Denying origin status to the daughter based on the father's status constituted gender discrimination and violated Article 14 of the Constitution.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking an order in the nature of writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records relating to the order, dated 19.2.2007 passed by the second respondent, in No. 105/TOO/D/2007/105, and quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to issue Scheduled Caste (Origin) Certificate to the petitioner’s daughter R. Arthi, based on the petitioner’s residential status.

2. According to the petitioner, she is a permanent resident of Puducherry State, originally known as Pondicherry, having beenborn on 1.11.1962. She was employed as Headmistress, Gr.II in Subramaniya Bharathiyar Government Girls Higher Secondary School at Puducherry. Her parents belong to Pudhucherry by domicile as Hindu Adi-Dravida Community recognised as a Scheduled Caste as per the Constitution (Pondicherry) Scheduled Caste Order 1964. Her husband V. Ranganathan is working as Lecturer in the Education Department of Pondicherry Administration for the past 18 years. Her husband also belongs to Hindu Adi-Dravida Community and he is residing in Pondicherry for the past twenty years. Out of their wedlock, she gave birth to a female child on 30.9.1989 at the Maternity Hospital, Pudhucherry and the said daughter of the petitioner is also residing in Pudhucherry, ever since from the date of her birth.

3. In the said circumstances, the petitioner submitted that a representation on 11.1.2007 to the second respondent, Tahsildar, Olugaret Taluk Office, Pudhucherry was made by the petitioner, requesting to issue Scheduled Caste (Origin) Certificate to her daughter, R. Arthi, based on her residential status and that was negatived by the second respondent. Aggrieved by which, this writ petiiton has been filed.

4. The question of law involved in this writ petition is whether Scheduled Caste (Origin) Certificate could be issued only based on the Scheduled Caste (Origin) status of the father of the child, despite the fact that the mother’s origin status is Puducherry State and her daughter Arthi is residing with her parents in Puducherry State ever since her birth.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that similar case was decided by this Court in W.P. No. 30841 of 2002 in favour of the claim of the petitioner herein and writ appeal preferred by the State was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court, confirming the order passed by the learned single Judge.

6. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that aggrieved by the judgment, the respondent State, has preferred SLP before the Supreme Court, which is pending. Admittedly, there is no stay granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid SLP preferred by the petitioner.

7. This writ petition relates to the year 2007, hence, keeping this writ petition pending unreasonably would not meet the ends of justice. This Court is of the view that the matter has to be decided, based on the admitted facts, in the light of various-decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court and ultimately the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court would the law of the land, as per Article 141 of the Constitution of India.

8. In the counter filed by the respondents, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has the origin status of Hindu Adi-Dravida Community of Puducherry State, having been born on 1.11.1962 at Puducherry, that was previously known as Pondicherry. It is also not in dispute that she is employed as Headmistress Gr.II in Subramaniya Bharathiyar Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Puducherry and she has been recognised as Scheduled Caste, as per the Constitution (Pondicherry) Scheduled Castes Orders, 1964 and her husband Mr.V. Ranganathan is also belongs to Hindu Adi-Dravida Community, working as Lecturer in the Department of Education, Government of Puducherry for the past 18 years, on the date of filing the writ petition and the afor