A LOUIS RICHARD Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Order of the Court was as follows : Invoking Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners herein have filed the present writ petition seeking for a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records of the first respondent in connection with G.O. Ms. No. 685 dated 26-12-89 and to quash the portion of the Order dated 26-12-89 which discriminated between intercaste married couples married before 24-9-1986 and to direct the second respondent to forward the names of the petitioners for the purpose of employment and for such further or other orders. In support of the writ petition, the petitioners herein have filed an affidavit wherein they have narrated all the facts and circumstances that forced them to file the present writ petition and requested this Court to allow the writ petition as prayed for. Per contra, on behalf of the respondents, a counter-affidavit has been filed rebutting all the material allegations levelled against them one after the other and ultimately they have requested this Court to dismiss the writ petition for want of merits. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. I have perused the contents of the affidavit and the counter-affidavits together with all other relevant material documents available on record in the form of typed set of papers. I have also taken into consideration the various points raised by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties during the course of their arguments. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, the only point that arises for consideration in this case is, as to whether there are any valid grounds to allow this writ petition or not. THE brief facts of the case of the petitioners as seen from the affidavit are as follows :THE second petitioner herein is the wife of the Ist petitioner. She belongs to Hindu Adi-Dravida which is a Scheduled Caste and her husband the first petitioner is a Christian. THEy got married on 30-7-79 under the Special Marriages Act and the same has been duly registered under the said Act. THEir intercaste marriage has been recognised by the Government of Tamil Nadu as seen from the letter of congratulation dated 25-4-1986. THE 2nd petitioner herein has registered in the Employment Exchange Anna Nagar and her registration No. W/1563/83, X01.30 on 15-11-1983 and the same has been renewed till date. THE first petitioner also has registered with the same employment exchange and his registration No. is F/7538/82, X01.50 and the said exchange has been duly Informed of their intercaste marriage which has been entered into the records. It is her case that under G.O. Ms. No. 939 dated 24-9-86 by an amendment, intercaste marriage couple where one of the spouses belongs to SC/ST were brought into the list of priority categories for the purpose of forwarding their names for employment. But inspite of the fact they were couple married inter-caste, the concession was not extended to them and hence they wrote to the 2nd respondent on 8-1-1999 seeking the said priority. By the letter dated 23-3-90 they have been informed that the said concession will enure only to those couples married after 12-2-1988 and not for those couples married earlier to the said date. According to the 2nd petitioner herein she had a short spell of employment on a temporary basis in city civil Court, Madras through the employment exchange. It is contended by the petitioners herein that the impugned Government order No. 685 dated 26-12-89 is liable to be quashed in so far as it fails to extend the priority concession to inter caste married couples married prior to 24-9-86. THE said impugned order is challenged by them on the grounds that the impugned Government order is violative of Art. 14 and Art. 16 of the Constitution of India and that the impugned order discriminates between those couples married intercaste prior to 24-9-1986 and those married after 24-9-1986 which is not a reasonable classification and also that the cut off date of 24-9-86 is not a rationale criteria and is not based on any intelligible differentia which has rational nexus between the objective sought to be achieved G.O.Ms. No. 939 dated 24-9-1986 and in this regard it is also contended by the petitioners that the impugned order denied equal opportunity in public employment. It is also their grievance that they were 35 years and 40 years respectively at the time of filing the writ petition and that therefore any further delay in securing employment will cause irreparable hardship to them. THEir case is that if the priority concession had been extended to them, they would have been employed by now and they would not be hit by age bar. Hence this writ petition.In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents inter alia, it is contended by them that as per the orders of the Government issued in G.O.Ms. No. 685, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 26-12-1989, priority for intercaste marriage is to be given to those couples who got married or on after 24-9-1986, the date of issue of G.O.Ms. No. 939, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department dated 24-9-1986. THErefore in view of the fact that the petitioner's intercaste marriage took place prior to 24-9-1986 she is not eligible for priority for intercaste marriage. According to the respondents priority for intercaste marriage is only a welfare measure introduced by the Government and it is necessary to prescribe certain eligibility conditions when such concessions are extended by the Government to certain sections, as otherwise, the concession itself is liable to be misused and will not reach the target groups. THErefore, according to them, this concession has been made available to all the intercaste married couples who married on or after 24-9-1986. THErefore it is contended by them that this order is neither discriminatory nor it denies equal opportunity in public employment, as alleged, and that there is also no question of violation of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India in this case. It is contended by them that the details about her intercaste marriage have not been recorded in her records, at the Employment Exchange. It is their categoric contention that priority for intercaste marriage could not be given to her as such priority is made available only to couples who got married on or after 24-9-1986, the date of issue of G.O.Ms. No. 939. Further