WP/960/2026 of KALAIARASI C Vs THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR on 16 October 2026

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the order dated 06.01.2026 passed by the second respondent in No.8783/SC(R)N/A2/RC/2025/25 and the proceedings dated 10.12.2025 issued by the third respondent, whereby the petitioner’s application for a residence certificate was rejected, and to direct the third respondent to issue a residence certificate to her.

2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:- The petitioner was born in Puducherry, completed her schooling there and obtained her Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS) degree from PIMS, Puducherry. She states that she continues to reside at Shanthi Nagar, Puducherry. To secure admission to a postgraduate medical course through CENTAC, she submitted an application for a residence certificate to the Tahsildar, along with the following documents:

1. Copy of birth certificate of Tmt.Kalaiarasi

2. Copy of Secondary School Leaving Certificate of Tmt.Kalaiarasi

3. Copy of Higher Secondary Course certificate of Tmt.Kalaiarasi

4. Copy of caste certificate of Tmt.Kalaiarasi issued by Oulgaret Taluk dated 26/8/2025.

5. Copy of Transfer Certificate of Tmt.Kalaiarasi Vivekanandha Hr.Sec.School, Sellaperumalpet

6. Copy of family ration card of Tmt.Kalaiarasi

7. Copy of combined Nationality Caste/Residence/Native Certificate dated 24/1/2021 of Tmt.Kalaiarasi

8. Copy of Voter I.D of Tmt.Kalaiarasi

9. Copy of Adhaar certificate of Tmt.Kalaiarasi

10. Copy of M.B.B.S degree certificate of Tmt.Kalaiarasi

11. Copy of marriage invitation of Tmt.Kalaiarasi

12. Copy of birth certificate of Thiru.Caliaperoumal, F/o. Kalaiarasi

13. Copy of Voter I.D of Thiru.Caliaperoumal, F/o Kalaiarasi

14. Copy of Adhaar certificate of Thiru Caliaperoumal, F/o.Kalaiarasi.

3. After receiving the application, the Tahsildar summoned the petitioner and thereafter rejected her application for a residence certificate for the following reasons:

“on local enquiry & documents submitted it is noted that the applicant is a native resident of Puducherry and belong to Hindu Adidravida (Origin). She got married to Thiru.Yuvaraj, S/o Venkatesan, who is a native resident of T.N. After 14.11.2024, she is not an ordinary resident at the given address since November, 2024. However, she is a native of Puducherry by virtue of birth has requested to avail caste certificate.”

4. Aggrieved by the refusal of the Tahsildar to issue the certificate, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sub-Collector, Puducherry. The Sub-Collector rejected the appeal by the impugned order, the relevant portion of which reads as follows: “AND WHEREAS, the G.O. Ms.No.48 dated 12/12/2002 of the Revenue Department, Government of Puducherry, stipulates the conditions for determining the status of nativity in respect of any applicant whether by birth of by continuous residence as follows:-

“a. Nativity by birth: The applicant should have been born in the Union Territory of Pondicherry and should have been residing within the Union Territory prior to the date of application. In order to satisfy the criterion of the “Ordinarily resident”, the person should have been residing either by himself or with his family within the Union Territory of Pondicherry continuously with a clear intention of residing there permanently, but for temporary absences from such place of residence for reasons of job or education, etc. As long as the applicant is able to establish satisfactorily his intention to return to his place of residence on the conclusion of such temporary absence, he may be considered to be a person ordinarily residing in the Union Territory.

(b) . Nativity by continuous residence: The applicant should have been residing continuously for five years in the Union Territory prior to the date of the application”. AND WHEREAS, the reports and documents made available before the undersigned indicates that the appellant, Tmt.Kalaiarasi, W/o. Yuvaraj is not an ordinary resident of UT of Puducherry prior to the date of application. The petitioner is not physically residing in the said address after her marriage on 14/11/2024 and has shifted her residence to Thiruvallur District of Tamil Nadu along with her husband. Moreover, her pure intention to claim the residence certificate in the Union Territory of Puducherry is to get reservation in PG Medical Course at Puducherry through CENTAC. Since the appellant is not an ordinary resident of Union Territory of Puducherry, she is not entitled for issue of residence certificate for continuous period of 5

years preceding the date of application from this Puducherry U.T.”

5. Aggrieved by these orders, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking the relief set out above.

6. Heard Mr.M.Ravi, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr.J.Kumaran, learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 4.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that she was born and brought up in the Union Territory of Puducherry and completed both her schooling and MBBS course there. She married Dr.Yuvaraj, who is working at Vels Medical College Hospital, Tiruvallur District, on 14.11.2024.

8. The petitioner’s case is that, even after her marriage, she stayed with her parents in Puducherry for most of the time and visited her husband in Tiruvallur District. Her husband also frequently visited her at her parents’ house. She contends that, as she continued to reside in Puducherry even on the date of applying for the postgraduate course, the refusal to issue a residence certificate is erroneous.

9. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.711 of 2022 dated 29.03.2022.

10. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner was residing with her husband after her marriage and was therefore not entitled to a residence certificate. According to the respondents, she did not satisfy the requirement of residence in Puducherry on the date of application and continuously for the preceding five years.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.711 of 2022 dated 29.03.2022 (DIVYA DINESH Vs. THE GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY).

