W.P.(MD) No. 24407 of 2016 and W.M.P.(MD) No. 17625 of 2016. Case: V. Muthuselvi Vs The Chairperson-cum-Administrative Officer, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited and Ors.. High Court of Madras (India)
| Case Number | W.P.(MD) No. 24407 of 2016 and W.M.P.(MD) No. 17625 of 2016 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: K.P.S. Manimozhi Gideon, Adv. and For Respondents: P. Seetharaman, Adv. |
| Judges | S. Vaidyanathan, J. |
| Issue | Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16, 21, 39(a) |
| Judgement Date | January 24, 2017 |
| Court | High Court of Madras (India) |
Order:
S. Vaidyanathan, J.
-
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.
-
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 Constitution 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.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial