IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 19/11/2004
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.K.MISRA
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.MURUGESAN
W.P.No.41400 of 2002
A.S.Santhalatha .. Petitioner
-Vs-
1. The District Collector
Tiruvarur District, Tiruvarur
2. The Chief Educational Officer
Tiruvarur District
3. The Director of Elementary Education
College Road, Chennai-6
4. The Registrar
Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal
Chennai-104 .. Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India,
praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
records of the 1st respondent issued in Na.Ka.No.5625/2000 /Aa3 dated
28.4.2001 cancelling the Residence Certificiate and the consequential order of
the fourth respondent passed in O.A.No.4046 of 2 001 dated 30.4.2002
confirming the order of the 1st respondent, quash the same and consequently
direct the respondents 2 and 3 to appoint the petitioner as Secondary Grade
Teacher based on her employment Registration Seniority pursuant to the
counselling conducted on 29.11.20 00 with all service and monetary benefit
from November, 2000.
!For Petitioner :: Mr.N.Paulvasanthakumar
^For Respondents :: Ms.G.Kavitha
Govt.Advocate forR1 to R3
R4 - Tribunal
:ORDER
(Order of the Court was delivered by D.MURUGESAN, J.)
For the disposal of this writ petition, the following factual aspects
are necessarily to be stated. The petitioner is a native of Kanyakumari
District. After completing Plus Two and Teacher Training courses, she
registered her name in the employment exchange in that District. She got
married to Mr.Albert Daniel on 26.5.97. Her husband secured employment in the
Government High School, Tiruvarur District on 1.12.97. There is no dispute
that the husband of the petitioner is working in the said District even as on
today. On 3.2.99, the petitioner sought for appointment to the post of
Teacher in Christ the King English Medium School, Inangudi Post, Nannilam
Taluk. In fact she was appointed as a School Assistant during October, 1999
in the said school. Her child, aged about 4 years, is also studying U.K.G.
in Vallalar Gurukulam Matriculation School, Nannilam. For the purpose of
transfer of registration from Kanyakumari District employment exchange to
Tiruvarur District employment exchange, the petitioner should produce a
Residence Certificate from the Tahsildar having jurisdiction over the place
where the petitioner resides. Such a certificate is a pre-requirement for
transfer of the registration from one employment exchange to another
employment exchange as per the guidelines framed in Circular No.22 of 1997.
Pursuant to the re quest, the petitioner was issued with a Residence
Certificate by the Tahsildar, Nannilam on 14.6.99 certifying that the
petitioner has been residing for the last one year at Door No.13, Pidari Koil
Street, Sannanallur, Nannilam Taluk, Tiruvarur District. On the strength of
the said certificate, her registration in the employment exchange was
transferred from Kanyakumari District to Tiruvarur District on 27.7.99.
Pursuant to the said transfer of registration, the petitioner was issued with
an interview card for the post of Secondary Grade Teacher on 29.11.2000.
Before the petitioner could be considered for appointment, the certificate
issued by the Tahsildar, Nannilam dated 14.6.99 was cancelled by the District
Collector on 22.12.2000. Questioning the said order, the petitioner had
earlier filed W.P.No.183 of 2001, which was ordered on 14.3.2001 by directing
the District Collector to consider the matter afresh for grant of Residence
Certificate, more particularly, with reference to the Circular No.22 of 1997.
After hearing the petitioner, the first respondent District Collector, by the
impugned order dated 28.4.2001, again cancelled the Residence Certificate
issued by the Tahsildar on 14.6.99. The petitioner thereafter questioned the
said order before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, but was
unsuccessful. Hence, the present writ petition.
2. We have heard Mr.N.Paulvasanthakumar, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Ms.G.Kavitha, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
3. According to the learned counsel for petitioner, inasmuch as the
petitioner had produced documents to sustain her proof of residence within the
jurisdiction of Tahsildar, Nannilam Taluk, her right to the Residence
Certificate cannot be deprived by the District Collector. For the reasons
namely, that the petitioner did not take steps to cancel her name from the
ration card at Kanyakumari District and that having married in the year 1997
and her husband has been in employment in Tiruvarur District from December,
1997, the petitioner did not take any steps to get the Residence Certificate
in Nannilam Taluk, she was denied registration of her name in Tiruvarur
District. The reasons adduced are extraneous to the issue, as the relevant
consideration should be only in respect of the fact as to whether the
petitioner is a resident of the place within the jurisdiction of Nannilam
Taluk and whether the petitioner would be entitled to register herself in the
employment exchange on the strength of the Residence Certificate, more
particularly, in the face of the Circular No.22 of 1997.
