J ANNE JOSE Vs. DIRECTOR OF EX-SERVICEMEN S WELFARE AND THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, EX-SERVICEMEN S WELFARE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner is the daughter of an ex-serviceman. She registered her educational qualification in the Employment Exchange in the year 1997. The second respondent issued a Priority Certificate dated 21.09.1989 to her elder sister in the matter of appointment. However, she did not utilize the same and she got employment under the Central Government. Therefore, the writ petitioner requested for issuance of Priority Certificate to her by cancelling the Priority Certificate issued to her elder sister. However, her request was declined by the first respondent, vide his proceedings dated 22.10.2008, stating that since she is married, she could not be given Priority Certificate by cancelling the Priority Certificate issued to her elder sister.

(2.) Mr. K. Balakrishnan, learned Additional Government Pleader, takes notice for the respondents and also filed Counter affidavit. The learned Additional Government Pleader strenuously argued that there is a prohibition in the case of female members for getting Priority Certificate once if they are married. He further argued that no such prohibition is there for a male member i.e. son of an ex-serviceman. The learned Additional Government Pleader brings to the notice of this Court paragraph No. 5 of the counter affidavit to that effect. It was further argued that as per the Government Letter No. 23213/R/2001-20, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (R) Department, dated 05.06.2003, the writ petitioner should obtain a Certificate from the Employment Officer of the concerned District regarding non-utilization of the Priority Certificate already issued. The learned Additional Government Pleader further submitted that the original Priority Certificate, already issued to her elder sister has to be returned along with the copies of the non-utilization certificate and a request should be given by the ex-serviceman. The main plea of the respondent Department is that since the writ petitioner is married, she is not entitled to get Priority Certificate.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner relies heavily on the judgment of this Court dated 19.12.2007 made in W.P. No. 9246 of 2006 and in particular, paragraph Nos. 7 and 8, which are usefully extracted here-under: