J. Anne Jose vs The Director of Ex-Servicemen's Welfare and The Assistant Director, Ex-Servicemen's Welfare

D. Hariparanthaman, J.—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.

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.

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:

Therefore, the stand of the third respondent is that as per Hindu Law, the moment the petitioner marries, she loses her status of the dependent of

the Ex-serviceman, for whom a quota has been made. The day when the petitioner had attended interview, viz., on 27.06.2005, she was also

informed that she was posted in the Primary Health Centre at Ammapattinam. In fact, the petitioner''s father has written a letter to the District

Collector, Pudukkottai, that she got married only on 31.05.2004 and the quota is meant for the children of Ex-Serviceman and the marital status is

not the criteria in granting the employment. The stand taken in the counter affidavit that the moment the petitioner is married, she will cease to be a

dependent of the Ex-Servicemen cannot be accepted.

In any event, getting married is not a criteria to deny the priority in employment. The same yardstick is not applied in the case of a son.

Therefore, it is a clear case of discrimination and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Hindu law does not talk about the

dependent status being changed after marriage of a woman. The ground taken by the respondents to deny employment to the petitioner though

was selected, is not valid and contrary to law.

I have perused the copy of the judgment and also perused the records. It squarely covers the issue involved in this case. The respondent

Department cannot discriminate the daughter in the matter of issuing Priority Certificate. Refusing to give Priority Certificate to daughter on the

ground of her marriage is clearly in violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Hence, the impugned proceedings is set aside.

As far as obtaining of a certificate from the Employment Officer of the concerned District regarding non-utilization of the Priority Certificate

already issued is concerned, the writ petitioner undertakes that she is willing to submit such a Certificate and also a request from his father.

Subject to the condition that the writ petitioner submits a Certificate from the Employment Officer of the District concerned regarding non-

utilization of the Priority Certificate issued to her elder sister and also a request from his father/ex-serviceman, the respondents are directed to issue

a Priority Certificate within a period of four weeks, after the petitioner submitting the required certificates mentioned above.

With the above direction, this petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.