AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sathish Ninan, J
The Public Service Commission-first respondent, as per Ext.P1 notification invited online applications to the post of Project Officers in MATSYAFED towards the 30% quota set apart to Fishermen/Dependent of Fishermen category. The petitioners applied based on Ext.P1 and were included in the short list. The petitioners are required to produce dependency certificate that, they are dependent on fishermen, to substantiate their eligibility. The dependency certificate is issued by the revenue officials on the basis of the certificate issued by the Fisheries Officer concerned.
According to the petitioners, their fathers are traditionally engaged in fishing activity for their livelihood. Hence the petitioners are their dependents and thus eligible in terms of the notification. However, the 4th respondent has rejected the request for certificate of dependency for the reason that the petitioners are married and that a married daughter cannot be said to be dependent on the father. It is thus aggrieved that the petitioners are before this Court.
Heard learned counsel Sri.P.N.Santhosh on behalf of the petitioners, Sri.P.C.Sasidharan learned counsel for the first respondent, Sri.T.P.Pradeep learned counsel for respondents 4 to 6 and also the learned Government Pleader.
The post notified under Ext.P1 is towards the 30% quota set apart in MATSYAFED for “Fishermen/Dependent of Fisherman category”. Note-4 to Ext.P1 notification clarifies as to who are “fishermen” and “dependent” of fisherman. Relevant portion of clause-4 reads thus:-
“Fishermen means any person engaged mainly in fishing operations for the livelihood. Dependents means Wife/Husband, Son/Daughter, Father/Mother of deceased sons or daughters wholly dependent on fishermen.”
A reading of the above clause clarifies that:
(i) the person must be engaged mainly in fishing operations for livelihood, to fall within the ambit of the word “fishermen”. Two words are of significance therein viz. “mainly” and “fishing operations”.
(ii) dependents are the persons mentioned therein who are “wholly dependent” on fishermen.
The mere fact that petitioners are married daughters does not keep them out of the category. The rejection of the petitioners request on the said ground was not correct. Though respondents 4 to 6 would attempt to contend that a married daughter does not fall within the term “dependent”, the documents relied on relate to monetary claims. To find whether a person falls within the term “dependent” is that, he/she must be “wholly dependent” on a “fisherman” as explained above. Exts.P13, P14 and P16 whereunder the applications of the petitioners were rejected, have not considered the above aspects. The petitioners' request need to be considered afresh. Since the interview has already started, there cannot be any delay in considering the applications.
Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed. Exts.P13, P14 and P16 are quashed. The applications of the respective petitioners with regard to the issuance of dependency certificate shall be considered and appropriate orders passed in the light of the observations in this judgment, within a period of three days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Writ petition is allowed as above.