BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 13/10/2011
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU
W.P.(MD)No.9168 of 2011
and
M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2010
and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011
A.Murugesan ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The District Employment Officer,
Ramanathapuram.
2.The Revenue Division Officer,
Paramakudi,
Ramanathapuram District.
(Cause title amended vide Court order
dated 20.04.2011 in M.P.No.2 of 2010)
3.The Special Tahsildar,
Adi-Dravidar Welfare,
Paramakudi,
Ramanathapuram District. ... Respondents
(Cause Title amended as per the
order of this Court dated 20.04.2011
in M.P.No.2 of 2010)
PRAYER
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st
respondent to register the name of the petitioner in the M.B.C. priority
category for public employment as per the qualification of the petitioner
forthwith and to sponsor the petitioner for public employment in accordance with
the seniority in the M.B.C. priority category.
!For Petitioner ... Mr.Veerakathiravan
^For Respondents ... Mr.M.Govindan,
Special Government Pleader.
******
:ORDER
*******
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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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 under Section 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 under
Section 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.
5. 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.
6. 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)
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
vsm
To
1.The District Employment Officer,
Ramanathapuram.
2.The Revenue Division Officer,
Paramakudi,
Ramanathapuram District.
(Cause title amended vide Court order
dated 20.04.2011 in M.P.No.2 of 2010)
3.The Special Tahsildar,
Adi-Dravidar Welfare,
Paramakudi,
Ramanathapuram District.
