UNION OF INDIA; TAHSILDAR Vs. P JEYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent herein has filed the writ petition No. 30841 of 2002, challenging the Memorandum No. 9565/C2/Rev/2000, dated 10.11.2000 issued by the first appellant herein and consequently to direct the second respondent herein to issue community certificate to her son P. Sivakumar. Since the said writ petition was allowed by a learned single Judge of this Court, the Administration of the Pondicherry Government is before us by way of this writ appeal.

(2.) The case of the writ petitioner is that she belong to Adi Dravida community, having born on 14.12.1960 at Nedungadusalaipet, Pondicherry and her parents also hail from the Union Territory of Pondicherry; that she got married to her husband Mr. Paneerselvam, who also belongs to the same Adi Dravida community, who is a migrant to Pondicherry. The writ petitioner further submitted that her husband is employed in Government Service for more than 20 years and she gave birth to a male child P. Sivakumar on 2.6.1985 at Nedungadu and they are residing in Pondicherry; that she applied to the Tahsildar, Pondicherry/the 2nd appellant herein for issuance of community certificate to her son and same was not processed by the second appellant, in view of the memorandum dated 10.11.2000 issued by the first appellant, wherein it has been stated that the community certificates should be issued based only on the residential status of the applicant's father on the crucial date that is 5.3.1964 and not on the residential status of the mother. Aggrieved by the same, she has filed the writ petition No. 30841 of 2002. This plea of the writ petitioner was stiffly opposed by the Administration of the Pondicherry on the ground that 'parents' mean both father and mother and not either father or mother and hence only such persons whose mother and father were residing in Pondicherry prior to crucial date of the notification issued under Article 341 of the Constitution are eligible to get Scheduled Caste origin certificate and if it is not so, then, the residential status of the father alone will have to be taken into consideration and there is no gender discrimination in the said process. On such averments, the Pondicherry Administration has sought to dismiss the writ petition.

(3.) The learned single Judge of this Court, having heard both the parties, has allowed the claim of the writ petition, resulting in the Pondicherry Administration coming forward to file this writ appeal.