AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A. Kulasekaran, J.—The dispute in this writ petition is whether the couples married prior to 24.09.1986 are entitled to get provision of
priority of employment assistance. The petitioner belonged to Forward Community. She married one M. Kumar on 10-09-1986 who belongs to
Arunthathiar Community which is a scheduled Caste and she is allegedly entitled to get the benefits as per G.O.Ms. No. 188 - Personnel and
Administrative Reforms Committee dated 28-12-1976 and the same was issued in supersession of the orders issued in the Government Orders
cited therein.
In and by the said G.O., the Government has directed that order of priorities in regard to provision of employment assistance through
employment exchange to disabled ex-servicemen and for the members of the family of defense service personnel killed in action. The said G.O.
was amended by G.O. Ms. 229, P&AR dated 07-04-1988 thereby the said priority was extended to destitute widows. Again, the said G.O. was
amended extending the said priority to inter-caste married couple (where one of the spouses belong to SC/ST) with effect from 24-09-1986.
Another G.O. Ms. No. 53 dated 12-12-1988 was issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu directing that the inter-caste married couples should
register their names in the employment exchanges within two years along with the community certificate issued by an Officer not below the rank of
Tahsildar and the marriage document has to be registered in the office of the Sub-registrar of Marriages. In and by G.O. Ms. No. 910, P&AR
dated 24-12-1992, the Government has issued orders stating that (i) priority concession in sponsoring inter-caste married couple should be
available to the couples who get married after issuance of the G.O. Ms. 939 (ii) the time limit of two years shall be reckoned only from the date of
marriage of the inter-caste married couple and (iii) Inter-caste married couple should register their names in the employment exchange within two
years to avail the priority concession of sponsoring the names by the employment exchanges. The two years period for the purpose of registering
the names in the employment exchange was dispensed with.
G.O. Ms. No. 257 dated 23-03-1994 (finance Department) was issued on the recommendations made by the Director of Employment and
Training requesting that the priority accorded to the inter-caste married couple while sponsoring the candidates by employment exchange to State
Public Sector Undertakings / Boards to be made available to those whose inter-caste marriage took place on or after 24-09-1986. The petitioner
has challenged the cut off i.e., 24-09-1986 fixed in the said G.O.
Mr. Paul Vasanthakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the intention of the State Government for issuance of the said
G.O. was to promote and encourage inter-caste marriages. While so, restricting the benefit only to those couples got married on or after 24-09-
1986 is unsustainable. It is further canvassed by the learned counsel that inter-caste married couple is a clause by itself and there cannot be any
distinction on the basis of the date of marriage. The learned counsel also relied on D.S. Nakara and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI), . It is also
further argued by the learned counsel that the District Schedule Caste Welfare Officer, Salem and the Tahsildar, Authur has issued certificate in
favour of the petitioner; that the marriage was also registered with the Registrar of Marriages in the year 1988 which was produced by her on 05-
06-1999. The petitioner has also registered her name with the 3rd respondent on 14-03-1988. The 3rd respondent herein has issued a
communication dated 01-02-1995 cancelling the priority given to the petitioner on the ground that the marriage was held prior to the cut off date
and prayed for quashing the same.
Now, we look into the relevant G.O.s
G.O.Ms. No. 939, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Committee dated 24-09-1986
..2. The following amendment issued to G.O. Ms. No. 188 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Personnel. P) dated 28.12.1976.
Amendment
(1) In the list of priority categories annexed to the said Government Order for the existing item (1) under group II the following shall be
substituted:-
Intercaste married couple (where one of the spouses belongs to SC/ST
(2) The existing item No. (i) and (ii) and (iii) under Group II of the said annexure shall be numbered as (ii) (iii) and (iv).
Based on the said G.O. the petitioner has registered her name with the employment exchange, the third respondent on 14-03-1988. The
petitioner also produced necessary certificate of registration of her marriage on 05-06-1989. The Government has later issued the G.O. Ms. No.
410 Personnel and Administrative Reforms Committee dated 24-12-1992 which runs as follows:-
GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU ABSTRACT
Public Services - Intercaste married couple - Giving priority in sponsoring candidates through Employment Exchanges - Prescription of a time
limits of two years from the date of marriages for registration with Employment Exchange for availing priority concession - Dispensed with -
Orders - issued.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS (PERSONNEL-R) DEPARTMENT
G.O.Ms. No.410 Dated 24.12.1992
Read:-
G.O. Ms. No. 939, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Personnel-R)
Department, dated 24.09.1986.
G.O. Ms. No.53, Personnel and Administrative Reforms(Personnel-R)
Department dated 12.02.1988.
G.O. Ms. No. 685, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Personnel-R)
Department dated 26.12.1989.
From the Director of Employment and Training, Madras-5 letter
No.Pa.Pa.1/80108/88, dated 12.10.1989.
