AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.K. Misra, J.—Heard the learned Counsels appearing for the parties.
These writ petitions have been filed by the State Government against the common order dated 27.12.2002 passed by the Tamil Nadu
Administrative Tribunal in O.A.Nos. 6809 of 2000 and other connected Original Applications, which had been filed by different applicants seeking
employment.
The brief facts are as follows:
The applicants after completion of their training in Teacher Training Institutes had registered their names in the Employment Exchange.
Subsequently on the basis of Residence Certificate from the concerned authority in a different District, they had sought for change of registration
from Employment Exchange of one district to Employment Exchange in another district and accordingly such names were transferred to the other
District Employment Exchange. The applicants were seeking for employment as Secondary Grade Teachers in such other District on the basis of
such transfer of names but, since no action was taken, Original Applications were filed seeking for a direction to the District Employment Officer of
such other District to sponsor the names.
The main contention raised by the writ petitioners is to the effect that the respondents / applicants had filed OAs seeking for a direction to the
Employment Exchange to sponsor their names for being, appointed as Secondary Grade Teachers on the basis of transfer of registration in the
employment exchange.
These matters were taken up along with similar Applications and the following order was passed:
11) All these Applications have been filed praying for a direction to the respondents viz. District Employment Officers, Dharmapuri and
Ramanathapuram to sponsor the applications depending upon their seniority in registration and a further direction is sought for to the Chief
Educational Officer who is the Chairman of the Committee to select and give postings to them. Now all the applicants have got their names
sponsored by the District Employment Officers and I am now told by the learned Standing Counsel Mrs. Malarvizhi Udayakumar that most of the
applicants have also been selected and they were given appointment already or they are in the process of getting their orders of appointment
depending upon the seniority in registration. Government has given up the process of cancellation of transferred registration and all these persons
are likely to get their appointment provided they have sufficient seniority in registration with District Employment Offices of Ramanathapuram and
Dharmapuri Districts. I am also given to understand that there is no heart burning among the registered candidates who have registered in
Ramanathapuram and Dharmapuri Districts that chances of their getting employment in their own districts have been taken away or they are
deprived of their getting employment. Therefore Government also has given up the procedure or idea of cancelling the transferred registration.
12) Therefore now that all the names of the applicants have been considered by the District Employment Officers and names have been forwarded
or sponsored to the Chief Educational Officer depending upon their seniority in the registration, nothing remains to be done and it is open to the
respondents to issue orders of appointment. In number of cases while respondents have not been prevented from proceeding with the appointment
of secondary grade teachers in these districts, only a direction has been issued to keep one post vacant for each of the applicants. Number of
posts have been kept vacant as per the directions issued by this Tribunal and that transferred registration are accepted by the Government, there
will be no difficulty in granting appointment to these applicants provided they have sufficient seniority in the registration with the Employment
Exchanges. Regarding the submissions mode by the Government Standing Counsel, all these applications are ordered to be closed. M.As are
closed.
The contention of the petitioners is to the effect that while OAs were pending, these applicants challenged the cancellation of their registration
number in the Employment Exchange and in the concerned writ petitions, the High Court has passed an order directing the concerned authorities to
consider afresh the question of cancellation of residence certificate after giving opportunity of hearing. It is therefore submitted by the petitioners
that since those applicants had independently challenged the order of cancellation of residence certificate in the writ petition and the High Court had
passed an order for re-verification of the residence certificate, such applicants must be deemed to have abandoned their Original Applications
before the Tribunal and at any rate since their residence certificates have been cancelled, such applicants cannot be given any benefit on the basis
of the transfer of registration number from Employment Exchange of one district to another which was based on residence certificate.
The learned Counsels appearing for the contesting respondent No. 1 have contended that the order of the Administrative Tribunal indicates that
the decision is based on the concession given by the counsel representing the State Government and such conclusion on the basis of concession
cannot be permitted to be assailed in the writ petitions.
