AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Chandru, J.—I have heard Mr. Balan Haridas, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mrs. Bhavani Subbarayan, learned
Assistant Government Pleader representing the respondents and have perused the records.
Excepting W.P. No. 14933 of 2007, all other writ petitions are identical inasmuch as the challenge is to the order passed by the second
respondent District Revenue Officer, Kancheepuram District.
In W.P. No. 14933 of 2007, the prayer is for a direction to the first respondent District Elementary Educational officer to consider the
petitioner''s appointment for the post of Secondary Grade Teacher pursuant to the notification issued by them.
In W.P. No. 15693 of 2007, this Court granted an interim order reserving one post to be kept vacant pending further orders in the writ petition.
In all these cases, the impugned order has been passed by the second respondent District Revenue Officer cancelling the Community Certificate,
Migration Certificate and Residential Certificate issued in respect of the respective petitioners. The reason found in the order is that the certificates
were obtained by the petitioners only with a view to justify their names in the District Employment Exchange and wrong information have been
given for obtaining the certificates. It was also stated that there was no record to show that the petitioners had resided in these places before they
got themselves registered in the Employment Exchange.
In all these cases, the petitioners were all trained teachers having eligibility for being appointed as Secondary Grade Teachers. Insofar as the
recruitment of the Secondary Grade Teachers in respect of the Government and Municipal Schools in the State is concerned, the Revenue District
is treated as an Unit and the names are sponsored from the Employment Exchange and on the basis of seniority, persons are being appointed. In
view of the District being kept as an Unit, there has been large scale migration of candidates from one District to other Districts. Since several
complaints have been made about the migration from one District to the other Districts, the Government have issued G.O. Ms. No. 66, Labour
and Employment (N2) Department dated 15.7.2002. Paragraphs 2 to 4 of the said G.O. are extracted below:
In order to prevent re-registration with bogus residential certificates, the Director of Employment and Training in his letter first read above has
sent a proposal for the discontinuance of the existing procedure of obtaining residential certificate from the Tahsildar concerned in the new District
and for obtaining a family migration certificate for re-registration from one District to another District. The Director has also requested the
Government to issue orders that the new registrants should be allowed to register their names in the Employment Exchanges only on production of
Ration Card and for registration for change of address within the District, the registrants should produce the family migration certificate.
The Principal Commissioner and Commissioner for Revenue Administration, in his letter second read above has accepted the proposal of the
Director of Employment and Training for issue of family migration certificate instead of residential certificate by the Tahsildars for re-registration of
name from one District to another District subject to the condition that their names must be registered based on the Ration Card.
The Government, after careful consideration, pass the following orders:
(i) New registrants should produce an attested copy of their Ration Card as proof of address.
(ii) Registrants who seek re-registration from one District to another, should produce:
(a) family migration certificate issued by the Tahsildar concerned in the new District in the form enclosed with this G.O., and
(b) an attested copy of the new Ration Card showing the new address.
(iii) Registrants who seek change of address within the same District should produce an attested copy of their Ration Card showing the new
address.
Therefore, as the Government itself envisages the migration of persons from one place to other places, there is no illegality about the said
migration of the candidates including the petitioners herein. Once the Government has issued orders for allowing either fresh registration of
candidates from other Districts in the Employment Exchange or re-registration of such candidates in another District, then the role of the Revenue
authorities is only to see that bogus certificates are not created. In the guise of weeding out the bogus claims made by persons, the respondents
cannot deny the case of genuine candidates being migrated from one District to other Districts. Ultimately, employment cannot be granted solely
based upon the residential requirement and if such a criteria is made, that would offend Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India.
In the present case, the certificates produced by the petitioners are not disputed and in fact, in respect of the Community Certificate, Migration
Certificate as well as Residential Certificate, all these have been issued only by Revenue authorities. Therefore, necessary care and caution must be
taken by them at the time of issuance of the certificates. Once these certificates are found to be genuine and not fictitious, then there will be very
little function by the second respondent in verifying the certificates. It is not as if when the inspection was made by the second respondent, the
petitioners were not residing in the address given by them. On the contrary, the second respondent has taken a curious stand that these persons are
coming from different Districts and the present attempt for registering in the Employment Exchange was only with a view to get an employment.
Such a superficial statement is not expected from the officers of the second respondent. In fact, the Government itself has recognised the attempt of
the candidates to migrate from one place to other places. Insofar as the motive of the petitioners is concerned in migrating from one District to
other Districts, even if they have an idea to get employment as motive, such motive is so long as not illegal or unconstitutional, no exception can be
taken about their intention. On the contrary, the Revenue authorities are only directed to find out the genuineness of the certificates produced by
them and also to see whether the petitioners are residing in the addresses given by them or such addresses are given only for the purpose of getting
a Residential Certificate. Even, there is no stipulation as to how long the petitioners should stay a particular place.
