LAWS(MAD)-2019-11-635

D.SELVAMBIGAI Vs. DIRECTOR

Decided On November 11, 2019
D.Selvambigai Appellant
V/S
DIRECTOR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed challenging the order of fifth respondent, dated 30.03.2017, rejecting the petitioner's application to give Destitute Widow certificate to the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner is the wife of late I.Anbarasu. It is stated that the petitioner's husband died, when he was 40 due to Thyroid Cancer on 14.03.2011 leaving behind the petitioner and two children. The petitioner made a representation to the fourth respondent for getting a Destitute Widow Certificate for the purpose of getting employment. The petitioner also competed for the posts under Group-IV Service of the State in the year 2012-13. Though the petitioner successfully passed the written test and she was provisionally selected as Junior Assistant in the Office of the fourth respondent, her selection was based on the fact that she applied under the priority category, namely, Destitute Widow. Though a certificate was obtained by the petitioner and it was annexed in her application, her appointment was subject to the certificate to be obtained from the fifth respondent. The fifth respondent, by impugned order, dated 30.03.2013 refused to issue Destitute Widow Certificate, on the grounds that the petitioner does not reside at the place of residence, which she had mentioned in her application and that her father-in-law is in possession of more than 20 acres of land in Viraganoor village. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed by the petitioner.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the question whether the petitioner is a Destitute Widow or nor should be decided based on the clarification given in the recruitment notification. It is further stated by the petitioner that the petitioner is not even aware of her Father- in-law's wealth at the time of making application and that therefore, the impugned order, without giving any further opportunity to the petitioner without disclosing the petitioner's source of income, is arbitrary. The petitioner also disputed the correctness of the statement found in the impugned order, as to the financial status of her father-in-law. Even though the learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon some more facts, this Court having regard to the nature of order proposed to be passed, is not inclined to consider all those submissions.