Madras High Court
R.S.Prathiba vs Union Of India on 17 July, 2025
Author: J.Nisha Banu
Bench: J.Nisha Banu
W.P.No.25382 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on 14.07.2025
Pronounced on 17.07.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
W.P.No.25382 of 2025
and
W.M.P.No.28550 of 2025
R.S.Prathiba . Petitioner
-vs-
1. Union of India,
Rep. by the Secretary to Government (Revenue),
Chief Secretariat, Puducherry-605 001.
2. The Special Secretary (revenue)-cum-
District Collector-cum-District Magistrate,
Department of Revenue and Disaster Management,
I-Floor, New Revenue Complex,
Vazhudavoor Road, Puducherry-605 009.
3. The Tahsildar,
Oulgaret Taluk Office,
Selva Vinayagar Koil Street,
Pakkamudaiyanpet, Lawspet,
Puducherry-605 008.
4. The Coordinator
Centralised Admission Committee (CENTRAC),
Kamarajar Manimandapam, Karuvadikuppam,
Puducherry-605 008. ... Respondents
1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 02:08:21 pm )
W.P.No.25382 of 2025
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the
records of the 3rd Respondent with No.3313/TOO/A/Certi/2025 dated
27.06.2025, quash the same and consequently to direct the 3rd Respondent to
issue community certificate to the petitioner based on the community
certificate issued to the mother of the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Ajayakumar
For Respondents : Mr.V.Vasanthakukmar
Addl. Govt. Pleader (Pondy)
*****
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by J.NISHA BANU,J.)
This writ petition has been filed, challenging the impugned
order of the 3rd Respondent dated 27.06.2025 made in
No.3313/TOO/A/Certi/2025 and to direct the 3rd Respondent to issue
community certificate to the petitioner based on the community certificate
issued to the mother of the petitioner.
2. Mr.V.Vasanthakukmar, learned Additional Government
Pleader (Pondy) takes notice for the respondents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 02:08:21 pm )
3. The case of the petitioner is that her parents got married on
22.08.2025 and out of wedlock, they gave birth to two daughters. The
petitioner is the elder daughter and has come out successful in her HSC
examinations by securing 89% of marks. Since the petitioner has been
expecting admission in the professional courses through CENTAC, she
applied for a community certificate on the basis of the community and
nativity certificates issued to her mother. The marriage of her parents was an
inter-caste marriage and her application for community certificate based on
her mother's certificate was rejected on that ground.
4. It is further case of the petitioner that the Government Order
issued by the Government of Puducherry, facilitating issuance of
community certificate on the basis of the community certificate of either of
the parents was repealed. Against the repealing Act, a Writ Petition was
filed before a Single Judge of this Court, in which, this Court directed the
authorities to issue community certificate on the basis of the mother's
community certificate and the said view has been confirmed by the Division
Bench of this Court. When the judgment was taken up before the Supreme
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 02:08:21 pm )
Court by the Government of Puducherry, the order of the learned Single
Judge was upheld by the Supreme Court and the matter has attained finality.
Even thereafter, the respondents have been denying issuance of community
certificate on the basis of the mother's nativity / community certificate.
5. It is also case of the petitioner that the denial to issue
community certificate on the ground that her parents are inter-caste couple
is highly arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner's parents are natives of
Puducherry and have obtained Aadhar Card, Voter's Identity Card, Ration
Card, etc. The petitioner has been made to run from pillar to post, despite
the fact that similarly placed persons have been extended the benefit.
6. The impugned order of rejection has been assailed by the
petitioner on the ground that on account of rejection of the application of
the petitioner by the 3rd respondent, her legitimate right to apply for
professional course under MBC is deprived. Though the petitioner has
scored highest marks in the +2 examinations, she is not in a position to
apply for higher studies, owing to non-consideration of issuance of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 02:08:21 pm )
community certificate by the 3rd respondent. Hence, she has prayed for
quashing the impugned order of the 3rd respondent and sought a direction
for issuance of community certificate on the basis of her mother's
community certificate.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this
Court in a batch of Writ Petitions in W.P.Nos.4063 of 2025, etc, batch
decided on 22.05.2025 categorically held that even the Legislature cannot
pass an Act, which will overrule the judgments of the High Court and
Supreme Court and the Executive is bound by the judgments of the
Constitutional Court. The relevant portions of the judgment are extracted
hereunder:
“9. It is a settled position of law that a legislature can
always remove the basis of an order, but the Legislature cannot
pass an Act, which will overrule the judgments of the High
Court and Supreme Court. When the Legislature itself is not
empowered to overrule the judgments, the Executive is bound,
hand and foot, by the judgments of the Constitutional Court.
10. It is surprising that the Government seems to
alter the law laid down by the judgments of the Court, after
having been a party to the said judgment and not having filed
any appeal against those judgments. The Government of
Puducherry, being a litigant, is as much bound by a judgment
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 02:08:21 pm )
of this Court, as a private litigant. It is not open to the
Government of Puducherry to alter the position and attempt to
overrule the judgments of this Court by passing a Government
Order. Hence, the respondents shall consider the individual
applications filed by persons, claiming to belong to Scheduled
Caste Community and pass orders on its own merits, taking
into consideration the decision of the Division Bench of this
Court in Siva Johnson Kennedy's case [W.P.No.34933 of
2023] dated 21.12.2023 without driving the individual
petitioners to file separate writ petitions as held by this Court in
W.P.No.34933 of 2023.”
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that
the portal for submitting the on-line application for admission is kept
opened from 05.06.2025 to 14.07.2025 and because of the denial of
issuance of the community certificate, the petitioner is unable to apply for
the same on the ground that she has not enclosed the community certificate.
9. Per contra, learned Additional Government Pleader (Pondy)
has contended that with a view to bring on uniformity, the Government
order of consideration of community certificate on the basis of the mother's
certificate was repealed. The main intention of the Government is to curb
fraud in issuing community certificate. A person applying for community
certificate cannot be permitted to choose a caste according to his / her
whims and fancies, so as to avail reservation benefits. In the absence of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 02:08:21 pm )
guidelines, acts or rules to consider issuance of community certificate based
on the mother's community certificate, the respondents are not empowered
to issue community certificate and therefore, the order of rejection is
perfectly valid and does not warrant any interference by this Court.
10. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Additional Government Pleader (Pondy) appearing for the respondents and
perused the material documents as well as various judgments of this Court
and Supreme Court.
11. The petitioner, who is aspiring to opt for professional
courses, applied for community certificate on the basis of her mother's
origin. Her mother falls under the category of MBC. The parents of the
petitioner belong to two different castes and their marriage was termed as an
inter-caste one. According to the respondents, the Government of
Puducherry has been following the practice of issuing community certificate
based on the residential status of father on the basis of
O.M.No.9565/C2/Rev/2000 dated 10.11.2000 issued by Revenue
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 02:08:21 pm )
Department, Government of Puducherry. The said Official Memorandum is
no longer res integra. When the Official Memorandum of the Government
of Puducherry was questioned before this Court in W.P.No.30841 of 2002,
this Court directed the respondents to issue community certificate on the
basis of residential status of mother, specifically holding that the certificate
could be issued based either on the origin of the father or the origin of the
mother. The order of the learned Single Judge was confirmed by the
Division Bench and thereafter, upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil
Appeal No.9082 of 2014.
12. The issue regarding issuance of community certificate on
the basis of the origin of the mother has been well considered vide judgment
dated 04.09.2023 [W.P.No.9586 of 2014] of a Division Bench of this Court
in which one of us (JNBJ) was a party and directed the respondents therein
to issue a caste certificate to the petitioner therein based on the certificate of
the mother. For the sake of convenience, the relevant paragraphs of the
judgment are extracted hereunder:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 02:08:21 pm )
“10. We have already pointed out that, in the State of
Puducherry, Hindu Adidravida (Parayar) is considered as
Scheduled Caste community. The only issue that we have to see
is whether it is the origin of the mother or origin of the father,
that has to be considered.
11. The office memorandum which was originally relied
upon by the respondents to deny the Scheduled caste benefits to
the writ petitioner i.e., dated 10.11.2000 has been declared
unconstitutional and it has been upheld by the Division Bench
as well as by the Supreme Court. Consequently, the law that is
in force today, is the office memorandum dated 03.08.1995
which has been held valid. This position having been approved
by the Supreme Court, we have to apply the same to the facts
and circumstances of the present case. The facts put forth above
would go to show that the petitioner's son was brought up
entirely in the State of Puducherry under the care and custody
of his mother, who is of Puducherry origin and belongs to
Scheduled caste community. Therefore, judgments of this Court
will apply in all force to the facts of the case.
12. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed. The
respondents are directed to issue a caste certificate to the
petitioner's son (Bharath Rajan), within a period of four(4)
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No
costs.”
13. In yet another judgment dated 21.12.2023 [W.P.No.34929
of 2023], the Division Bench of this Court, presided over by one of us
(JNBJ) followed the ratio laid down in S.Sumathy's case and issued a
positive direction in favour of the petitioner therein, holding as under:
“14. The order passed in the case of S.Sumathy vs. 1.
Union of India Represented by Secretary Revenue,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 02:08:21 pm )
Government of Puducherry and another made in W.P.No.9586
of 2014 dated 04.09.2023, is squarely applicable to the case on
hand. There is no dispute regarding the fact that the mother of
the writ petitioner hails from Hindu Adi Dravida -origin-. It is
admitted fact that the petitioner-s mother was a native of
Puducherry and belongs to Hindu Adi Dravida ?Origin?
community and has a valid birth certificate issued by
Ariyankuppam Commune, Panchayat Puducherry.
15. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed.
The respondents are directed to issue community certificate to
the petitioner that she belongs to Hindu Adi~Dravida (Origin)
Schedule Caste community, within a period of four(4) weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
16. It is made clear that whenever an application is made
for issuance of community certificate based on the mother's
origin along with supporting documents, the Revenue
Authorities shall satisfy himself on the veracity of the
documents and if satisfied shall issue the certificate without
driving the individual to seek for separate judicial order. No
costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.”
14. It is pertinent to mention here that in the aforesaid
judgment, this Court added that in case an application is filed for
community certificate based on the origin of the mother, the respondents
have to ascertain the veracity of documents without insisting the applicants
to obtain a judicial order in a mechanical manner, as the benefit granted to a
particular set of persons is applicable to similarly placed persons in terms of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 02:08:21 pm )
the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh
and others vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava and others reported in 2015 (1)
SCC 347.
15. In the case on hand, the petitioner's mother hails from
Puducherry and she has been residing in the Union Territory of Puducherry
five years prior to the issuance of Nationality Certificate dated 25.06.2023.
In addition, the mother of the petitioner was born on 06.03.1977 in Jipmer
Hosptial, Pondicherry, which is evident from the Birth Certificate annexed
in the typeset of papers. Therefore, looking at any angle, the rejection order
passed by the 3rd respondent is unsustainable and the same has been passed
without proper application of mind. The petitioner's right to pursue higher
studies cannot be deprived for the no fault of her, on account of non-
issuance of community certificate. Hence, we are of the view that the order
of rejection needs to be interfered with.
16. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned
order of the 3rd Respondent dated 27.06.2025 made in
No.3313/TOO/A/Certi/2025 is hereby set aside. The 3rd Respondent is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 02:08:21 pm )
directed to issue community certificate to the petitioner, based on the
community certificate, issued to the mother of the petitioner forthwith
without any further delay. It is made clear that upon production of a copy of
the community certificate by the petitioner, the 4th respondent shall consider
for admission, on the petitioner fulfilling eligibility criteria without standing
on technicalities in respect of closure of online portal on account of expiry
of last date. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is
closed.
(J.N.B.J.,) (M.J.R,J.,)
17.07.2025
Index: Yes / No
Internet: Yes / No
Speaking Order / Non Speaking Order
ar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 02:08:21 pm )
To:
1. The Secretary to Secretary to Government (Revenue),
Union of India,
Chief Secretariat, Puducherry-605 001.
2. The Special Secretary (revenue)-cum-
District Collector-cum-District Magistrate,
Department of Revenue and Disaster Management,
I-Floor, New Revenue Complex,
Vazhudavoor Road, Puducherry-605 009.
3. The Tahsildar,
Oulgaret Taluk Office,
Selva Vinayagar Koil Street,
Pakkamudaiyanpet, Lawspet,
Puducherry-605 008.
4. The Coordinator
Centralised Admission Committee (CENTRAC),
Kamarajar Manimandapam, Karuvadikuppam,
Puducherry-605 008.
J.NISHA BANU, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 02:08:21 pm )
AND
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
ar
PRE-DELIVERY ORDER IN
17.07.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 02:08:21 pm )
