BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 28/04/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI W.P.(MD).No.5942 of 2010 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2010 K.Varghese ... Petitioner Vs 1.The Assistant Director, Professional and Executive Employment Office, Old No.140 (New No.56), Santhome High Road, Chennai-600 004. 2.The District Employment Officer, Professional and Executive Employment Branch Office, Madurai-625 007. ... Respondents PRAYER Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the second respondent pertaining to his order in A Thi Mu A5/588/09, dated 06.03.2009 on his file, quash the same, directing the respondents to renew the petitioner's registration with them bearing registration No.PO/13668/93, dated 23.09.1993 with the first respondent making the renewal upto date and giving a date for the next renewal of the same. !For Petitioner ... Mr.K.N.Thampi ^For Respondents ... Mr.V.Rajasekaran Special Government Pleader ******* :ORDER
*****
Mr.V.Rajasekaran, learned Special Government Pleader, takes notice
on behalf of the respondents. By consent, the Writ Petition is taken up for
final disposal at the stage of admission itself.
2. Heard Mr.K.N.Thampi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
and Mr.V.Rajasekaran, learned Special Government Pleader, who has taken notice
on behalf of the respondents.
3. The Writ Petitioner challenges the order of the second respondent
dated 06.03.2009, by which the second respondent has informed the petitioner
that the registration of the petitioner under the Employment Exchange has come
to an end in December, 2002, since it has not been renewed subsequently. The
original registration of the petitioner under the Employment Exchange was having
the Registration No.12/2002. The petitioner, who has completed his M.Com. and
B.Ed., is eligible for appointment in Government services and he has registered
himself under the first respondent in Chennai, who was originally the authority,
with his M.Com., qualification on 20.09.1990, and it is stated that the said
registration came to be renewed once in three years. In the earlier years, the
petitioner used to personally appear before the first respondent and got his
name renewed, especially after he has completed his B.Ed., degree and on his
presence, in 1996 and 1999, the enrollment was renewed. Thereafter, since he was
unable to go to Chennai personally, the renewal application was sent by courier
service in the year 2002 and 2005. To substantiate the same, the petitioner has
produced the acknowledgments sent by the Franch Express Courier Service, dated
04.12.2002 and by M.R.T. Professional Couriers, dated 08.12.2005 and the
petitioner has been under the impression since it has been an admitted
procedure, such extension of registration is being done by the post as well as
the courier service.
4. In the meantime, the Government made a provision for the purpose
of continuation of registration in the Employment Office in respect of
Professional and Executive Employment Branch by opening it at Madurai so as to
enable the qualified candidates from Southern Districts to have themselves
registered and renewed at Madurai, viz., the second respondent. When the
petitioner approached the second respondent in the year 2008 for the purpose of
renewal for further years, he was informed that he was directed to produce
evidence to show that efforts were taken for renewal for the year 2002 and 2005,
that is seen in the communication of the second respondent dated 29.12.2008.
After receipt of such communication, the petitioner, in the letter dated
15.01.2009, has enclosed the xerox copies of the acknowledgments to evidence the
fact that he has applied for the purpose of renewal in December, 2002 and
December, 2005. It was after receiving the said communications, the impugned
order came to be passed rejecting it on the ground that the application was not
renewed after 2002. On the basis of the impugned order, there is no difficulty
to conclude that the same has been passed by the second respondent with a total
non-application of mind.
5. The statutory authorities, who are expected to act as per the
directions of the Government in order to have the employment list renewed, are
certainly expected to apply their mind, whenever an application for renewal is
made. In the present case, the petitioner has sent the renewal application in
December, 2002 and thereafter, in December, 2005, as evidenced by the
acknowledgment duly forwarded by the courier service which is recognized proof
of service and in spite of it, without assigning any reason, the impugned order
came to be passed by the second respondent and such conduct of the second
respondent is highly deplorable and is not expected of such an Officer,
especially when dealing with the candidates, like that of the petitioner, who is
not only suffering, after completing the educational courses with unemployment
and this conduct would amount to adding insult to the injury.
6. In such view of the matter, the impugned order of the second
respondent stands set aside and the second respondent is directed to consider
the xerox copies of the acknowledgments for having sent renewal application on
04.12.2002 and 08.12.2005 and pass appropriate orders of renewing the name of
the petitioner under the Employment Exchange as per his qualification, if there
are no other legal impediments, within a period of four weeks form the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.
7. The Writ Petition stands allowed accordingly. Consequently, the
connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
SML
To
1.The Assistant Director,
Professional and Executive Employment Office,
Old No.140 (New No.56),
Santhome High Road,
Chennai-600 004.
2.The District Employment Officer,
Professional and Executive Employment
Branch Office,
Madurai-625 007.