MARY STELLA Vs. THE DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner prays for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the letter No.A1/6911/97 dated 26.6.1997 issued by the first respondent and quash the same and direct the first respondent to restore and renew the petitioner's Employment Registration with effect from 21.1.1991 and pass such further or other orders. The petitioner after acquiring Diploma in Teacher Education registered herself with the first respondent Employment Exchange on 24.1.1991 for the post of Secondary Grade Teacher. The Employment Registration has been renewed for a further period of three years during 1994 and her Registration Card No. being W/116/91 Depen Sp. 24191.

(2.) According to the petitioner, she approached the office of the first respondent to renew her registration for the year 1997 and to her shock and surprise, it was disclosed that her name had been removed from the Employment Register. On further verification, the petitioner was informed that her name had been removed from the Register on the requisition of her husband. It is mainly contended that the petitioner's name should not have been removed without her request for such removal.

(3.) The petitioner submitted a letter on 21.1.1997 requesting the first respondent to restore her name in the Roll with the same seniority with effect from 24.1.1991. There was no reply from the first respondent. The petitioner caused a legal notice through her advocate on 2.6.1997. Thereafter the first respondent called upon the petitioner to secure no -objection certificate from the School in which the petitioner is now employed and for registration of her name afresh with the first respondent. Conveniently, the first respondent had omitted to refer to the representation dated 21.1.1997 as well as the legal notice dated 2.6.1997. The petitioner and the second respondent herein got married on 15.5.1992 and they have a male child. The relationship between the petitioner and the second respondent is not cordial and the second respondent had already instituted a case for restitution of conjugal rights, which is pending on the file of the District Court, Sivaganga.