4. It is the stand of the respondents that the petitioner did not
satisfy as to her residence for a period of ten years at Nannilam Taluk, and
therefore she is not entitled to the Residence Certificate. In the Government
letter dated 16.6.84, the Government had directed that whenever the Nativity
Certificates are issued, it should be ensured the applicant’s continuous stay
in the State supported by documents. The Residence Certificate issued to the
petitioner has been cancelled by the District Collector only on the basis of
the said letter of the Government, as the petitioner did not reside for a
period of ten years and did not produce any document to sustain the said
claim.
5. We have given our anxious consideration to the above submissions.
At the outset we would like to consider the Government letter dated 16.6.84 as
well the Circular No.22 of 1997. Insofar as the Government letter dated
16.6.84, it was issued only to prevent the people of adjoining States of
Karnataka, Kerala and Andhra Pradesh from getting admissions for their wards
in the adjoining districts of Dharmapuri, Coimbatore, Salem and Kanyakumari.
In such circumstances, the Government thought it fit to have a check on such
migration carried on only for the purpose of securing admission to the
educational institutions. The very Government letter itself is reproduced as
under:-
Copy of Government Letter No.46738/W1/8-1 dated 16.6.84 for the Commissioner
and Secretary to Government addressed to the District Collectors, Additional
Collectors, District Revenue Divisional Officers.
Sub: District Revenue Administration – Issue of
Nativity Certificates – Strict scrutiny and prompt
issue – instructions issued.
Ref: 1. G.O.Ms.No.2906 Revenue dated 04.12.91.
2. G.O.Ms.No.9 Social Welfare dated 3.1.83
3. G.O.Ms.No.1888 Revenue dated 10.11.83.
—
It has been brought to the notice of the Government that there are
instances of the people of the adjoining States of Karnataka, Kerala and
Andhra Pradesh managing to get admission for their sons and daughters at the
school final stage in the schools of the adjoining districts viz., Dharmapuri,
Coimbatore, Salem and Kanyakumari of this state and then on the basis of their
study in these schools obtain Nativity certificates on the presumption that
such a candidate is a native of Tamil Nadu and on the basis of such
documentary evidences get admission for their sons and daughters in the
professional colleges such as Engineering, Medical, Dental, Agricultural
Veterinary etc., in this stage. This sort of attitude deprives the
concessions available to the student of this stage. The Government therefore
consider that this situation should be prevented in future.
2. The following points are also specifically brought to your notice.
a. Only those students who belong to this state are eligible for admission in
the professional colleges.
b. There are already provisions for reservation of seats in the professional
colleges and for students belonging to other states in a regional basis.
c. Complaints have been received that students who do not belong to this
state but belonging to other states have obtained Nativity Certificates in
this state. Concerned officials must exercise utmost caution and strict
scrutiny while issuing Nativity Certificates so as not to give room for the
complaints.
d. Whenever Nativity Certificates are issued it should be ensured that the
applicant’s continuous stay in the state for ten years should be authorised by
documentary evidence.
e. Permanent residential addresses, occupations etc., of the parents of the
applicant students should be verified.
f. If parents are Government servants, their place of employment, number of
years they have been employed etc., should be verified and
g. Careful verification is required that wrong addresses have not been given
for the purpose of obtaining Nativity Certificates. It must be verified that
the student applicants have had their education continuously for not less than
ten years in this state.
3. I am to request you kindly to bear in mind the points mentioned in
the preceding paragraph and to issue strict suitable circular instructions to
all concerned to exercise utmost caution while issuing nativity certificates.
Sd/-
For Commissioner and
Secretary to Government
A careful reading of the said Government letter reveals that it relates only
to the issue of Nativity Certificate. Nativity Certificate is in respect of a
permanent residence in a particular place and in that context the Government
had prescribed a minimum period of ten years of residing/stay in a particular
district for issuance of Nativity Certificate. Moreover, the said Government
letter was issued only in order to prevent the people of the adjoining States
to move into the border districts of this State and admit their children in
the schools for the purpose of securing admission to professional courses.
6. On the other hand, the Circular No.22 of 1997 relates to the
issuance of 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 is sought for. Such
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.
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.
8. From the above discussions, the following two further issues arise
for consideration. By the impugned order, the first respondent has 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
16.6.84 by completely ignoring the Circular No.22 of 1997 cannot also be
sustained.
