Neelappa vs The Tahasildar and Others

B. Manohar, J.—Petitioner in this writ petition has sought for quashing the order dated 02-06-2014 issued by the Tahsildar and also sought for writ of mandamus directing the Tahsildar to consider the application dated 24-02-2014 and to issue "Residence Certificate" as required under Rule 5(3) of the Karnataka Public Employment (Reservation in Appointment for Hyderabad-Karnataka Region) (Organization of Local Cadres, Allotment and Transfer of Persons) Rules, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as "2013 Rules" for short).

In the writ petition, the petitioner has contended that he hails from Hagaratagi Village of Surpur Taluk of Yadgir District. He was born and brought up in the said village. His brothers and sisters resides in the same village itself. The father of the petitioner owns residential house property bearing No. 79/2 at Hagaratagi Village. Subsequently, he got employment and presently working at Dharwad. The Employer of the petitioner has also issued a certificate stating that the petitioner is working at Dharwad.

In view of the notification issued under Article 371-J of the Constitution of India conferring certain rights and privileges upon the persons belonging to the said area, the Government of Karnataka published a Gazette Notification dated 06-11-2013 publishing reservation in appointment and promotion for Hyderabad-Karnataka region. The petitioner made an application before the Competent Authority for issuance of a "Residence Certificate".

Rule 6 of the 2013 Rules provides for Domicile (Local Person). The domicile of a person-

"(1) A candidate for direct recruitment or promotion to any post shall be regarded as a local person in relation to a local area:

If he is born in the local area or either of his parents was born in that region before 1-1-2013, or, either of his parents ordinarily lived in the local area for more than ten years prior to 1-1-2013 and had their name either in the electoral list or ration card; or owned any immovable property or on before 1-1-2013 in the local area; or if he has studied in an Educational Institution in such local area for a period not less than ten academic years." 5. The specific case of the petitioner in the writ petition is that, he is domicile of Surpur Taluk, Yadgir District, his name was entered in the Voters'' list. Admittedly, father of the petitioner owns property at Hagaratagi village and his brothers and sisters are also residing in the same village. In view of coming into force of the Karnataka Public Employment (Reservation in Appointment for Hyderabad-Karnataka Region) (Organization of Local Cadres, Allotment and Transfer of Persons) Rules, 2013, the petitioner made an application to the Tahsildar, Surpur Taluk for issuance of "Residence Certificate" as required under Rule 5(3) of the said Rules. Since his name is not entered in the Employment Register with regard to his Home Town, the Tahsildar called for some of the particulars. The particulars sought for by him had been furnished. However, in spite of producing all the documents, the Tahsildar by his order dated 02-06-2014 rejected the application for issuance of "Residence Certificate" on the ground that under Rule 5(2) of the 2013 Rules, the Cadre Controlling Authority/Head of the Office is the competent authority to issue Certificate of Home Town. Hence, the Tahsildar cannot issue "Residence Certificate". The said order is questioned in the present writ petition contending that when the petitioner was appointed, his Home Town was not entered in the Service Records. In view of coming into force of the Rules in the year 2013, the Tahsildar is the Competent Person to issue Residence Certificate under Rule 5(3) of 2013 Rules. The order passed by the Tahsildar, Surpur Taluk is contrary to law and hence sought for allowing the writ petition.

Learned Additional Government Advocate has filed statement of objections contending that the petitioner was born and brought up in Hagaratagi Village, Surpur Taluk. Father of the petitioner sold the property on 27-12-2008. Further, in the Voters'' list of the year 1999, the name of the petitioner is not included even though the Revenue authorities and Village Accountant have issued necessary certificates. Further, when the mahazar was conducted on 1-3-2014, at that time, the petitioner was not the resident of Hagaratagi Village though his brothers are residing there. Hence, the petitioner is not the ordinary resident of Hagaratagi Village, Surpur Taluk and not entitled for Residence Certificate. Hence sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned and other relevant records.

The records produced by the petitioner clearly disclose that he was born and brought up in Hagaratagi Village of Surpur Taluk. The certificate issued by the Taluk Panchayat, Revenue Officers and Panchanamas, Katha Certificate issued by the Competent Authorities clearly disclose that the petitioner was born in the Hagaratagi Village of Surpur Taluk. Father of the petitioner owns property in the said village. Name of the petitioner was also entered in the Employment Exchange of Gulbarga. All these records clearly disclose that he is born and brought up in the said village. After completion of his Graduation, he was out of village from the year 1999. Originally he was employed in Bangalore and subsequently, he was transferred to Dharwad. The certificate issued by the Employer of the petitioner clearly disclose that at present, the petitioner is working at Dharwad. Prior to coming into force of the 2013 Rules, there was no requirement of furnishing the certificate of home town. In view of that, in the Service Records, the Home Town was not entered. In view of coming into force of the 2013 Rules, the Home Town of the petitioner has to be entered in the Service Records and the Competent Authority i.e. the Tahsildar has to issue the Residence Certificate. If the Home Town is mentioned in the Service Register, the Cadre Controlling Authority shall issue Residence Certificate. If the entry is not made in the Service Records as required under Rule 5(3) of the Rules, Tahsildar is the Competent Authority to issue Residence Certificate. The petitioner has produced all the records to show that he is a resident of Hagaratagi Village and for the purpose of employment, he was out of village from the year 1999. Further, he is a resident of the said village. The Tahsildar, on hyper technical grounds has rejected the application without taking into consideration the spirit and intendment of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of 2013 Rules.

The fact remains that the name of the petitioner is not entered in the Service Register. Hence, the question of Cadre Controlling Authority issuing Residence Certificate does not arise. In that case, the Tahsildar is the Competent Authority to issue the Residence Certificate. Hence, the order passed by the Tahsildar cannot be sustained and he has to reconsider the matter afresh and pass orders, in accordance with law. Since all the necessary documents are already made available to the Tahsildar, he has to reconsider the matter and pass fresh orders, in accordance with law.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 02-06-2014 is quashed. The Tahsildar, Surpur Taluk is directed to reconsider the matter afresh and pass orders, in accordance with law, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.