V R RAJESWAR Vs. TAMILNADU PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE action of the Tamil Nadu State Public Service Commission in treating the petitioner who was born in and brought up in Tamil Nadu, educated in Tamil Nadu and who has been practicing in law in Tamil Nadu as a person not "belonging to the Tamil Nadu, has been the cause for this writ petition. THE reason given by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission for regarding the petitioner as being a person not "belonging to Tamil Nadu is that the petitioner's father who is now said to be aged 77 years was not born in Tamil Nadu. No other reason has been put forth by the Service Commission to support its denial of the relaxation in age to which the petitioner claimed that he was entitled as a Christian Nadar residing in Tamil Nadu as that community is a Backward Class in the list of Backward Classes recognised by the State.

(2.) IN the affidavit filed by the Joint Secretary to the Government, Backward Classes, Most Backward Classes and Minorities Welfare Department, it is now admitted that a decision as to whether person belongs to or does not belong to Tamil Nadu does not depend solely on the place of birth of the person's parents but is dependent on several other factors as well. An order made by the Social Welfare Department on 23.9.1986 has been referred to in the affidavit. It is averred that the Government in that order has clearly stated mat factors such as the permanent residence of the father or grand father, possession of property, mother-tongue, place of education, marriage of the candidate as well as their parents length of stay outside and inside Tamil Nadu etc. should also be taken into account. None of these factors were admittedly taken note of by the Public Service Commission when it declined to entertain the Petitioner's application to the post of Civil Judge Junior Division, which application had been made by him pursuant to an advertisement that had been issued by the Public Service Commission for recruitment to the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service for the year 1999. We must at this point note, that we had by an interim Order permitted the petitioner to take up the examination which had been conducted by the Commission. We had also directed the Commission to evaluate his answers and after such evaluation, it was found that the petitioner did not qualify himself for being called for an interview.

(3.) WHEN the term "belonging to" was used by the Government in the Order issued by it in the year 1976 and in communication limiting the benefits given to the Backward Classes, only to the persons belonging to such classes and also belonging to the State, all that could have been meant was that the persons who receive benefits extended to the Backward Classes in this State must be persons who had close affinity with this State. Such affinity is to be not merely emotional but has to be physical in the sense that such persons be residents or their parents be resident in this State or that they grew up and were educated here and regards this state as their home State. This is only illustrative. The link between the person and the State should be sufficiently strong to enable the State to regard him or her as a person belonging to the State, and also that person should have the feeling that he/she belongs to this State.