V MUTHUSELVI Vs. CHAIRPERSON-CUM-ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER TAMIL NADU CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the above writ petition for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus,pertaining to the proceedings of the first respondent in Letter No.AE9/10630/2016, dated 20.5.2016 and to quash the same and consequently to direct the third respondent to provide employment under compassionate grounds to the Petitioner, within the time stipulated by this Court.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the writ petitioner is the daughter of A.Velmurugan, who died on 7.5.2012. The father of the petitioner, late A.Velmurugan joined the services of the third respondent/Corporation as Watchman. During the life-time of the petitioner's father, he got married one V.Uchilkali @ Pappa,,mother of the petitioner herein. The petitioner's father A.Velmurugan died, while he was in service, on 7.5.2012. The petitioner stated that she got married to one Muppudathimuthu. The petitioner made a representation along with No Objection Certificate issued by her mother to the third respondent seeking employment on compassionate ground. By a reply dated 20.5.2016, the representation of the petitioner was rejected by the first respondent herein, on the ground that she is married and she is not entitled to appointment on compassionate ground. The petitioner submitted that in terms of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in R.Sivakumari vs. Ramanathapuram Mavatta Payirchipetra Edainilai Asiriyargal Sangam,2007 5 CTC 561, the right to seek employment in Public Services is a valuable right and the Constitution guarantees equality of opportunities in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India mandates that all eligible candidates should be considered for appointment in the post which have fallen vacant, the same aspect has been discussed in detail by the Apex Court in State Bank of India vs. Anju Jain, 2008 8 SCC 475. The petitioner further submitted that the obligation cast on the State under Article 39(a) of the Constitution to ensure that all citizens equally have the right to adequate means of livelihood. Even though the right to employment was not incorporated in Part III of the Constitution, the Consitution guaranteed to secure its citizens with justice, social, economic and political as well as the quality of the status and in particular the opportunity and that Article 21 of the Constitution comes to her rescue.

(3.) The petitioner further submitted that in view of the decision reported in G.Girija vs. The Assistant Director (Panchayats),2008 5 CTC 686, marriage is not a bar in the case of son, the same yardstick shall be applied in the case of daughter also. It is the duty cast upon the children to take care of the parents at their old age, the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, there cannot be any unequal treatment among the children based on sex. The petitioner submitted that G.O.(Ms) No.96, dated 18.6.2012 is unconstitutional, ultra vires of the Constitution, arbitrary and discriminatory in nature, hence liable to be quashed. The petitioner further submitted that, fixing a cut-off date, that too only for female legal heirs of deceased employees is nothing but discriminating females from other gender and it is against equality. It is well settled law that equal can be treated as equal and unequals cannot be. In the present case, the petitioner in both ways is equal to others. It is a fact that the petitioner is the only female issue of deceased employee that too from a Scheduled Caste downtrodden family. Therefore, the petitioner prayed that she must be considered for appointment on compassionate ground.