IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 19.10.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN W.P.No. 5430 of 2009 T. Sakthivel .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary Education Department Chennai – 600 009 2. The District Employment Officer Cuddalore .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to register the petitioner (R.No.22238 dated 26.12.2007) in the priority orphan category as per G.O. Ms. No.8 dated 10.01.2000, Personnel and Administrative Reforms giving him seniority as on 14.11.2008, the date of the petitioner's application and as requested in his representation dated 12.12.2008 For Petitioner : Ms. Meenal For Respondents : Mr. R. Murali Government Advocate ORDER The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition for a Mandamus to direct the respondents to register her name in the priority – Orphan Category and to give preference to him for employment based on the employment exchange registration. The petitioner mainly relied on G.O. Ms.No.8, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department dated 10.01.2000 in support of his claim. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it was admitted by the petitioner himself that his mother died on 20.09.1985 and his father died on 25.03.2006. As per the transfer certificate issued in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner born on 04.06.1974 and at the time of the death of the petitioner's father, he was aged 22 years. Even before the death of his father in the year 2006, the petitioner completed his studies namely higher secondary in Government Higher Secondary School, Sirugramam and also obtained a Secondary Grade Teacher Certificate from Kunjukrishnan https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Nadar Memorial T.T.I. Kunjiramkulam, Kerala. It is evident that the petitioner completed his school studies in March 1992 and also acquired the teacher training certificate in the year 2006, however, he joined the said course during 2005. 3. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner would claim that the Tahsildar, Virudachalam has issued a certificate dated 14.11.2008 in his favour stating that he has lost both his father and mother and that he was an orphan. It was also stated in the affidavit that such certificate is being issued to enable the petitioner to get preference in the matter of securing employment. Based on the said certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Virudachalam, the petitioner has submitted a representation dated 14.11.2008 to the second respondent. Complaining that no order has been passed on the application submitted by the petitioner, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. Though no counter was filed, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, relying on the draft written instructions from the second respondent, would contend that the Tahsildar has issued the certificate in violation of the G.O. Ms. No.8 dated 10.01.2000 as the Government Order would indicate that it is applicable only in respect of those Orphans who have either studied in Government or private orphanage homes or those who studied under the custody of their relatives in remote villages, who could not get accommodation in orphanages. In this case, the Tahsildar, in total violation of the said Government Order has issued a certificate in favour of the petitioner to enable her to claim preference in the matter of employment, which is invalid. It is also stated that already the certificate issued in favour of the petitioner was sent for further verification to the District Revenue Office. Under those circumstances, the Mandamus as sought for by the petitioner need not be issued as the petitioner do not come under the purview of G.O. Ms. No.8 dated 10.01.2000. and he cannot seek for the benefits of the said Government Order. 5. Heard both sides. A perusal of G.O. Ms. No.8, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department dated 10.01.2000 would categorically indicate that it is applicable only to those Orphans who have either studied in Government or private orphanage homes or those who studied under the custody of their relatives in remote villages, who could not get accommodation in orphanages and those orphans will be given preference in the matter of employment through employment registration. In this case, even as per the admission of the petitioner himself, his father was very much alive till he completes the Teacher Training Course. Therefore, inasmuch as the petitioner has not stayed or studied in a Government orphanage or private orphanage and that his father was very much alive till he completed the Teacher Training Course, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefits conferred by the Government in G.O. Ms.No.8 dated 10.01.2000. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate, the certificate issued by the Tahsildar in favour of the petitioner is in violation of the G.O. Ms. No.8 dated 10.01.2000 and therefore it was rightly not taken into consideration by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondents in giving preference to the petitioner in the matter of employment. Moreover, the certificate issued in favour of the petitioner by the Tahsildar was sent for verification by the District Revenue Officer and a report is awaited. In any event, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefits of G.O. Ms. No.8 dated 10.01.2000 which is meant for those orphans who have stayed and studied in Government Orphanages or Private Orphanages. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merits and it is liable to be dismissed. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar rsh To 1. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary Education Department Chennai – 600 009 2. The District Employment Officer Cuddalore +1cc to Ms.R.Meenal,Advocatge Sr 75275 +1cc to Govt. Pleader Sr 75175 SR(CO) km/2.11. W.P.No. 5430 of 2009 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/