her fault for being appointed to the post, Office Memorandums

envisaging relaxation of Rules and that similarly placed persons have been

allowed to continue in service. On the other hand, it is the case of the

respondents that the members of the Selection Committee who had

recommended the name of the petitioner were all departmentally proceeded

based upon the recommendations of the Central Bureau of Investigation and

was also been inflicted with punishments, that the Office Memorandums do

not relate to an outsider, but only relates to a regularly appointed in-service

candidates in a lower cadre to enable them to participate in the recruitment

process to a Group-C post and that Article 14 cannot be invoked as the

continuation of service of the similarly placed persons would only amount to

illegallity.

12/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Writ Petition No.9912 of 2022

18. With regard to the claim that the petitioner had been appointed

regularly through open recruitment by a Selection Committee, it is to be

noted that the recommendations of the Selection Committee is contrary to

the Recruitment Rules. The members of the Selection Committee have also

been proceeded with departmentally and were awarded punishments. Hence,

in that context, the appointment of the petitioner can only be beyond the

Recruitment Rules and hence, the petitioner firstly cannot be permitted to

contend that such appointment is only irregular and not illegal.

19. With regard to the claim of relaxation of age by relying upon the

Office Memorandums, it is to be noted that such Office Memorandums, as

rightly pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for

respondent, only relates to granting of relaxation to regularly appointed in-

service candidates to enable them to participate in the recruitment process

for a Group-C post. Hence, such Office Memorandums relied upon by the

learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner cannot also be extended to her for

the grant of age relaxation. The Recruitment Rules also do not envisage the

relaxation for direct recruitment to a Group-C post.

13/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Writ Petition No.9912 of 2022

20. With regard to the claim of applicability of Article 14 of the

Constitution of India, as rightly pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel

for the respondents, the principles of Article 14 cannot be extended to an

illegality, it is for the Department to act on such illegality.

21. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any infirmity or illegality

in the orders impugned herein warranting interference by this Court.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no

order as to costs.

(C.V.K.,J.) (K.B., J.)

20.02.2026

Index: Yes/No

Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order

Neutral Citation:Yes/No

Gba

To

1.Union of India,

Represented by its Secretary (HFW) &

Chairman of Governing Boady of

Pasteur Insistute of India, Coonoor,

Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,

Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi – 110 011.

14/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Writ Petition No.9912 of 2022

2.The Director & Disciplinary Authority,

Pasteur Institute of India,

Coonoor – 643 103,

Nilgiris District.

15/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Writ Petition No.9912 of 2022

C.V. KARTHIKEYAN ., J.

and

K.KUMARESH BABU.,J.

Gba

A Pre-delivery judgment made in

Writ Petition No.9912 of 2022

20.02.2026

16/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis