AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Honorable Mr. Justice K. Chandru
The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking for a direction to the respondents to register his name under the M.B.C. priority category for any public employment as per the qualification and to sponsor his name for any public employment, for which, names may be called for from the District Employment Officer, Ramanathapuram, the first respondent herein.
When the matter came up on 19.07.2010, notice of motion was ordered. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition for amendment and brought on record the Revenue Divisional Officer, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District as the second respondent. Accordingly, the cause title stood modified by an order dated 20.04.2011. On notice, the respondents were appeared.
It is seen from the records that the petitioner''s mother Karuppaiammal, a resident of Seyyalur Village in Paramakudi Taluk, gave a land for acquisition for the purpose of assigning house sites for the Adi-dravidar community people to the extent of 0.25.0 hectares. The petitioner as well as his mother were paid a compensation of Rs. 31,961/-. The petitioner, on the basis of the acquisition of the land, obtained a certificate from the Special Tahsildar, Adi-Dravidar Welfare, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District, dated 04.03.2010 stating that he can be considered as a priority candidate on the basis of land looser. It is not clear as to how the said Tahsildar, gave such a certificate contradictory to the spirit of the order passed by the State Government in G.O.Ms.No. 188, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Per.P) Department, dated 28.12.1976.
In any event, when the petitioner made a representation, the second respondent, Revenue Divisional Officer, Paramakudi, by his communication dated 30.03.2010 informed the Special Tahsildar that by acquisition of the land, whether the petitioner was entitled to get priority quota?. The Special Tahsildar was asked to specifically inform as to whether the land was acquired after issuance of notification u/s 4(1) or by private negotiations and whether the petitioner is solely depending upon the income from the land for his survival and whether the petitioner was entitled for inclusion of his name in priority quota. The Special Tahsildar, who gave the certificate, earlier vide his communication dated 27.05.2010 addressed to the second respondent, Revenue Divisional Officer, informed him that the land was acquired by direct negotiations and not by compulsory acquisition through a notification u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. With reference to the dependency of the land, it was stated that the land in Survey No. 71/2 to the extent of 0.25.0 hectares was in the name of six persons and therefore, it cannot be said that he was solely depending upon the land for his survival. On receipt of said communication, the second respondent, Revenue Divisional Officer, informed the first respondent, District Employment Officer, that the petitioner is not eligible to be included in the priority category, as the land acquired was only for the purpose of assigning house sites for Adi-Dravidar community, through private negotiations and it cannot be said that he was solely depending upon the income from the land.
The petitioner, instead of challenging the said communication, sought for a direction to include his name in the priority category. It is not clear as to how such a direction can be sought for, especially when the second respondent had informed the Employment Exchange that the petitioner was not liable for inclusion in the priority category. This Court while noticing several such incidents, where certificates were issued indiscriminately by Special Tahsildars only on the ground that some land, were acquired for the Harijan Welfare Schemes under the Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978, has directed action to be initiated for recalling such certificates. The purpose for which, a priority category was created is stipulated by the State Government vide G.O.M.S.No. 188 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Per.P) Department dated 28.12.1976. It can be seen that it is only with a view to help the dependents, who were primarily or wholly living for their livelihood depend on the lands acquired.
Paragraph 5 of the Annexure may be usefully reproduced:
(v) Members of the family (including members of Schedule Caste/Scheduled Tribe) whose lands have been acquired for Government purposes as well as for the projects of the Public Sector Undertakings subject to the condition that preference should be given to those who are dependent for their livelihood primarily or wholly on the lands acquired and from among them to members of the Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes who may be eligible for employment.
(Emphasis cited)
If it is viewed in that context, then the certificate relied upon by the petitioner cannot be said to be a genuine certificate qualifying himself for the said priority category and that when an indiscriminate certificate was issued by the third respondent, and when explanation were called for came out the truth, that the lands to the extent of 0.25.0 Hectares was in the names of six persons and that the petitioner was only a sharer. Even the lands acquired were for house sites and not agricultural lands. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner had asserted that his livelihood, depended upon the income from the land. On the contrary, in paragraph 7 of the affidavit, he had failed in his attempt to show that his livelihood would affect, in view of the invoking of the special Act for implementing the Harijan welfare Scheme.
In the present case, the petitioner had cleverly entered into private negotiations with the authorities only for getting a certificate. Already, this Court had directed the State Government and all Subordinate Officers to enquire into such issuance of certificates and if necessary, to recall those certificates, if they do not come strictly within the parameters laid down by the Government in G.O.M.S.No. 188 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Per.P) Department dated 28.12.1976. It must also be noted that under Article 16, any public employment has to be opened for entry to all citizens and a priority quota must be strictly come within the exception to the Article.
The conduct of the petitioner if encouraged, may give rise to many such fraudulent certificates being obtained, thereby jeopardizing the interest of genuine persons, who were standing in the queue for getting employment.
Hence, there is no case made out in this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.