ORDER:-
In the Government order first read above, priority has been accorded to the intercaste married couple where one of the spouses belongs to
Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe for sponsoring through Employment Exchange.
Further, with a view to identifying intercaste married couple for the purpose of priority consideration in the matter of sponsoring by the
Employment Exchanges, it was ordered in the Government Order second read above, that the intercaste married couples should register their
names in the Employment Exchanges within the time limit of two years along with (1) the Community Certificate from an Officer not below the rank
of Tahsildar and (2) the marriage document registered in the office of the Registrar of Marriages.
In the Government Order third read above, orders were issued as follows:-
i) The priority concession in sponsoring the intercaste married couple should be available to those couples who got married after issue of the orders
in G.O. Ms. No. 939, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Personnel-R) Department, dated 24.09.1986:.....
G.O. Ms. No. 257 dated 23-03-1994 runs as follows:-
GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU ABSTRACT
State Public Sector Undertakings - Recruitment through Employment Exchange - Priority to Inter-caste married couple - Cut off date Orders -
Issued
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FINANCE (BPE) DEPARTMENT
G.O. Ms. No. 257 Dated : 23.03.1994
Read:
1) G.O.Ms. No. 429 Finance (BPE) Department, dated 19.05.1987
2) G.O. Ms. No.203, Finance (BPE), dated 20.03.1992
3) From the Director of Employment & Training, Lr. No. Pa.Pa.1/82355/93 dated
30-11-1993.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER:
In the G.O. first read above, Government have prescribed order of priorities to be followed by all State Public Sector undertakings including
State Transport Undertakings and Statutory Boards while making recruitment through Employment Exchanges. In the G.O. second read above
Government have issued an amendment to the list of priority categories prescribed in the G.O. first read above to include inter-caste married
couple (where one of the spouses belong to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes).
Director of Employment and Training in his letter third read above has suggested that this priority accorded to inter-caste married couples in
G.O. first read above amended in G.O. second read above be made available to those whose inter-caste marriage took place on or after
24.09.1986 for the purpose of uniformity as the same is being followed for public service.
The Government after careful consideration accept the request of the Director of Employment and Training and accordingly direct that the
priority accorded in G.O. first and second read above to the inter-caste married couples while sponsoring candidates by Employment Exchange to
State Public Sector Undertakings/Boards be made available to those whose inter-caste marriage took place on or after 24.09.1986.
(BY ORDER OF THE GOVERNOR)
S. MALATHI
SPECIAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
It is evident from the said G.O. and the impugned G.O. that the Government has originally given priority to the disabled ex-servicemen and for
the members of the family of defense service personnel killed in action by G.O. Ms. 188 P&AR dated 28-12-1976. Later, G.O. Ms. 229, P&AR
dated 07-04-1988 was issued extending the said priority to the destitute widows. Again, by G.O.Ms. No. 939 dated 24-09-1986, the priority
was extended to inter-caste married couples. It is evident from G.O.Ms. No. 939 that Director of Employment and Training has suggested that
priority may be accorded to inter-caste married couples (where one of the spouses belong to SC/ST) for the purpose of nomination through
employment exchange and that they may be assigned priority. The Government, after careful consideration has assigned priority to the said
category also.
It is the case of the petitioner that the said amendment was effected in G.O.Ms. No. 188 dated 28-12-1976 as such it should be deemed that
the priority is with retrospective effect from the date in which the said G.O. was issued. I am unable to accept the said contention of the petitioner
as the Government of Tamil Nadu, for the first time extended the benefit to the said category of inter-caste married couple (where one of the
spouses belonged to SC/ST) by issuing G.O.Ms. No.939 dated 24-09-1986 and the said G.O. was not given retrospective effect as such it shall
come into force from the date of issuance of the same.
The Government has issued G.O. Ms. No. 685, P&AR dated 26-12-1989 reiterating the cut off date as 24-09-1986 in terms of G.O.Ms. No.
Again, by G.O. Ms. No.257, the cut off date was confirmed. The new category of inter-caste married couple was introduced for the first
time by G.O.Ms. No. 939 dated 24-09-1986 with prospective effect as such the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of the said G.O. Therefore,
the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in D.S. Nakara and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI), cannot be made
applicable to the facts and circumstance of the case.
The 3rd respondent has assigned priority to the petitioner by misconstruing the G.O.Ms. No. 939, which was rightly cancelled by the
impugned order dated 01-02-1995. The other argument of the counsel for the petitioner that before passing the impugned order, the 3rd
respondent has not given any notice or opportunity is also unsustainable because the original order of assigning priority was also contrary to the
G.O.s, which was rightly cancelled.
Considering the circumstance of the case that the petitioner''s inter-caste marriage took place just a couple of days prior to the issuance of the
G.O., I feel that the Government can sympathetically consider the petitioner''s name as a special case on submitting an application by her within a
period of three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. It is also made clear that this order shall not be cited as a precedent in future.
With the above observations, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Connected WMP is closed.