IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26/07/2002
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. KULASEKARAN
W.P. No. 13454 of 1995
and
W.M.P. No.21568 of 1995
M. Udayabhanu ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The Government of Tamilnadu
rep. by its Secretary
P&AR Department
Fort St. George
Madras - 600 009
2. The Secretary
Finance (BPE)Department
Fort St. George
Madras - 600 009
3. The District Employment Officer
Salem District
Salem - 5 ... Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a
Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus as stated therein.
For Petitioner : Mr. N. Paul Vasanthakumar
For Respondents: Mrs. D. Malarvizhi, Govt.Advocate
:ORDER
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.
2. 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 defence 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 24-09-198 6. 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 Govern ment 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.
3. 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.
4. 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 AIR 1983 SC 130 (D.S. Nakara and Others Vs. Union of India). It
is also further argued by the learned counsel that the District Schedule Caste
Welfare Officer, Salem and the Tahsildar, Athur 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.
5. 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).”
6. 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 24-12-1 992 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:-
1. G.O. Ms. No. 939, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (
Personnel-R) Department, dated 24.09.1986.
2. G.O. Ms. No.53, Personnel and Administrative Reforms(Personnel-R)
Department dated 12.02.1988.
3. G.O. Ms. No. 685, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (
Personnel-R)Department dated 26.12.1989.
4. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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 recruityment
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 intercaste married couple (where one of the
spouses belong to Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribes).
2. 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.
3. 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”
7. It is evident from the said G.O. and the impugned G.O. that
the Government has originally given priority to the disabled exservicemen and
for the members of the family of defence service personnel killed in action by
G.O. Ms. 188 P&AR dated 28-12-1976. Later, G.O. Ms. 2 29, 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
9 39. 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 AIR 1983 SC
130 cannot be made applicable to the facts and circumstance of the case.
10. 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.
11. 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.
26-07-2002
rsh
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
To
1. The Secretary to Government
Government of Tamilnadu
P&AR Department
Fort St. George
Madras – 600 009
2. The Secretary
Finance (BPE)Department
Fort St. George
Madras – 600 009
3. The District Employment Officer
Salem District
Salem – 5