1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 21.11.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. BASHA W.P.(MD)No.10981 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 & 2 of 2011 K.Senthilkumar .. Petitioner Vs. The District Employment Officer, O/o.Professional and Executive Employment Branch office, Madurai – 625 007. .. Respondent Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records in pursuant to the order passed by the respondent in A/Thiru/A5/9110/11 dated 02.09.2011 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to include and register the petitioner's name in the preferential list of candidates for employment. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Karthikeya Venkitachalapathy For Respondents : Mr.V.Pandi Government Advocate O R D E R The petitioner has come forward with this petition challenging the order passed by the respondent herein dated 02.09.2011 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner to include and register his name in the preferential list of candidates for employment. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had completed his post-graduate in M.Com., and he is also possessing M.Phil., B.Ed., Degree and he had registered himself in employment exchange. It is submitted that the father of the petitioner was owning land in Survey No.32/B4B to an extent of 0.08.0 Hectares in the Andankoil East Village and the same was acquired by the railway department for laying Karur to Salem Railway Track. It is contended that the only property of the petitioner's family was acquired and after completion of the land acquisition proceedings, award was also passed. The learned counsel would submit that in view of the same, the father of the petitioner preferred a representation to the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, and as per the said representation, a certificate was issued to the effect that the petitioner is entitled to seek the relief of preference in employment to the Land Owners' legal heirs. It is further contended that pursuant to the issue of the said certificate, the petitioner preferred an application dated 06.07.2011 to the respondents herein to register his name in the list of preferential candidates category. But the same was rejected as per the Government rules as the said preferential right cannot be given to a married person. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that this Court granted the relief to the similarly placed persons and relied on the unreported orders of this Court and submitted that the petitioner is entitled to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 seek the relief of preferential right and the G.O.Ms.No.188, P & AR Department, dated 28.12.1976 cannot be relied on by the Government. 3. Heard the learned Government Advocate on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is contended that as per G.O.Ms.No.188, P & AR Department, dated 28.12.1976, the definition of family cannot include a married person and only unmarried children has to be included. In support of such contention, learned Government Advocate would also place reliance on a letter of the Commissioner and Secretary to Government dated 29.02.1988 by referring G.O.Ms.No.188, P & AR, dated 28.12.1976 and G.O.Ms.No.656, Labour and Employment Department, dated 29.06.1978. 4. This Court carefully considered the rival contentions put forward by either side and perused the entire materials available on record including the impugned order passed by the respondent dated 02.09.2011 and the Letter relied on by the learned Government Advocate dated 29.02.1988. 5. At the outset, it is to be stated that the relief sought for by the petitioner is to the effect of setting aside the order passed by the respondent dated 02.09.2011 with a consequent relief of including his name in the panel of preferential category in employment. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner's father was owning an agricultural land and the same was acquired by the railway department and as per G.O.Ms.No.188, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 28.12.1976, any dependent of the family of a person, from whom lands have been acquired by the Government, is entitled to seek the relief of preferential appointment. The learned counsel for the petitioner rightly placed reliance on the unreported decision of this Court dated 05.11.2009 in W.P.(MD)Nos.5020 and 5021 of 2009. In the said order, a learned Single Judge of this Court observed as hereunder : "3. Therefore, in the light of the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.188, P & AR Department dated 28.12.1976, priority can be given to the owners of the land, which was acquired for Government purpose. While the first petitioner had completed X Standard and also having a public duty licence for working as a Conductor, he is eligible to get employment as a Conductor. In the case of the second petitioner, he has a Diploma in Teacher Education and had also registered in the Employment Exchange in the year 2000. The father of the first petitioner died as early as in the year 1993 and in the second case it was in the year 2005. Therefore, they wanted their name registered and have approached the Tahsildar, Thiruttani Taluk, applying for priority certificate in the light of the G.O.Ms.No.656, Labour and Employment Department, dated 29.06.1978. Such a Certificate has also been issued for both the petitioners on 26.12.2008. It was thereafter, the present communications were sent by the second respondent stating that since the petitioners were already married, they are ineligible to get the priority registration. 4. Mr.N.Karthikeyan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the very same question came up for consideration https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 before this Court in S.Varathan Vs. The Secretary, Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department, Chennai-9 and other in W.P.No.37004 of 2007 dated 19.02.2008. This Court, after analysing the Government Order in respect of the priority certificate and extracting the relevant criteria for issuance of the priority certificate in paragraph 4 had observed as follows : "4. However, the 2nd respondent has rejected the same in the impugned order. A reference to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent shows that the only reason on which the claim of the petitioner was rejected is that he was a married person and he cannot be treated as dependent as referred in the G.O.Ms.No.188 dated 28.12.76, which has been passed for the purpose of recruitment through employment exchange and to give priority to the candidates for registration in various categories of persons. In respect of the family whose property has been acquired for Government purpose the said G.O. states as follows : "Group – II : i) ... ii) ... iii) ... iv) ... v) Members of the family (including members of Schedule Caste / Schedule Tribe) whose lands have been acquired for Government purposes as well as for the projects of the Public Sector Undertakings subject to the condition that preference should be given to those who are dependent for their livelihood primarily or wholly on the lands acquired and from among them to members of the Schedules Castes and Scheduled Tribes who may be eligible for employment." The terms as used in the G.O. only states as members of the family. Further giving priority to the persons who have been wholly or primarily dependent on the said land for livelihood acquired for Government purposes. Nowhere the Government Order states about the status of person whether he is married or not. It is not in dispute that the petitioner and his family are dependent for their livelihood on the land which has been acquired and the reason adduced by the 2nd respondent in not giving priority to the petitioner for registration in the Employment Exchange is not legal" Is now stated by the learned Government Advocate that there is no appeal against the said order and it has become final." A reading of the above said order would make it very clear that the said Government Order is nothing to do with the issue involved in this matter as in the said Government Order nowhere it is mentioned about the status of a person to the effect that whether he is married or not. As far as case on hand is concerned, the petitioner is one of the dependants of the family as his father's agricultural land was acquired by the railway department. 6. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the respondent herein passed a cryptic order by merely stating that the application submitted by the petitioner cannot be considered and the same is returned as preferential right cannot be given to a married person. The said https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 order does not refer the Government order at all, and it is nothing but a non-speaking order. 7. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this Court is constrained to set aside the impugned order passed by the respondents herein dated 02.09.2011. Consequently, the respondent is directed to include the name of the petitioner in the category of priority list on the basis of the certificate already issued by the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Karur, and send proper sponsorship as and when requisition was made by any appropriate Government authorities. With the above direction, this writ petition is ordered. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The District Employment Officer, O/o.Professional and Executive Employment Branch office, Madurai – 625 007. +1CC TO MR.M.KARTHIKEYA VENKATACHALAPATHY, ADVOCATE SR.40694 +1CC TO THE SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SR.41103 Gg SR : 30.11.2011 : 4p/4c : IT W.P.(MD)No.10981 of 2011 & M.P.(MD)Nos.1 & 2 of 2011 21.11.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/