Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a person with 40% locomotor disability, was born in Puducherry on 04.10.1992 and completed his education there, including a B.Tech from Pondicherry Engineering College. He was provisionally selected for the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) under the OBC category in the Electricity Department of Puducherry, securing 65.50 marks. He was called for certificate verification and required to produce fresh nativity and community certificates. When he applied, respondents denied the certificates, citing his temporary stay outside Puducherry after his mother's death during Covid. The petitioner contended that under G.O.Ms.No.48 dated 12.12.2002, nativity certificate can be issued solely on proof of birth within Puducherry, and that nativity and residence certificates are distinct. He relied on a prior judgment of the Madras High Court, M.Malarvizhy v. Union of India, which held that birth-based nativity does not require continuous residence. The petitioner also argued that all his identity documents show Puducherry as his native place, that he voted there, and that his absence was temporary due to personal tragedy. He invoked the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, emphasizing the government’s duty to provide reasonable accommodation and eliminate attitudinal barriers. He further asserted that the medical board’s opinion of unfitness for the post was issued without a functional test and violated Section 33 of the Act, and that the recruitment notification did not exclude his category of disability. The respondents countered that field enquiry revealed the petitioner was residing in Tamil Nadu, not Puducherry, and that he did not satisfy the continuous residence requirement even under the government order. They also argued that the medical board found him unfit for the post, which was reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities, and that his disability did not match the categories specified in the notification. The court framed two issues: (i) whether the denial of nativity certificate was illegal and arbitrary, and (ii) whether the rejection on medical grounds was perverse and arbitrary. The judgment excerpt ends before the court’s analysis and decision, leaving the outcome unknown.
Issue of Consideration
Whether denial of nativity certificate was illegal and arbitrary; Whether rejection on medical unfitness ground was perverse and arbitrary.
Law Points
- right to equality
- right to access to justice
- rights of persons with disabilities
- reasonable accommodation
- nativity by birth
- distinction between nativity certificate and residence certificate
- prohibition of discrimination on disability
- United Nations Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities
- Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act
- 2016
- mandamus for issuance of certificates
- provisional selection subject to verification
- medical unfitness assessment without functional test
Case Details
2026 LawText (MAD) (03) 172
W.P.No.26303 of 2025 and WMP No.29608 of 2025
Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Chief Justice, and G.Arul Murugan
For Petitioner: Ms.R.Vaigai, Senior Counsel for M/s.S.Meenakshi; For Respondents: Mr.V.Vasanthakumar, Additional Government Pleader (Puducherry)
1. Union of India Rep. by Union Territory of Puducherry, Through its Special Secretary (Revenue) cum District Collector Department of Revenue and Disaster Management, I Floor, New Revenue Complex Vazhudavoor Road, Puducherry-605 009. 2.The Tahsildar cum Executive Magistrate Thaluk Office, Muthialpet, Puducherry-605 004. 3.The Tahsildar/ Deputy Tahsildar Thaluk Office, Muthiapet, Puducherry-605 004. 4.The Superintending Engineer-cum- Head of Department, Electricity Department, Government of Puducherry, 137, N.S.C. Bose Road, Puducherry-605 001.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondents to issue Nativity and Community Certificates and to act upon them for appointment as Junior Engineer.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner seeks a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to issue Nativity and Community Certificates within two weeks based on G.O.Ms.No.48 dated 12.12.2002, and consequently direct respondent No.4 to act on such certificates for his appointment as Junior Engineer.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was denied nativity and community certificates solely on the ground that he was temporarily residing outside Puducherry after his mother's death, despite being born in Puducherry and holding earlier certificates, which impedes his appointment.
Previous Decisions
Previously, a community certificate dated 28.08.2007 and a residence certificate dated 15.12.2007 were issued to the petitioner. He was provisionally selected as Junior Engineer, but later, fresh nativity and community certificates were demanded and denied. Two previous residence reports were issued by the respondents confirming his earlier residence in Puducherry.
Issues
Whether respondents acted illegally and arbitrarily in denying issuance of nativity certificate to the petitioner?
Whether rejection of petitioner’s candidature for the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) on the ground of medical unfitness is perverse, illegal and arbitrary?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner: G.O.Ms.No.48 permits nativity certificate solely on proof of birth within Puducherry; nativity and residence are distinct; M.Malarvizhy v. Union of India holds that birth-based nativity does not require continuous residence; all identity documents and voting in Puducherry show intention to return; UN Convention and Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 mandate reasonable accommodation and removal of barriers; denial is attitudinal and discriminatory; medical unfitness opinion given without functional test violates Section 33 of the Act; petitioner previously worked as Electrical Supervisor and the post does not require manual work; recruitment notification excluded only visually handicapped persons, not his disability.
Respondents: Field enquiry revealed petitioner resides in Tamil Nadu, not Puducherry; he does not satisfy continuous residence requirement of G.O.Ms.No.48, as even nativity by birth requires continuous residence till date; medical board found him unfit for the post; his disability is not covered under the categories specified in the recruitment notification.
Judgment Excerpts
The right to access to justice and right to equality and equal treatment claimed by a person with disability are ingrained in the basic human rights, in addition to it being recognized under the Constitution of India and given effect to by the law makers by enacting the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. However, those principles ... find difficult to be operated on ground realities majorly because of attitudinal behaviour and approach which lacks sensitivity, in utter disregard to right to equality.
According to the petitioner, he was born, bred and educated in the Union Territory of Puducherry. It is not disputed that the petitioner’s mother died due to Covid and he was left only with his father, who was a farmer. The petitioner himself is a person with disability.
Procedural History
Petitioner, born in Puducherry and previously holding community and residence certificates, was provisionally selected as Junior Engineer. When required to produce fresh nativity and community certificates, he applied but was denied due to his temporary stay outside Puducherry. He filed the present writ petition seeking mandamus. The matter was reserved on 03.11.2025 and judgment delivered on 05.03.2026.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
- Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016: Section 33