this is as per the orders issued by the Government in G.O.Ms. No. 685, dated 26-12-1989. According to them, by means of a referral made by the Employment office, she had got a placement as 'Examiner' in the city Civil Court, Madras for 2 brief spells from 12-8-87 to 30-9-87 and from 5-10-87 to 31-22-87. Further according to the respondents it cannot be stated that government order in regard to giving priority to intercaste married couples discriminates between these couples who got married prior to 24-9-1986 and those who got married on or after 24-9-1986, that giving priority to intercaste marriage couples is only a welfare measure adopted by the Government, and that it is necessary to prescribe certain eligibility conditions when 'such concessions are extended by the Government to certain sections. Otherwise, the concession itself is liable to be misused and will not reach the target groups. Further according to them, the first Government order relating to giving priority for intercaste married couples was issued on 24-9-1986 under G.O.Ms. No. 939 Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department and that therefore the concession has been made available to all intercaste married couples who married on or after 24-9-1986 and that therefore this order cannot be said to be discriminatory and it also does not deny equal opportunity in Public employment as alleged. THErefore it is prayed by the respondents that In the said circumstances of this case, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits.Having seen the entire material available on record and from the facts and circumstances of this case and also from the claims and counter claims made by the rival parties, the following are the admitted facts in this case. THE petitioners herein are husband and wife. THE wife viz, the 2nd petitioner herein belongs to Hindu Adi-Dravida which is a Scheduled Caste and her husband, the Ist petitioner herein is a Christian. THEy got married on 8-7-79 under the Special Marriages Act and the same has been duly registered as required under the said Act. That apart their intercaste marriage has also been recognised by the Government of Tamil Nadu as seen from the letter of Congratulation dated 25-4-1986. Both the petitioners herein have registered their names with the same exchange and they have been renewing the same. According to them the said exchange has been duly informed of their intercaste marriage which has been entered into the records. As per G.O.Ms. No. 939 dated 24-9-86, by an amendment, intercaste marriage couples where one of the spouses belong to SC/ST were brought into the list of priority categories for the purpose of forwarding their names of employment. THEir grievance is that inspite of the fact that they were couple married inter caste, the concession was not extended to them. It is also admitted in this case that the second petitioner herein had a short spell of employment on a temporary basis in city Civil Court, Madras through the employment exchange. Whereas it is contended by the respondents that as per orders of the Government issued in G.O.Ms. No. 685, dated 26-12-89, priority for intercaste marriage is to be given to those couples who got married on or after 24-9-1986, the date of issue of G.O.Ms. 939 dated 24-9-1986 and that in view of the fact that the petitioners' intercaste marriage took place prior to 24-9-1986 she is not eligible for priority for intercaste marriage and also that priority for intercaste marriage is only a welfare measure introduced by the Government and it is necessary to prescribe cessions are extended by the Government to certain sections, as otherwise the concession itself is liable to be misused and will not reach the target groups and that therefore this order is neither discriminatory nor it denies equal opportunity in public employment as alleged and also that there is no question of violation of Art. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India in this case.Having seen the records in this case, it is clear that the petitioners herein got married as early as in 1979. Only after their said intercaste marriage they have registered their names in the employment exchange i.e., in the years 1983 and 1982 respectively. Whereas for the first time the concession was granted by G.O.Ms, No. 939 dated 24-8-1986. It is clearly mentioned in the said G.O. that the Director of Employment and training has suggested that priority may be accorded to intercaste married couples where one of the spouses belongs to Schedules Caste/Scheduled Tribe for the purpose of nomination through Employment Exchange and that they may be assigned priority II (iii) as laid down in the Government Order first read in the G.O. and that the Government, after careful consideration directed that Priority Group Ii (i) As Laid Down In THE Government Order Read Above May Be Assigned To THE Intercaste Married Couple Where One Of THE Spouses (not THEir Children) Belongs To THE Scheduled Caste/scheduled Tribe For Sponsoring Through Employment Exchange. THEreafter, by virtue of G.O.Ms. No. 53 dated 12-2-1988, further clarification was made in their regard to the following effect "THE Intercaste Married Couples should register their names in the Employment Exchange within the time limit of two years along with the community certificate from an officer not below the rank of Tahsildar and the Marriage document Registered in the office of the Registrar of Marriages." THEreafter, the Director of Employment and Training has sought clarification 1) whether the time limit of two years of registration with Employment Exchange has to be reckoned from the date of marriage or from the date of registration of Marriage with the registration Department and (2) Whether the intercaste married couple who registered their marriage a few years prior to the issue of Government order third read above and also eligible for the priority concession without reference to the time limit of two years. THE Government after careful consideration Passed the following orders :1.THE priority concession in sponsoring the Intercaste married couple should be available to those couples who have married after issue of orders in the Government order second read above, (It is significant to note that the G.O. referred to is G.O. No. 939 dated 24-9-1986).

(2.) THE time limit of two years prescribed in the Government order third read above shall be reckoned from the date of marriages of the Intercaste Married couple.