The entire paragraph has already been extracted by us. The said paragraph does not indicate that the concession was in respect of each
applicant before the Tribunal. Such statement was only a general statement and cannot be considered as a specific concession and that too on
specific instruction from the State. Moreover, when the applicants themselves, during pendency of the original applications, filed writ petitions
against the very same orders relating to cancellation of the registration in the Employment Exchange and the residence certificate, obviously they
have to abide by the directions given in their respective writ petitions and the so-called concession, couched in rather vague terms, cannot be taken
advantage of by such contesting respondents (the applicants before the Tribunal). As already indicated, they have filed separate writ petitions and
subsequently even though the original applications were pending, it must be taken that those persons who had filed such writ petitions had
abandoned their applications before the Tribunal.
Learned Counsel appearing for the contesting Respondent No. 1 in W.P.No. 30090 of 2005 has contended that such contesting respondent
had filed W.P.No. 37328 of 2004, which was disposed of on 16.12.2004 by giving the following direction:
Hence, I direct the second respondent to implement the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No. 9509 of 2000 dated 27.12.2002 within
twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if there is no other legal impediment.
It is therefore contended by him that in view of such direction already issued by the High Court, there is no scope for interfering with the order
passed by the Administrative Tribunal.
The very fact that the High Court had given direction by indicating that the order is to be implemented if there is no other legal impediment itself
makes it clear that it was only a provisional direction and not a direction in absolute terms. Since pursuant to earlier direction of the High Court in
W.P.No. 5171 of 2002, the residence certificate / change of registration found to be incorrect, Respondent No. 1 in W.P.No. 30090 of 2005
cannot take advantage of the provisional observation made by the High Court in W.P.No. 37328 of 2004. However, as observed by us, it would
be open to Respondent No. 1 in W.P.No. 30090 of 2005 to challenge the subsequent order passed by the authority in accordance with law.
It is stated on behalf of the State that after re-verification, their residence certificates have been found to be not genuine.
These respondents cannot claim any benefit on the basis of the order passed by the Tribunal in view of the fact that on subsequent verification
made on the basis of the orders passed by the High Court in the writ petitions filed by such respondents (applicants before the Tribunal), fresh
orders have been passed. However, it would be open to such respondents (applicants) to challenge the subsequent orders in accordance with law.
Learned Counsels appearing for the contesting respondents have also contended that the writ petitions should be dismissed on the ground of
delay and laches.
Whether there is any delay or laches in filing of a writ petition cannot be considered in a straitjacket formula as such question depends upon facts
and circumstances of each case. In the present cases, the applicants before the Tribunal had themselves approached the High Court and certain
directions had been issued and further inquires regarding the residence certificates were being undertaken. In such peculiar circumstances, the State
cannot be blamed for not having filed the writ petitions earlier.
In course of hearing, a doubt had cropped up as to whether the employment as Secondary Grade Teachers in the vacancies arising within a
particular district can be confined to only the candidates whose names have been registered in the employment exchange of the very same district.
In other words, the question was whether a person who got his name registered in the employment exchange in a particular district is precluded
from seeking employment in vacancies arising in another district.
Prima facie in view of the provisions contained in Articles 16 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, any eligible candidate, irrespective of the district
in which his name is registered in the Employment Exchange, can seek for employment in a vacancy arising in any other district. The fact that such
candidate seeks change of his registration in the employment exchange can also be considered as an intention to seek employment in other district
or to shift residence to any other district. Such right is also available under Article 19. There are several decisions such as 1989 WLR 420
National Life Insurance Employees'' Association, Rep. By Its General Secretary and Anr. v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, Madras, Excise
Superintendent Malkapatnam, Krishna District, A.P. Vs. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao and Others, and Kailash Chand Sharma Vs. State of
Rajasthan and Others, which prima facie indicate that in view of Article 16(2) of the Constitution, no person can be denied employment only on the
basis of his residence. Similarly, it cannot be denied that any citizen of India has a right to reside in any part of the India. Therefore, policy of
restricting employment to the candidates, whose names have been registered in a particular district employment exchange, may appear to be
violative of Articles 14, 16 and 19. However, it is not necessary to decide the aforesaid question finally as no specific challenge had been made in
any of the Original Application. This is a matter, however, required to be considered seriously by the Government and by the Courts of law as and
when such question arises.
With the above observations, the writ petitions are disposed of. No costs.