CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL Vs. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the arguments of Mr. Murugesan, learned Government Pleader (Puducherry), assisted by Mr. Syed Mustafa, learned Special Government Pleader (Puducherry) representing the Union of India, Government of Puducherry, Ms. R. Vaigai, Mr.V.Ajay Kumar, Ms. G. Thilakavathy learned counsels and Mr. K. Venkataramani, learned Senior Counsel leading Mr.M.Muthappan appearing for the private parties and perused the records.

(2.) IN this batch of writ petitions, the question raised is whether the employment notifications issued by the Government of Puducherry requiring the candidates to produce Certificate of Residence by birth, Certificate of Residence for having residence for the last five years in Puducherry before the date of notification and / or Service Certificate obtained from the respective Head of Office in respect of children / spouse of State Government servants who were working on regular basis as a pre-requisite for considering their applications, is legally permissible.

(3.) 1. In W.P. No. 3156 of 2003, the contesting respondent (Tmt. Sindhu Jayarajan) was in possession of M.Sc. Degree in Chemistry as well as M.Phil together with a Degree in Education. Pursuant to the notification in April 2000 issued calling for the post of Lecturers in Higher Secondary Schools run by the Government of Puducherry, she submitted her application. The employment notification, apart from the other requirements, required the candidates to produce the following certificates:- a. Certificate of residence by birth issued after 31.03.97 b. Certificate of residence obtained for having a continuous residence for the last five years as on 31.03.2000 c. Service Certificate obtained from the respective Head of Office in respect of children / spouse of State Government servant. She submitted her application but no appointment was made pursuant to the said notification. 5.2. Subsequently, on 26.5.2000, another notification was issued calling for applications from the residents of the Union Territory of Puducherry for the post of Secondary Grade Teachers (SGT). Since the petitioner was the daughter of a State Government servant, she was eligible to apply for the said post. Though she was selected and given an appointment order, she was not permitted to join duty on the specious plea that her father was not a regular employee of the Government but only a part-time employee. 5.3. Thereafter, on 09.01.2002, a further notification was issued calling for applications for the post of Lecturers for Higher Secondary School and School Assistants Grade II, Physical Education Teachers (PET) and SGTs. In this notification, it was stated that only children / spouse of State Government servants who are working on regular basis alone were made eligible to apply. The respondent submitted her application dated 25.01.2002 and knowing fully that the same may be rejected, she filed O.A. No. 168 of 2002 before the CAT and sought for a direction to consider her application. By an interim order dated 19.3.2002, the CAT directed the petitioner to keep one post of Lecturer vacant pending disposal of the O.A. A reply statement was filed on behalf of the petitioner wherein the prescription of residential qualification was properly justified. 5.4. The CAT, by its order dated 30.8.2002, rejected the stand of the petitioner Government and directed the Government to consider her appointment in accordance with the notification. In paragraph 4 of the order, the CAT held as follows:- "Rejection of applicant's candidature on the ground that her father is a part time employee and consequent denial of appointment is a discrimination on the ground of residence. Whether a person is a full time worker or part time worker he works for the Government and is ordinarily residing in the place where the office in which he works is situated. Therefore, applicant's father is only a part-time worker and is not ordinarily residing in Pondicherry is not accepted and the respondent's rejection on this ground is not sustainable in law." It is against this order, the petitioners have come forward to file the present writ petition and the same was admitted on 03.02.2003 and an interim stay was also granted by this Court which was subsequently modified.