In fact, this Court in a case relating to A.S. Santhalatha v. District Collector, Thiruvarur and Ors. reported in 2005 W.L.R. 433 made a
distinction between the Nativity Certificate and Residential Certificate. Paragraphs 6 to 8 of the said order may be usefully extracted:
Para 6: On the other hand, the Circular No. 22 of 1997 relates to the issuance Residence Certificate. The said circular does not stipulate any
condition as to the period of residence in a particular place for a person to obtain such certificate. Moreover, the said circular refers to the right of
a person moving from one district to another district for justifiable reasons to obtain such a certificate, more particularly, for the purpose of
effecting change of registration in the employment exchange. In fact this guideline came up for consideration before this Court in W.P. No. 183 of
2001 and the translated portion of the circular reads as under:
Those persons who seek change of their Employment Registration from one District to another must make their application along with the copy of
certificate of residence issued by an officer not below the rank of Tahsildar of the District to which the change of registration shall not be done in
the event of non-production of the certificate of residence issued by the said authority. The above said certificate from the applicant, one to be
retained in the office file of the Employment Exchange effecting transfer and the other to be forwarded to the Employment Exchange to which
transfer is sought for. The copy of the said certificate of residence received by the Employment Exchange where the change of registration is sought
for should be perused and should be placed in the concerned file. A detailed note in this regard should be mentioned in F.O.U. Column.
After observing the purport of the circular, this Court had directed the District Collector to consider the case of the petitioner for issuance of
Residence Certificate.
Para 7: From the above, it is seen that a Certificate of Residence is with reference to the place where a person resides for justifiable reason and
does not stipulate any condition for a minimum period of stay in a particular place. On the other hand, the Nativity Certificate refers to the person''s
birth or his residing in a particular place. In this context, the Concise Oxford Dictionary Tenth Edition Defines ""residence"" as 1. the fact of residing
somewhere. 2. the place where a person resides; a person''s home. 3. the official house of a government minister or other official figure. The said
dictionary defines ""nativity"" as 1. the occasion of a person''s birth. 2. the birth of Jesus Christ.
Para 8: From the above discussions, the following two further issues arise for consideration. By the impugned order, the first respondent relied
upon the Government letter which relates to the Nativity Certificate. This, in our view, cannot be accepted, as the petitioner has applied only for a
Residence Certificate and not for a Nativity Certificate. Secondly, when this Court had already directed the District Collector to consider the
request of the petitioner for issuance of Residence Certificate with reference to the Circular No. 22 of 1997, placing reliance on the Government
letter dated 16.6.1984 by completely ignoring the Circular No. 22 of 1997 cannot also be sustained.
Even a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in its recent judgment in Kuldip Nayar Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, dealt with a
question as to what is the term ''an ordinarily resident'' connotes in terms of law in paragraph 243 and the same is reproduced below:
Para 243: Thus, residence is a concept that may also be transitory. Even when qualified by the word ""ordinarily"" the word ""resident"" would not
result in a construction having the effect of a requirement of the person using a particular place for dwelling always or on permanent uninterrupted
basis. Thus understood, even the requirement of a person being ""ordinarily resident"" at a particular place is incapable of ensuring nexus between
him and the place in question.
A Division Bench of this Court in its decision reported in 1989 W.L.R. 420 National Life Insurance Employees'' Association and Anr. v. The
Life Insurance Corporation of India, Madras held that if preference is shown in terms of any residence, such a preference is violative of Article
16(2) of the Constitution of India and the relevant passage found in paragraph 8 of the said order is extracted below:
Para 8: The plea of the respondent that the nature of posts is such that those in and around the concerned branches could be employed, will have
no relevance, because even in respect of those posts, they are transferable. Learned Counsel for the respondent had relied on Air India v. Nergesh
Meerza, B.Y. Kshatriya Pvt. Ltd. v. S.A.T.R. Kangan Union and B.Y. Kshatriya Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, to show that there could be
reasonable classification adopted to achieve certain objectives as found in the enactments, but in the instant case, when Regulations had been
framed under the Life Insurance Corporation Act relating to recruitments and appointments go be made by it, the offending procedure, above
referred to, should not have been adopted by it. It is, therefore, violative of Article 16(2).
Therefore, the statement of the District Revenue Officer that the intention of the petitioners was only for the purpose of getting their names
registered in the Employment Exchange and, therefore, the certificates obtained by them are sought to be cancelled, is clearly illegal and contrary to
the purpose behind which it was ordered.
At the time of granting Community Certificate as well as Migration Certificate and Residential Certificate, necessary enquiry should have been
made by the Revenue authorities. In the present case, the petitioners were also in possession of Photo Identity Card for having got their names
registered in the Voters'' List. When such an enquiry is made and appropriate Certificates are issued, it is not clear as to on what material, the
second respondent District Revenue Officer has cancelled the certificates of the petitioners by a one sentence order. In fact, his entire attempt
proceeds on a wrong premises that it was illegal to migrate from one place to other place and, therefore, if any such registration is made for the
purpose of getting employment, that itself is illegal. The attempt made by the District Revenue Officer to start proceeding on a wrong notion is
clearly not envisaged in the Government Order extracted above. He has also not kept in mind the parameters under which any such decision is
made.
In fact, in paragraph 3 of the petitions, the petitioners have asserted that they have migrated permanently to Kancheepuram. In these cases, all
the petitioners have gone for interview for the post of Secondary Grade Teachers and if they are eligible and coming within the zone of
consideration for seniority, there can be no impediment for employment in any vacancy arising out of the Schools situated in Kancheepuram
District.
In the light of the materials produced by the petitioners, the impugned order is clearly arbitrary and is not borne out by records. Under these
circumstances, all the writ petitions shall stand allowed and the impugned orders stand quashed. The respondents are directed to register the names
of the petitioners in the Employment Exchange with due seniority and also restore the certificates, viz., Community Certificate, Migration Certificate
and Residential Certificate, which were cancelled by the impugned orders.
Insofar as W.P. No. 14933 of 2007 is concerned, the prayer is only for a direction to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of his
registration in the Employment Exchange. This petition also stands disposed of with the above direction. However, there will be no order as to
costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.