Judgment :- 1. The petitioner prays for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the letter No. A1/6911/97 dated 26.6.1997 issued by the first respondent and quash the same and direct the first respondent to restore and renew the petitioners Employment Registration with effect from 21.1.1991 and pass such further or other orders. 2. The petitioner after acquiring Diploma in Teacher Education registered herself with the first respondent Employment Exchange on 24.1.1991 for the post of Secondary Grade Teacher. The Employment Registration has been renewed for a further period of three years during 1994 and her Registration Card No. being W/116/91 Depen Sp. 24191. 3. According to the petitioner, she approached the office of the first respondent to renew her registration for the year 1997 and to her shock and surprise, it was disclosed that her name had been removed from the Employment Register. On further verification, the petitioner was informed that her name had been removed from the Register on the requisition of her husband. It is mainly contended that the petitioners name should not have been removed without her request for such removal. 4. The petitioner submitted a letter on 21.1.1997 requesting the first respondent to restore her name in the Roll with the same seniority with effect from 24.1.1991. There was no reply from the first respondent. The petitioner caused a legal notice through her advocate on 2.6.1997. Thereafter the first respondent called upon the petitioner to secure no-objection certificate from the School in which the petitioner is now employed and for registration of her name afresh with the first respondent. Conveniently, the first respondent had omitted to refer to the representation dated 21.1.1997 as well as the legal notice dated 2.6.1997. The petitioner and the second respondent herein got married on 15.5.1992 and they have a male child. The relationship between the petitioner and the second respondent is not cordial and the second respondent had already instituted a case for restitution of conjugal rights, which is pending on the file of the District Court, Sivaganga. 5. The petitioner also states that she has already filed a petition for custody of her child in G.O.P. No. 1 of 1997 on the file of the said Court and the same is pending. 5. The petitioner also states that she has already filed a petition for custody of her child in G.O.P. No. 1 of 1997 on the file of the said Court and the same is pending. The petitioner points out that the action of the first respondent in removing her name from the Employment Register at the instigation of the second respondent is unwarranted and the first respondent is not at all justified in entertaining such a request made by the second respondent without any authorisation or specific requisition from the petitioner. 6. Before removing the name from the Employment Register, the first respondent had not even applied his mind. It is to be pointed out that the first respondent has neither the jurisdiction nor the authority to cancel the registration, when no request has been made by the petitioner. It is contended that the action of the first respondent is irregular and high handed and malafide. 7. The petitioner further states that she is employed in a Private School at Udayanoor temporarily and she may be terminated at any time. There is no warrant or jurisdiction to insist for production of a No-objection certificate and that too for a fresh registration. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised very many legal contentions and it is not necessary to refer to all of them. The first respondent had filed a counter affidavit. There is no dispute about the registration of the petitioners name with the first respondent. 9. It is further admitted by the first respondent that the petitioners registration has been classified under Dependant of serving personnel on 16.8.1996. On 16.8.1996, according to the first respondent, the second respondent met the first respondent along with the original Identity Card issued by the first respondent and submitted a representation to cancel the certificate issued in favour of the Writ Petitioner, as she is employed as a Secondary Grade teacher in Raja M. Dhinakar Middle School, Ramnad and that she is willing to serve only in that institution and there is no need to get employment in the Government Service. Based upon the said request of the second respondent, the petitioners registration has been cancelled from the employment register. 10. Based upon the said request of the second respondent, the petitioners registration has been cancelled from the employment register. 10. The first respondent further stated in the counter that the petitioner is employed as a Secondary Grade teacher, as disclosed by the second respondent and she is employed in Ramnad District, which is outside the jurisdiction of the Sivaganga District. The second respondent, who is the petitioners husband being a Service personnel, priority category was conferred on the petitioner, that the petitioner was working as a teacher in Raja M-Dhinakar Middle School, Ramnad from October 1995 to December 1996 and presently employed at R.C. School Udayanoor, Sivaganga District, that as per the procedure, anyone employed in private sector can register with the Employment Exchange for better prospects after producing No-objection certificate from the present employer, and that the petitioner was also advised to produce a No-objection certificate from the school management and then register her name afresh, which advice was recorded in the representation dated 21.1.1997. 