Madras High Court
S.Govindarajan vs The District Collector on 15 February, 2017
Author: R.Suresh Kumar
Bench: R.Suresh Kumar
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 15.02.2017 CORAM THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR W.P.(MD) No.15666 of 2012 S.Govindarajan ... Petitioner -vs- 1.The District Collector, Thanjavur District 2.The Assistant Director, District Employment Office, Thanjavur. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 2nd respondent in his impugned proceedings A1/8058/2012 dated 11.10.2012 and quash the same as arbitrary, unjustifiable and illegal consequently direct the respondents to provide employment in any one of the basic servant posts in Government Service under the Special Category of legal heir of freedom fighter. !For Petitioner : Mr.K.C.Ramalingam for Mr.S.Nagarajan For Respondents : Mr.V.Muruganandham Addl.Govt. Pleader :ORDER
The prayer in the writ petition is for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records 2nd respondent in his impugned proceedings A1/8058/2012 dated 11.10.2012 and quash the same as arbitrary, unjustifiable and illegal consequently direct the respondents to provide employment in any one of the basic servant posts in Government Service under the Special Category of legal heir of freedom fighter.
2.The petitioner claimed that his father was a freedom fighter participated in several freedom struggle and was imprisoned several times by the British Government and in order to recognise his services to the Country, the State Government had extended the freedom fighter pension to him. The petitioner is the only son and he studied upto 10th standard. However, subsequently, he has not continued his higher studies. He had registered his name in the District Employment Exchange with 10th standard qualification and periodically, the same has been renewed by him. According to the petitioner, he claims that there is a priority quota for employment in public services for the legal heirs of freedom fighters and hence, he sent a representation to the first respondent on 01.12.2009 requesting the first respondent to consider his request for employment on priority basis. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition in W.P.No.12159 of 2011, wherein, he sought for a prayer of mandamus seeking a direction to the respondents therein, who are the respondents herein to provide him an opportunity of employment in any one of the basic servant post in Government services under the special category of legal heirs of freedom fighter. The said writ petition was finally disposed of by this Court on 14.08.2012, wherein, the following direction has been given:
?3.Considering the limited scope of the prayer sought for in the writ petition and taking note of the fact that the petitioner has also approached this court seeking to redress his grievance, a direction is issued to the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner in one of the basic servant post under the Special category of legal heir of freedom fighter within a period of 12 (twelve) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is also directed to give a representation along with the copy of the order passed by this Court to the respondents seeking employment.?
3. Pursuant to the said direction issued by this Court as referred to above, the petitioner had given a representation to the respondents 1 and 2 separately. Pursuant to the said representations, the 2nd respondent, by communication dated 11.10.2012, has stated only those, who have completed higher secondary course and above, there is some relaxation in age and those, who had the educational qualifications less than higher secondary course, the maximum age for each communal category has been fixed, according to the age, ie., 30 for open competition, 32 years for BC and MBC and 35 years for SC and since the petitioner has already crossed 35 years, his name cannot be sponsored by the Employment Exchange. The said communication further states that in future, if the petitioner completed higher secondary course and if the same is registered with the 2nd respondent, accordingly, his name would be sponsored. Challenging the said communication of the 2nd respondent, dated 11.10.2012, the petitioner has approached this Court with the present writ petition.
4. Heard both sides.
5. Insofar as the claim of the petitioner to seek public employment under freedom fighters quota, since he had already approached this Court, where this Court has given a direction in W.P.(MD) No.12159 of 2011 dated 14.08.2012 to approach the respondents by way of representation, though the petitioner claims that he has given representation to both the respondents, only the 2nd respondent has now responded through the impugned order, whereas the first respondent District Collector has not responded, for getting a job under freedom fighter quota or otherwise. The 2nd respondent being the District Employment Officer cannot give any direct employment and the very job of the 2nd respondent is to sponsor the names to the employer on specific request, based on the employment seniority, communal rotation, etc. therefore, the petitioner through the said representations, which has been filed in the typed set of papers, has requested a job at Government College of Kumbakonam addressed only to the 2nd respondent. Assuming that the petitioner has given a separate representation to the first respondent, since the copy of the same has not been produced before this Court, it cannot be decided, whether such representation has been received by the District Collector and the same has been disposed of or not. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court that in the reference column of the impugned order, the 2nd respondent had mentioned that he had received a representation of the petitioner from the first respondent.
6. Be that as it may, since the petitioner's grievance is to get a Government job under freedom fighter quota, for which, the petitioner has to necessarily approach only the first respondent, in view of the direction already given by this Court in the judgment referred to above. In the circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that it is now open to the petitioner to make a fresh representation to the first respondent District Collector seeking job under the freedom fighters quota within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If any such representation is received from the petitioner, the first respondent shall consider the same and pass orders thereon, considering the plight of the petitioner and his further claim that he is the son of the freedom fighter and he is a jobless man and pass orders within a period of eight weeks thereafter.
7. In view of the aforesaid directions, this Court does not want to interfere with the present impugned communication dated 11.10.2012 issued by the 2nd respondent, as it is only a communication, wherein, no adverse order has been passed against the petitioner. Moreover, the 2nd respondent is not the authority to give any job to the petitioner, as he claimed.
8. With these observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
To
1.The District Collector, Thanjavur District
2.The Assistant Director, District Employment Office, Thanjavur.
.