The Supreme Court has ruled that a candidate born, educated, and continuously residing in the Union Territory of Puducherry cannot be denied a Most Backward Class (MBC) certificate merely because her father was a resident of Tamil Nadu or had provided a Tamil Nadu address in her birth certificate.
The Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B. Varale set aside a judgment of the Madras High Court which had affirmed the rejection of the appellant’s claim for the MBC certificate. The Top Court emphasized that legitimate rights of an applicant cannot be truncated due to the migration of parents in search of “Greener pastures.”
Summary of the Case
The legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the appellant, E. Anitha, could be denied an MBC certificate and the consequent reservation benefits in public employment on the ground that her “origin” was not Puducherry, despite her birth and continuous residence in the Union Territory.
The Madras High Court, in its judgment dated March 21, 2025, had upheld the decision of the revenue authorities rejecting her application. The High Court had opined that in the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction, disputed questions of fact regarding residence could not be scrutinized.
The Supreme Court reversed this decision, holding that where facts regarding birth and education are undisputed, the High Court cannot “shut its eyes” to the legitimate rights of the candidate.
Background
The appellant, E. Anitha, was born in Puducherry on October 30, 1994. She completed her education from Class I to Class XII and subsequently her degree and post-graduation (2002–2018) in Puducherry. She also worked at the Shree Narayana Institute of Medical Sciences in Puducherry.
In 2024, the Directorate of Health & Family Welfare Services, Puducherry, issued an advertisement for the post of Staff Nurse. The appellant applied for the post and sought a caste certificate to claim reservation benefits under the Extraordinary Gazette Notification No.132/GOM/15/SWS/2019-20 dated 08.08.2019.
While the Deputy Tehsildar issued a Nativity Certificate on March 4, 2024, confirming her residence in the Union Territory, the Tehsildar cum Executive Magistrate rejected her application for the MBC certificate. The rejection was based on the finding that her father was a resident of Villupuram District, Tamil Nadu, and her birth certificate and school records reflected a Tamil Nadu address. The authorities concluded that she was not a resident of Puducherry for the purpose of claiming “MBC (origin)” status.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant’s Submissions: Counsel for the appellant argued that the denial was arbitrary and illegal given that the appellant had been “continuously and permanently and uninterruptedly residing in Union Territory since 1997.”
- It was highlighted that revenue authorities had previously issued community certificates to the appellant in 2010 and 2022 after meticulously verifying her residential status.
- The counsel contended that the appellant belongs to the ‘Hindu Vanniar’ community, which is recognized as a backward class in Puducherry.
- It was submitted that the rejection ignored the fact that she had married a permanent domicile of Puducherry in 2019 and had established her own residence there.
Respondent’s Submissions: Counsel for the Union Territory of Puducherry supported the impugned order, arguing that strict scrutiny was necessary due to a “trend of adjacent State residents namely the resident of Tamil Nadu taking undue advantage of the border and are making false claims.”
- The respondents maintained that upon factual examination, the appellant’s claim was found to be “hollow.”
- They argued that the origin of the father being from Tamil Nadu justified the refusal of the certificate under the relevant notification which fixes a cut-off date of February 9, 2001, for determining OBC status for migrants.
Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court examined the undisputed facts: the appellant’s birth in Puducherry in 1994 and her education in the Union Territory from 2002 to 2018. The Court noted that the schools and colleges where she studied were mostly government institutions, stating, “we find no justifiable reason to disbelieve the contents of the said certificates.”
Addressing the core ground for rejection—the father’s residence—the Court observed:
“Merely because the father had given her address as Tamil Nadu in the birth certificate though she was born in Puducherry would not change her status of being domicile of Puducherry.”
The Court further reasoned that the migration of a parent should not disadvantage the child:
“Even assuming for a moment’s sake that appellant’s father was a resident of Tamil Nadu at a given point of time, if having migrated to Puducherry in search of Greener pastures, appellant cannot be the legitimate right of the truncated or in other words her claim for issuance of MBC certificate cannot be denied.”
Regarding the High Court’s refusal to interfere on grounds of disputed facts, the Supreme Court held:
“It is no doubt true that in writ jurisdiction, the High Court would not examine the disputed questions of fact. However, when the facts are not in dispute, the High Court cannot shut its eyes or feign ignorance of the same and deny the legitimate right of an applicant.”
Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the Madras High Court dated March 21, 2025.
- The Court restored the Nativity Certificate dated March 4, 2024.
- The Tehsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate, Taluk Office, Villianur, Puducherry, was directed to issue the Most Backward Class Certificate (Origin) to the appellant within two months.
- The Court clarified that this order is passed based on the specific facts obtained in the present case.
Case Details:
- Case Name: E. Anitha v. The Union Territory of Puducherry & Ors.
- Case Number: Civil Appeal No. _______ OF 2026 (@ Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 38256/2025)
- Bench: Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