12. Perused the materials available on record.

13. The criteria prescribed for determining residence in the Union Territory of Puducherry, vide guidelines dated 6/10/2003, are as follows:

“(1). DETERMINATION OF THE “RESIDENTS” TERRITORY OF PONDICHERRY. IN THE UNION, the following shall be the criteria prescribed for determining persons as residents of the Union Territory:

(i) . The candidate or whose parent (either Mother or Father or Both) or Guardian (in the case of children who have lost both the parents) has been residing continuously in this Union Territory for atleast five years preceding the date of application.

(ii) . Those who have passed SSLC/HSC or any other public examination and for that purpose had undergone academic studies continuously for five successive classes immediately preceding the qualifying examination (including the year of qualifying examination) in recognized educational institution(s) located in Pondicherry UT and having their residence in Pondicherry UT for 5 years continuously during that period.

(iii) . Children of Central/State Government Servants/Defence Personnel/Central Paramilitary

Forces/Employees of Public Sector Undertakings wholly or substantially run either by the Central Government or by the Pondicherry UT Administration posted and serving in the pondicherry UT for atleast a minimum period of one year prior to the last date of submission of application.

(iv) Children of Defence Personnel who were killed or disabled in action and children of Central Government Servants/Pondicherry UT Government Servants/Defence Personnel/Employees of Public Sector Undertakings as referred in category (iii) who died while in service in the Pondicherry U.T.

(v) . French Nationals residing in the Pondicherry UT and covered by the terms of the Treaty of Cession shall be treated on par with the candidates who produce the prescribed Pondicherry UT residence certificate. Such French Nationals will not be required to produce residence certificate, instead they should be produce a certificate of registration issued for the purpose from them.”

14. Each of the categories set out above provides an independent basis for determining residence. An applicant need only satisfy the applicable category. It is not in dispute that both parents of the petitioner are permanent residents of Puducherry and that she was born and resided there before her marriage. The rejection rests on the report of an official of the Tahsildar’s office that, after her marriage, she shifted to the place where her husband resides and was therefore not entitled to a residence certificate.

15. Learned Additional Government Pleader relied on the Note dated 07.01.2010 concerning the residence status of married women. The Note addresses the situation of women who have moved out of Puducherry after marriage but whose names continue to appear in their family ration cards. It cannot, merely on that account, be applied to defeat a claim founded independently on the prescribed parental-residence criterion.

16. In the present case, it is not disputed that the petitioner’s parents continuously resided in Puducherry for the five years preceding her application. The prescribed parental-residence criterion is therefore satisfied. The approach of treating the petitioner as ineligible solely because she married and was stated to be living with her husband outside

Puducherry is erroneous. The Note dated 07.01.2010 cannot be treated as an absolute prohibition against the issuance of residence certificates to married women. Its application must be considered in the context of the governing eligibility criteria and the basis on which the certificate is sought.

17. Clause (i) of the guidelines dated 06.10.2003 recognises residence through the candidate or either parent. To insist additionally on the candidate’s own continuous residence in every case would deprive the parental alternative of independent operation. The relevant enquiry here is whether the parent whose residence is relied upon actually and continuously resided in Puducherry during the prescribed period. That fact is not disputed in the present case.

18. In Divya Dinesh v. The Government of Puducherry, (W.P.No.711 of 2022), decided on 29.03.2022, this Court held that the prescribed categories are independent and that a candidate whose parents continuously resided in Puducherry for the preceding five years qualifies under category (i). The Court also distinguished the 2010 Note concerning continued inclusion in family ration cards after migration. That reasoning applies to the undisputed parental residence in the present case.

19. The Note must be read harmoniously with the governing guidelines. Its purpose of preventing reliance on an outdated ration-card entry does not justify adding a disqualification to an independently satisfied eligibility criterion. A ration card is evidence requiring verification; neither its possession nor the applicant’s marriage, by itself, determines entitlement under every category. It is unnecessary in this case to pronounce upon the validity of the Note in its entirety.

20. Further, marriage to a person residing outside Puducherry cannot, by itself, extinguish an eligibility otherwise available under the prescribed guidelines. Denying the parental-residence route to a married woman, while retaining it for other candidates satisfying the same conditions, would introduce a distinction absent from the guidelines and raise concerns under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. The present conclusion rests on the existing criterion and the undisputed facts, without creating any exemption from the requirement of genuine residence.

21. The appellate authority’s reliance on the conditions governing nativity does not answer the petitioner’s separate claim under the residence guidelines. Nor does her intention to use the certificate for postgraduate admission constitute a ground of disqualification. The claim must be tested against the prescribed residence criteria. In view of the undisputed residence of her parents, a further enquiry into the competing assertions concerning her own post-marital residence is unnecessary to decide this claim.

22. For the reasons stated above, the impugned orders declining to issue a residence certificate to the petitioner are set aside. The third respondent shall forthwith issue the residence certificate to the petitioner. The finding in this writ petition is confined to her entitlement to a residence certificate.

23. Issuance of the residence certificate shall not, by itself, confer a right to admission, conversion of a management-quota seat into a government-quota seat, or adjustment of seats in a succeeding academic year. No such direction is issued. Any claim to admission remains subject to the applicable admission rules, merit, reservation, availability of seats and binding admission deadlines.

24. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. (K.SURENDER,J) 16/10/2026 Neutral Citation: Yes/No mvs.

To

1. The District Collector Puducherry

2. The Sub Collector (Revenue ) North Puducherry

3. The Tahsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate, Taluk Office, Oulgaret Taluk, Pudu cherry.

4. The Co-Ordinator (admission ) . Centralised Admission Committee Kamaraj Manimandapam, Puducherry

K.SURENDER J. mvs. Pre-delivery order made in WP No. 960 of 2026 16/10/2026