Honble Mr.K.Elango, Judicial Member

The applicant has filed this application with a prayer to direct the respondent to consider and appoint her to the post of School Assistant Grade II pursuant to the notification bearing No.162005/DSE/Estt.III/A/2005, dated 04.07.2005 issued by the respondent.

2. The facts of the case are as follows:

The applicant being a resident of Mahe, applied for the post of School Assistant Grade II in pursuance of the notification dated 04.07.05 issued by the Government of Puducherry. One of the conditions for the post is insisting for the nativity certificate. She furnished the original certificates including residence certificate at the time of verifying the certificates. Since the applicant understood that the respondent has issued appointment orders to candidates with the less percentage of marks than her, she approached the officials with regard to her appointment and she was orally informed that her candidature was rejected as she was married to a person residing outside Mahe and she did not fulfill the residence criteria prescribed in Clause-6 of the notification. Hence this O.A.

3. Counsel for the Respondent has filed detailed statement of reply as follows:

On scrutiny of the certificates, it was found that the applicant had produced her mothers service certificate instead of the residence certificate as per Clause-6(b) of the notification dated 04.07.05 and she declared herself as she was married to one Mr.M.Suresh and has been residing at Thalacherry, in the State of Kerala, which is nearly eight kilometers away from the Mahe region. The service certificate belonging to the applicants mother could not be considered as the applicant was married off to Kerala and was independent of her mother. She did not qualify to become dependent to consider the service certificate as she was living in Kerala, she could not produce any residence certificate as her living in Mahe for a continuous period of five years immediately preceding the date of application. Therefore, the service certificate produced by the applicant is invalid to this recruitment. Hence, the application of the applicant was rejected and prayed for dismissal of this O.A.

4. We have heard the Learned Counsel for the applicant as well as the respondents and perused the application of the applicant and reply filed by the respondent.

5. The point that arises for consideration is whether the respondent is justified in insisting the residential qualification for continuous period of 5 years within the Union Territory of Puducherry for the post of School Assistant Grade II . Similar question came before the Honble High Court of Madras in WP.No.3156/03 against the orders passed by this Tribunal in O.A.No.168/02, O.A.No.114/03 and other connected matters holding that the respondents cannot insist on residence qualification for continuous period of 5 years. The Honble High Court upheld the Tribunals orders. Following the said judgement, this Tribunal allowed the O.A.No.296/07 recently by order dated 29.06.08.

6. For the reasons stated above, this O.A. is allowed with a direction to the respondent to consider the application of the applicant and pass appropriate orders. No costs.