ANDM.P.NOs.1 and 2 OF 2007 v. The District Revenue officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED:20.12.2007CORAM:THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAMW.P.NO.12946 OF 2007ANDM.P.NOs.1 and 2 OF 2007S.Prasantha Kumar...PetitionerVs.1.The District Revenue officer, Kancheepuram.2. The District Elementary EducationalOfficer, Kancheepuram.3. The Tahsildar, Sriperumbudur. ...RespondentsPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiapraying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus as statedwithin.For Petitioner: Mr.S.M.LoganathanFor Respondents: Mrs.Shanmugavalli Sekar Additonal Government PleaderO R D E RSeeking to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call forthe records relating to the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.31179/2006-31/X1 dated9.1.2007 on the file of the first respondent herein and to quash the sameand consequently direct the second respondent herein to consider thepetitioner's claim for the appointment of Elementary Middle School Teacherwithout reference to the report in respect of the Family MigrationCertificate, this writ petition has been filed. 2.. The Court heard the learned counsel on either side. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. The case of the petitioner in short is that after completionof his studies, he applied for Teacher Education and obtained Diploma inMay 1994, that he was originally residing at Chennai where he registeredwith the District of Chennai for the purpose of employment, that he gotopportunity to serve in a private Institution at Tiruvellore, that he wasconstrained to move to a place nearer to the place of work and hence heshifted his residence to Sriperumbudur. While he was staying atSriperumbudur, he got married in the year 2003, that his wife is a teacherwho was working then at Villupuram, that the petitioner's wife had appliedfor transfer and is now working as a Teacher in Kancheepuram District.Since he is residing with his wife at Sriperumbudur along with her familymembers and the family was headed by the petitioner,he has also appliedfor Migration Certificate and the Migration Certificate was issued on21.2.2005 by the Tahsildar, Sriperumbudur, after due enquiry . While thematter stood thus, the first respondent called him for an interview forappointment of the post of Elementary Middle School Teacher. The secondrespondent by his proceedings dated 5.10.2005 called upon the petitionerto produce various certificates for the purpose of verification. While heproduced all the necessary certificates as required on expecting theappointment. While the matter thus,, the order came to be passed on thestrength of the report that cancelling the original Migration Certificatestating that he has obtained the certificate on false information andthat he is living with his mother-in-law, his wife and sister and hence heit could not be considered as true. Under such circumstances, necessityarose for the petitioner to approach this Court for the relief asextracted above.4. Advancing his argument on behalf of the petitioner, learnedcounsel took the Court to different documents that were produced beforethe authority. However, learned counsel would submit that it is not incontroversy that the petitioner who belonged to Kanyakumari District wasactually employed in Private School at Thiruvallur and had his residenceat Sriperumbudur. At this stage, she married a teacher who was workingthen at Villupuram and the petitioner's wife had applied for transfer andis now working as a teacher in Kancheepuram District and thus the familywas settled at Sriperumbudur. Under such circumstances, there arosenecessity for obtaining Migration Certificate and on enquiry, it wasissued on 5.02.2005. Along with all other certificates, Migrationcertificate was also produced before the first respondent at the time ofinterview. While a report was called for, the Revenue Divisional Officerconducted an enquiry and submitted a report stating that the petitionerhad obtained migration certificate on giving false information, but thesame is not correct. It is true that mother-in-law of the petitioner isliving with him and that does not mean that the petitioner was not livingat the place at Sriperumbudur. All the documentary evidence would clearlyindicate that the petitioner is staying at Sriperumbudur and was workingat Tiruvellore and it does not mean that he has suppressed anything or hehas given any false information to get such a certificate. The Tahsildar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ has made a proper enquiry and only on satisfaction of the same, theTahsildar has issued a Migration certificate and without assigning anyproper or acceptable reason, it has been cancelled by the first respondentand hence it has got to be set aside.5. Heard the learned counsel for the respondents on the abovecontentions.6. After doing so, this Court is of the considered opinion thatthe order of the first respondent has got to be set aside . The originalMigration certificate issued to the petitioner must come into force again.It is not in controversy that the petitioner belonged to KanyakumariDistrict. As a bachelor, the petitioner was residing at Virugambakkam,Chennai and when he got appointment at Private School at Tiruvellore, hewas constrained to move to a nearby place at Sriperumbudur. In the year2003, he got married. At that time, his wife was working at Villupuram andsince there arose necessity to get transfer, she got transfer at a schoolat Kancheepuram and thereafter she was living with her husband atSriperumbudur. The contention that the mother-in-law of the petitioner wasliving with him, cannot be a reason for cancelling the Migrationcertificate which was issued on proper enquiry. What are all found in thecancellation order is that he was living with his mother-in-law, father-in-law and wife at Sriperumbudur and it is also the property of hismother-in-law. The Migration certificate obtained by giving falseinformation, cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that thepetitioner has produced a bank pass book of Tiruvellore and a bankpassbook Sriperumbudur schedule bank which would be pointing to the factthat he was working at Tiruvellore District and staying at Sriperumbudur.Thus after proper enquiry, the Tahsildar has issued Migrationcertification and there is no question of cancellation of the same,sinceno fault is on his part. Under such circumstances, without any hesitationwhatsoever, the order of the first respondent is set aside and it isquashed . It is also made clear that there cannot be any impediment forthe second respondent to consider the case of the petitioner forappointment for which purpose he was called for interview.7. The writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently,M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2007 are closed.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarVJY https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1.The District Revenue officer, Kancheepuram.2. The District Elementary Educational Officer, Kancheepuram.3. The Tahsildar, Sriperumbudur. 1 cc To Mr.S.M.Loganathan, Advocate, SR.75847.1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.76012.W.P.NO.12946 OF 2007 AND M.P.NOS.1 AND 2 OF 2007 KS(CO)RVL 26.12.2007