K. Seenivasan vs The District Collector and The District Employment Officer

K. Chandru, J.—The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to challenge the order of the second respondent, District

Employment Officer, Virudhunagar, dated 28.02.2008. By the impugned order, since the petitioner, who was the legal heir of the land owner, had

already married, his name cannot be registered in the employment exchange register under the land losers category. The petitioner had challenged

the said decision by stating that so long as he was the legal heir of the original land owner, his name should be registered under the land losers

category. He is getting married cannot make any difference in the matter of registration as a priority candidate.

Reliance was placed on G.O.Ms. No. 188, Personnel and Administration Reforms (Per.P) Department dated 28.12.1976. Group-II, item (v)

to the annexure of the said Government Order reads as follows;

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 subjects to the condition that preference should be given to those who are dependent of their

livelihood primarily or wholly on the lands acquired and from among them to members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes who may

eligible for employment.

The petitioner was the grand-son of late Ayyapanaicker, who belonged to Maraneri Village, Sattur Taluk. He died on 10.07.1987 leaving

behind the petitioner''s mother and four sons. The petitioner was their third son. At the time of the death of his father, the petitioner was unmarried.

Subsequently, the petitioner gave a requisition during August 2007 for seeking certificate under land losers category, in which as against the

question No. 12, he has stated that he was married. Therefore, the respondents took the stand that he is not eligible for to be categorised.

The second respondent filed a counter affidavit dated 25.03.2010. In the counter affidavit in paragraph 3.2 it was stated as follows;

To the G.O.Ms. No. 188 Personal and Administrative Reforms Department dated 28.12.1976 certain clarification given in the Lr. No.

4920/B1/87-3, dated 29.02.1988, by the Secretary to Government of Employment Service Department. In this letter as long as the person

seeking to register himself/herself in the employment exchange in the persons whose land has been acquired or is a member of the family of that

persons (family defined in the usual sense, self, Husband, wife, unmarried children) is eligible for the concession.(copy of the letter is enclosed).

A copy of the said letter referred to in the counter affidavit has also produced and the same reads as follows;

I am directed to invite attention to your letter third cited and to state that as long as the person seeking to register himself in the Employment

Exchange is the person whose land has been acquired or is a member of the family of that persons (family defined in the usual sense. Self,

Husband, Wife, Unmarried children) is eligible for the concession under G.O.Ms. No. 188, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department,

dated 28.12.1976. No time limit is necessary. However, the application should be supported by certificate from revenue authorities regarding the

fact of acquisition and relationship of the applicant to the land owner.

Since the clarification issued by the State Government negatives the case of the petitioner, he cannot get any relief.

However, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court a Division Bench Judgment made in W.P. No. 18916 of

2004, dated 20.02.2006 (U. Arulmozhi v. The Director of School Education and 3 Ors.). In that case, the questions came for consideration was

the grant of compassionate appointment on the death of the earning member of the family and when the Court while considering the relevant

Government Order in G.O.Ms. NO. 73, Employment Services dated 26.10.1983 it had observed as follows;

There is no dispute that the Government has made provisions for appointment on compassionate ground, obviously with a view to enable the family

members of the deceased employee to tide over immediately the financial stringency on account of the breadwinner in the family. It is of course

true that as per the G.O.Ms. No. 73, Employment Services dated 26.10.1983, only an unmarried daughter is eligible and not a married daughter.

However, there is no requirement, in the G.O. that at the time of actual employment such unmarried daughter should be continue to be unmarried

nor there is any requirement that after an unmarried daughter gets employment on the compassionate ground, she cannot marry in future. There is

no dispute that the present petitioner was eligible to make the application and she make an application as an unmarried daughter. The appropriate

authority took about 3 to 4 years to finalise the matter. Merely because the unmarried daughter got married in the meantime and that too with a

specific understanding that her husband would have no objection to her maintaining the members of the family of her father, it cannot be said that

such person had got employment by suppressing any material fact.

It is not clear as to how the said judgment will have any relevance to the context in which the present writ petition came to be filed.

The learned Counsel placed reliance on the subsequent judgement reported in 2008 (5) CTC 686 G. Girija v. The Assistant Director

(Panchayats), wherein the learned Judge of this Court followed the earlier Division Bench referred to above.

It must be noted that a list of priority categories can be considered strictly in terms of the Government Order. Since the Government Order on

which the petitioner had placed reliance upon has been subsequently clarified by the State Government vide letter dated 29.02.1988, it is not open

to the petitioner to stake his claim. Ultimately a priority list can only be exception to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and the

petitioner cannot have any vested interest over the same. Even the letter clarifying the previous Government Order by indicating that the unmarried

children alone would be considered under land losers category, is not challenged. Even otherwise, it can never be challenged, since the priority

category is set out by the policy decision of the State. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.