PARTICIPATION IN SELECTION PROCESS BARS CHALLENGE TO ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA AND AGE LIMITS.

The petitioner originally filed a writ petition challenging his non-selection for the post of Junior Engineer in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd.

The writ petition was dismissed on the grounds that the petitioner, having participated in the selection process, could not later challenge it.

The subsequent Writ Appeal (W.A(MD).No.913 of 2018) was dismissed on 06.10.2025, after the court accepted the Additional Advocate General's submission that the petitioner had exceeded the maximum age limit of 35 years for Backward Class (B.C.) candidates.

The petitioner filed this review application claiming the age limit was actually 40 years, relying on a TNPSC notification and certain RTI communications.

Whether there exists any material error or irregularity in the order dated 06.10.2025 regarding the determination of the maximum age limit for Backward Class candidates that warrants a review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the C.P.C.

The court applied the principles of Review Jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.), which allows for the review of a judgment only upon the discovery of new evidence or a manifest error on the face of the record.

Inter-departmental drafts do not constitute binding administrative rules or valid evidence of official policy.

The court examined the petitioner’s evidence and found it insufficient to prove an error in the original judgment; the TNPSC notification relied upon was irrelevant as it did not govern this specific recruitment.

Regarding the RTI document cited by the petitioner (mentioning a 40-year limit), the court determined it was merely a "draft letter" prepared by subordinate officials and not a finalized decision by the Public Information Officer.

The court found that the Transport Corporation’s official communication to the Employment Exchange and the call letter sent to the petitioner explicitly stated the age limit as 35 years, and the Public Information Officer had officially confirmed the 35-year limit to the petitioner on 10.03.2014.

The court held that there was no material irregularity or merit in the review application and dismissed the Review Application, confirming the original order of dismissal in the Writ Appeal with no costs awarded.