11. The first respondent also stated that on receipt of the legal notice dated 2.6.1997, the first respondent informed the petitioner that she may register again with the District Employment Exchange after producing No objection certificate from her present employer, which the petitioner had failed to produce. The first respondent relied upon the representation made by the second respondent, who had informed the first respondent that the petitioner is employed and that she is the only person to look after the family and there is no need for her to get job in Government Schools. 12. The first respondent further stated in the counter that the petitioner is a dependant of the second respondent and only on the representation of the second respondent, the cancellation orders have been issued. The first respondent by letter dated 20.2.1997 called upon the second respondent intimating the objections raised by the Writ Petitioner and the second respondent was advised to surrender Cancellation Certificate handed over to him on or before 5.3.1997, failing which, the Cancellation Certificate would be treated as cancelled. 13. Obviously, the second respondent had not sent a reply. The first respondent by letter dated 20.2.1997 called upon the second respondent intimating the objections raised by the Writ Petitioner and the second respondent was advised to surrender Cancellation Certificate handed over to him on or before 5.3.1997, failing which, the Cancellation Certificate would be treated as cancelled. 13. Obviously, the second respondent had not sent a reply. The first respondent further stated that the petitioner had not disclosed the fact of present employment on a permanent basis, that if the petitioner wants to register herself, she has to secure No-objection certificate from her present employer and it is the responsibility of the petitioner to surrender the Identy Card issued by the Employment Office at the time of registration duly furnishing the fact of the present employment in the identity card, which the-petitioner had failed to carry out. 14. The first respondent further stated that action has been taken to cancel the registration, as the second respondent had informed about the present employment of the petitioner. The first respondent admitted that while removing the registration of registrants from live register to dead register for various reasons, dates of such removal are not intimated to candidates and all such removals are not being intimated to the candidates. 15. The first respondent further stated that such removal had been informed to the petitioner in person on 21.1.1997 and in writing on 26.6.1997. The first respondent further added that the Employment Exchange primarily functions for unemployed persons while the employed could also register themselves after producing No-objection certificate from their present employers, that whenever a registrant secures employment through Employment Exchange or through their own efforts, they should surrender the Identity Card issued by the Employment Exchange after furnishing the fact of their securing employment in the identity card. 16. The first respondent sought to justify the impugned action on the ground that the petitioner had secured employment, which factum was brought to the notice of the first respondent by the second respondent and as such, action was taken to remove her name from the live register. The first respondent contended that he is empowered to cancel the registration of candidates, who failed to renew the registration and also, who secured employment through employment exchange or through their own efforts. 17. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. T. Kokilavani, Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent. 18. The first respondent contended that he is empowered to cancel the registration of candidates, who failed to renew the registration and also, who secured employment through employment exchange or through their own efforts. 17. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. T. Kokilavani, Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent. 18. The learned counsel for the petitioner represents that the second respondent has been impleaded as a formal party and as no relief has been sought for against the second respondent, notice to the second respondent may be dispensed with. 19. It is admitted that the petitioner had registered herself with the first respondent and that the petitioner has been classified under dependant of serving Defence personnel and placed in the priority group on 16.8.1996. The registration has been renewed by the petitioner. It is to be pointed out that on 24.1.1991 when the petitioner registered herself with the Employment Exchange, she was net employed in any Private School or establishment. Even on the date of renewal on 24.1.1994 also, she was not employed. 20. Admittedly, without notice to the petitioner, the registration had been cancelled and it has not been communicated to the petitioner. The first respondent merely suggested that the cancellation had been recorded on the letter written by the petitioner subsequent to the cancellation of registration. Admittedly, no request has been made by the petitioner for cancellation of registration. The action of the first respondent in entertaining the request of the second respondent to cancel the petitioners name from the live register merely because the petitioner is the wife of the second respondent cannot be appreciated. Such a conduct on the part of the first respondent is against the basic principles of law and the procedure prescribed for the first respondent Employment Exchange. 