9. On the above findings, the validity of the impugned order should
be considered on merits. There is no dispute that the petitioner had married
one Mr.Albert Daniel on 26.5.97, who admittedly secured employment in the
Government High School in Nannilam Taluk, Tiruvarur District with effect from
1.12.97 and is continuing in the said post even now. The petitioner has also
produced the material to show that she is also working as teacher in a private
school in Nannilam Taluk with effect from 3.2.99. The District Collector has
not discarded the above facts which were sought to be established by the
petitioner by producing the relevant certificates, as could be seen from the
very impugned order itself. The District Collector, though has referred to
the above certificates in the impugned order, has not taken into consideration
of the same only for the reason that on the date when the petitioner was
issued with the Residence Certificate dated 14.6.99, she has not cancelled the
employment registration card in the Kanyakumari District. This reason is
obviously a total misconception. For effecting transfer of the registration
in the employment exchange, Residence Certificate is a pre-requirement. Till
such time such a certificate is obtained, a candidate is not entitled to seek
for transfer of the registration. Such a Residence Certificate was issued to
the petitioner only on 14.6.99 and till that date the petitioner cannot cancel
the employment registration in the Kanyakumari District and seek for transfer
of the same to Tiruvarur District. In fact the Residence Certificate was
issued on 14.6.99 and without any further delay the petitioner immediately
approached the officer concerned in the employment exchange for effecting
transfer, which was ordered on 27.7.99.
10. In view of the above facts, we are unable to accept the reasons
adduced by the District Collector for cancelling the certificate on the ground
that on the date when the petitioner was issued with the Residence
Certificate, she did not take steps to cancel the employment registration in
Kanyakumari District. The other reason given by the District Collector is
that in spite of the fact that the petitioner had married one Mr.Albert Daniel
on 26.5.97 and that her husband secured employment during December, 1997 in
Tiruvarur District, she could have taken steps to obtain the Residence
Certificate in Tiruvarur District immediately thereafter. This reason is also
unacceptable, as the petitioner secured employment as a teacher in private
school only during the year 1999. Immediately after her securing employment
during December, 1999, she has made a request to the Tahsildar, Nannilam Taluk
for issuance of Residence Certificate. In the matter of consideration of
issuance of Residence Certificate, the officer empowered should consider the
fact as to whether actually the applicant has been residing in that place for
which the applicant seeks for Residence Certificate. There is no dispute that
the Tahsildar, Nannilam is the competent officer to consider such a request.
On satisfying the fact that the petitioner has been factually residing in the
Sannanallur Village within his jurisdiction in Nannilam Taluk, he has issued
such a certificate. In the order of the District Collector, we do not find
any reason to discard the satisfaction of the Tahsildar as to the residence of
the petitioner, which was arrived on the basis of the actual fact. Except the
above two reasons, which we have not agreed, the District Collector has not
given any reason for disbelieving the documents and the materials produced by
the petitioner to satisfy the Tahsildar for issuance of Residence Certificate.
The Tribunal has also rejected the challenge of the petitioner to the order of
cancellation of Residence Certificate only on the same grounds contained in
the order of the District Collector.
11. For all the above reasons we find, on the facts of this case,
that the petitioner has satisfied the competent authority namely, the
Tahsildar, Nannilam Taluk by sufficient materials for issuance of a Residence
Certificate. Such a certificate issued by the competent authority has been
cancelled for unacceptable reasons. In the circumstances, we are inclined to
interfere with the order of the Tribunal dated 30.4.2002 as well the order of
the District Collector dated 28.4.20 01 in cancelling the Residence
Certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Nannilam on 14.6.99. Accordingly, the
writ petition is allowed and the order of the District Collector dated
28.4.2001 as well the order of the Tribunal dated 30.4.2002 are set aside.
The petitioner is entitled not only to effect transfer of her registration in
the employment exchange, but also to the benefits accrued on such registration
on the basis of the Residence Certificate issued by the Tahsildar dated 1
4.6.99. It is submitted that the petitioner was called for interview on
29.11.2000 based upon the transfer effected in the employment exchange on the
basis of the Residence Certificate, which we have upheld. But, before the
petitioner was considered for appointment, the Residence Certificate issued by
the Tahsildar has been cancelled. In view of our order, the second respondent
namely, the Chief Educational Officer, Tiruvarur District is directed to
consider the appointment of the petitioner as Secondary Grade Teacher taking
into consideration of the certificate issued by the Tahsildar dated 14.6.99
and the change effected in the employment exchange registration card. The
above exercise shall be completed by the second respondent within a period of
two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order either from the
Registry or from the petitioner.
12. With the above direction, the writ petition is allowed. No
costs. Consequently, W.P.M.P.No.61267 of 2002 is closed.
Index: yes
Internet: yes
ss
To
1. The District Collector
Tiruvarur District, Tiruvarur
2. The Chief Educational Officer
Tiruvarur District
3. The Director of Elementary Education
College Road
Chennai 600 006
4. The Registrar
Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal
Chennai 600 104