Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 586 (MAD)

D. Vetriselvi v. District Employment Officer

2014-03-04

D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

body2014
Judgment : 1. The petitioner belongs to MBC. Her husband is working as Nayak in the Indian Army from 1998 and now he is working at Bangalore. Hence, she was given employment in MBC priority category meant for defence personnel by an order dated 15.09.2010. 2. The District Collector, Vellore, already wrote a letter dated 21.05.2010 to the District Employment Officer, Vellore-the first respondent stating that the petitioner comes under the priority category under MBC. In the said letter, the District Collector has referred to the Letter No.980/HQC/Wel, dated 04.04.2010 of the Commanding Officer of the Indian Army as well as the letter of the husband of the petitioner dated 04.04.2010. 3. While so, the Teachers Recruitment Board -the second respondent, sent a communication dated 30.04.2010 directing the petitioner to appear for certificate verification for the post of Graduate Assistant under MBC priority category. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared for certificate verification. She also produced the letter issued by the Indian Army. 4. Under these circumstances, the petitioner was provisionally selected by the order dated 26.08.2010 in Rc.No.2555/B5/2010 of the second respondent as Graduate Assistant under MBC Ex-Servicemen priority category (DEX-MGPR). Thereafter, the appointment order dated 08.09.2010 was issued to her. 5. While so, after two years, the show cause dated 28.02.2012 was issued stating that the petitioner, though belongs to MBC priority category, failed to register her name under priority category with the District Employment Exchange. 6. The petitioner gave the reply dated 05.03.2012 mentioning the aforesaid facts and she also stated that the priority certificate was produced at the time of certificate verification. The petitioner today produced the result copy dated 04.03.2014 downloaded from the website of the second respondent, wherein, it is stated that the petitioner was selected under DEX priority under communal turn MGRP (Most Backward Class General Priority). 7. Earlier, the petitioner filed this writ petition to quash the show-cause notice dated 28.02.2012. This Court, on 14.03.2012, while ordering notice on admission, granted an order of status quo. However, before that order was passed, the third respondent passed the final order dated 12.03.2012 terminating the petitioner from service on the ground that she did not register the priority certificate with the employment exchange and the fourth respondent passed the consequential order dated 13.03.2012 relieving her from service. Hence, the writ petition prayer was amended to quash the orders dated 12.03.2012 and 13.03.2012. 8. Hence, the writ petition prayer was amended to quash the orders dated 12.03.2012 and 13.03.2012. 8. A counter-affidavit is filed by the respondents. The counter-affidavit is not clear. 9. Heard both sides. 10. The termination order was issued on the ground that the petitioner did not register her priority certificate with the employment exchange and therefore, her service is liable to be terminated. This is the only reason for the termination order. 11. The petitioner has produced the letter dated 21.05.2010 of the District Collector, Vellore, addressed to the District Employment Officer, Vellore, to take appropriate action by brining the petitioner under the defence personnel priority category, in view of the letter dated 04.04.2010 of the Commanding Officer of the Army. 12. The petitioner was issued the letter dated 30.04.2010 to appear for certificate verification on 12.05.2010 under the priority category. The respondents are not able to explain as to why the second respondent sent the said letter for certificate verification under the priority category. On the other hand, much before the letter of the Teacher Recruitment Board directing the petitioner to appear for certificate verification, the Commanding Officer of the Army wrote a letter dated 04.04.2010 to the District Collector, stating that the petitioner belongs to priority category. 13. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner does not belong to priority category. Then it is a different matter. That is, if it is the case of the respondents that the petitioner does not belong to priority category meant for defence personnel, but secured employment due to the error, then it has some substance. It is the technical plea that she failed to register her priority certificate with the employment office. Further, the petitioner was provisionally selected under priority category and she was also appointed and the result copy dated 04.03.2014, which was downloaded from the website of the second respondent, makes it clear that the petitioner was selected under DEX priority under communal turn MGRP (Most Backward Class General Priority). 14. Taking into account, the letter dated 04.04.2010 of the Commanding Officer and the letter dated 21.05.2010 of the District Collector, I am of the view that there is nothing wrong in appointing the petitioner under the priority category. 15. 14. Taking into account, the letter dated 04.04.2010 of the Commanding Officer and the letter dated 21.05.2010 of the District Collector, I am of the view that there is nothing wrong in appointing the petitioner under the priority category. 15. Further, the following passage in the counter-affidavit is relevant and the same is extracted hereunder : "She has obtained priority certificate from the Army Officer on 09.08.2010. But the Employment Officer has not taken into account the petitioner's case under priority." Hence, the petitioner cannot be blamed and her appointment cannot be cancelled. 16. As stated earlier, even before the aforesaid certificate, the Commanding Officer of the Indian Army wrote a letter in April 2010 itself to the District Collector, Vellore, to bring the petitioner under priority category of the family of defence personnel. These facts are not in dispute. 17. Therefore, the impugned order terminating the service of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner failed to register under the priority category and consequential order relieving her from duty are not correct. Hence, the impugned orders of the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.1722/A5/2011, dated 12.03.2012 and of the fourth respondent in Na.Ka.No.235/A2/2011 dated 13.03.2012 are set aside and the respondents 3 and 4 are directed to restore the service of the petitioner in the post of Graduate Assistant forthwith with all benefits within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 18. This writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.