21. Further, the first respondent has no authority at all to cancel the registration at the behest of the second respondent. In the very nature of representation made by the second respondent, the first respondent should have insisted for production of a letter from the petitioner, which the first respondent had failed and this failure on the part of the Office of the first respondent is rather shocking. 22. In the very nature of representation made by the second respondent, the first respondent should have insisted for production of a letter from the petitioner, which the first respondent had failed and this failure on the part of the Office of the first respondent is rather shocking. 22. The petitioner had registered herself with the first respondent and cancellation, if any, should be either at the instance of the Writ Petitioner or after issue of a show cause notice and the first respondent had not even resorted to follow any one of the two courses. As such, this Court has to hold that the action of the first respondent in cancelling the registration is arbitrary, illegal and requires to be deprecated. 23. The first respondent notwithstanding the omission on his part and notwithstanding the failure on his part to follow the procedure prescribed, as well as the minimum Principles of Natural Justice, had chosen to suggest reasons which are not relevant in support of his illegal action. As has already been pointed out, on the date of registration as well as on the date of renewal, the Writ Petitioner was not employed and there is no requirement for the Writ Petitioner to produce No-objection certificate. 24. Apart from cancelling the registration, the first respondent had also called upon the petitioner to produce No-objection certificate and thereafter seek fresh registration. This attitude of the first respondent, in my considered view discloses the highhandedness with which the first respondent and his subordinates have acted in the present case. The action of the first respondent is definitely arbitrary. Further, the first respondent has neither the authority nor jurisdiction to cancel the registration nor he is justified in calling upon the petitioner to produce a no objection certificate and that too for a fresh registration. 25. The petitioner has pointed out that she was temporarily employed in a private school and her employment in the private school is temporary and, the petitioner prefers to join the public service. That being so, when there is no requirement at all to produce no objection certificate, it is rather too much for the first respondent to insist for production of a No objection certificate and also to register the petitioners name afresh. 26. This Court is unable to appreciate the stand taken by the first respondent. That being so, when there is no requirement at all to produce no objection certificate, it is rather too much for the first respondent to insist for production of a No objection certificate and also to register the petitioners name afresh. 26. This Court is unable to appreciate the stand taken by the first respondent. Learned Government Advocate is also unable to support the stand of the first respondent. The judicial restraint constrains this Court from expressing anything further against the conduct of the first respondent, the District Employment Officer. The District Employment Officer, a State Officer is supposed to know that he cannot and should not act on some body elses representation and he should act only on the representation of the concerned candidate. 27. That apart, the first respondent is also not justified in intimating the petitioner that she has to register her name afresh foregoing the earlier registration and the seniority thereof, besides producing a No-objection certificate. The first respondent had not even chosen either to verify the employment secured by the Writ Petitioner with the Private School or to examine the file in a proper perspective. 28. It is also fairly stated by the Government Advocate that for the renewal of registration, there is no requirement either to intimate the temporary employment or to produce a No-objection certificate from the school in which the petitioner is employed. No Rule or regulation had been placed before this Court in this respect. The action of the first respondent as seen from the counter affidavit is rather shocking and it is nothing but an arbitrary exercise of power. This Court, in fact at the time of admission and subsequent hearing suggested that the first respondent may himself revoke the cancellation and communicate the same to the Writ Petitioner. However, the first respondent had not revoked the cancellation. The first respondent had delayed the matter and persisted in supporting his illegal action. 29. In the circumstances, the Writ Petition is allowed. In view of the disposal of the main Writ Petition, W.M.P. Nos. 17405 and 17406 of 1997 are dismissed. The impugned communication dated 26.6.1997 is quashed and the first respondent is directed to restore and renew the petitioners name in the Employment Register, which registration had been made on 24.1.1991 and give full effect to the said registration and all consequential benefits within six weeks from today. 17405 and 17406 of 1997 are dismissed. The impugned communication dated 26.6.1997 is quashed and the first respondent is directed to restore and renew the petitioners name in the Employment Register, which registration had been made on 24.1.1991 and give full effect to the said registration and all consequential benefits within six weeks from today. The first respondent shall pay a cost of Rs. 2000/-(Rupees two thousand only) to the petitioner.