IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29.7.2008
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN
W.P.No.25053 of 2006 (T)
O.A.No.5150 of 1996
M.K.Santhi .. Petitioner
vs.
1. The District Employment Exchange
Officer
Villupuram
VRP District
2. The Chief Educational Officer
Villupuram .. Respondents
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent to sponsor the name of the applicant for appointment as secondary grade assistant and further direct the second respondent appoint the applicant as Secondary Grade Assistant from the date on which her junior in the employment exchange is appointed with all attend benefits.
For petitioner : Mr.R.Muthukannu
For Respondents : Mr.T.Seenivasan
Additional Government Pleader
O R D E R
The petitioner has stated that she had registered her name in the employment exchange, Cuddalore, on 30.12.1988. Subsequently, in the year 1991, she had renewed her registration. After the bifurcation of Villupuram District, the petitioner’s name was allotted to Villupuram Ramasamy Padaiyachiyar District. She had sent a letter, dated 12.1.1995, for renewing her registration. Based on her registration, she was given a new registration No.15W/14632/93, and by an intimation, dated 17.2.1995, the petitioner was directed to attend the interview in the aided school at Seshanganur and by an intimation, dated 28.6.1995, she was directed to attend the interview in an aided school at Pombur. As the petitioner was not selected, she had informed the first respondent about the same.
2. The petitioner has further stated that based on the said intimation made by the petitioner, she was directed to appear in the office of the first respondent with all the necessary certificates, on or before 12.8.1996. Thereafter, the petitioner did not receive any intimation. Later, she had found that intimations were given to some of the persons who had registered their names in the employment exchange much after the registration of the name of the petitioner. in the year 1988. In such circumstances, the petitioner had preferred an original application in O.A.No.5150 of 1996, before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, which has been transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.25053 of 2006.
3. A reply affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents denying the allegations made by the petitioner. Paragraph 4 of the reply affidavit reads as follows:
“4. With regard to the averments contained in para 6, it is respectfully submitted that the erstwhile South Arcot District was bifurcated into two separate Revenue Districts., viz., South Arcot Vallalar District and Villupuram Ramasamy Padaiyachiar District with headquarters at Cuddalore and Villupuram respectively. Since the petitioner’s address fell within the Villupuram Ramasamy Padaiyachiyar District, her registration was transferred from District Employment Office, Cuddalore to District Employment Office, Villupuram during the year 1993 and it was re-registered there under registration number W/14632/93 with old seniority counting from 30.12.1988. Registrations have to be renewed once in three years as per the procedure followed in Employment exchanges. Since she had renewed here registration in the year 1991 at Cuddalore, she had to renew it again in the year 1994 at Villupuram. But, she has not renewed her registration accordingly as confirmed from the Renewal Registers at the Employment Exchange,Villupuram. Renewals could be done either in person or by post and renewal log books are maintained to account those renewals. It is found that she has not renewed either in person or by post during the year 1994. In her affidavit, she has stated that she has sent a letter dated 12.1.1995. As explained above, this letter has not been received at the Employment Exchange as revealed from the postal renewal log book. Moreover, she has stated that new registration number at Villupuram was given to her only after renewal of her registration at Villupuram. It is a self-contradictory statement. Date of her purported renewal at Villupuram was 12.1.1995 whereas registration number given to her at Villupuram was during 1993. This petition is not feasible and hence, there is no truth in this statement.
Under the circumstances, her registration has been treated as lapsed during February 1995, after allowing two months grace period to her as per rules. Lapsing of her registration has been duly entered both in the registration card of the petitioner as well as in the matter record of registration viz., X.63 register.
The applicant has stated that she was given interviews by District Employment Officer, Villupuram to two private schools and has explained that these interviews would not have been given to her if she had not renewed. In this connection, it is stated that she was sponsored by the District Employment Officer, Villupuram to one Thiruvalluvar Middle School, Seshanganur on 13.2.1995 and to another Elango Middle School, Perambur on 26.6.1995. The first one was given to her before her registration was lapsed at the end of February 1995. However, the second one has been inadvertently sent to her by mistake after her registration was lapsed. The issue of an interview on 26.6.1995 does not mean that she had renewed her registration. She has not renewed her registration during 1994 as confirmed by renewal her registration during 1994 as confirmed by renewal log books maintained maintained at the District Employment Office, Villupuram.”
4. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the averments made in the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is clear that the petitioner had not renewed her registration in the concerned employment exchange, at Villupuram, in the year 1994. According to the procedure prescribed, the renewal of registration in the employment exchange has to be made once in three years. Even though the petitioner had renewed the registration in the employment exchange at Cuddalore in the year 1991, she had failed to renew her registration in the employment exchange at Villupuram, in the year 1994, as found from the renewal registration. Even though the renewal could be done either in person or by post, the petitioner has not done so, as seen from the log books maintained for the purpose of counting the renewals. The letter, dated 12.1.1995, said to have been sent by the petitioner, had not been received at the employment exchange, as seen from the postal renewal log book. The registration of the petitioner had been treated as lapsed during the month of February, 1995, after allowing a grace period of two months, as per the rules applicable for such renewal. In such circumstances, the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason for this Court to grant the reliefs prayed for in the present writ petition. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
lan
To:
1. The District Employment Exchange
Officer
Villupuram
VRP District
2. The Chief Educational Officer
Villupuram