Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 2314
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Pushpa Sathyanarayana, J.
Vardhini Parthasarathy - Appellants
Vs.
The State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. - Respondent
W.P. No. 16292 of 2020 and W.M.P. No. 20381 of 2020
Decided On : 20-11-2020
For the Appellant : Sathish Parasaran, Senior Counsel and N.V. Balaji
For the Respondents: V. Shanmugasundar, Special Government Pleader, Abdul Saleem and M.S. Seshadri
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the determination of nativity for admission to medical courses should consider the birthplace of the parent, continuous residence, and documentary evidence, and prioritize native candidates.
Headnote:
NATIVITY - MEDICAL ASPIRANT - G.O.Ms. No. 2388, Revenue Department, dated 27.11.1990, Manual of Revenue Administration - The court discussed the legal provisions related to nativity certificates and emphasized the importance of continuous residence for five years, documentary evidence, and the birthplace of the parent in determining nativity. The court highlighted that residence and nativity are not equivalent terms and that the intention of the government policy is to prioritize native candidates for admission to medical courses.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a medical aspirant, challenged the rejection of her Nativity Certificate application based on VAO and RI report. She claimed nativity of Tamil Nadu due to her parents' birth and education in Chennai, but her application was rejected, leading to her exclusion from the State Government quota for medical courses.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the rejection of the petitioner's application was unjustified and amounted to making her a 'stateless person'. It emphasized the importance of considering the birthplace of the parent, continuous residence, and documentary evidence in determining nativity.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's claim of nativity, the rejection of her application, and the interpretation of the guidelines for issuing Nativity Certificates.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the continuous education of five years preceding the application cannot be a ground to reject the claim of nativity. It emphasized that the intention of the government policy is to prioritize native candidates for admission to medical courses.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned order and directed the fourth respondent to issue the Nativity Certificate to the petitioner. It also directed the authorities to amend the guidelines and create awareness among students to avoid similar issues in the future.
ORDER :
Pushpa Sathyanarayana, J.
1. The petitioner, who is a medical aspirant, laid challenge to the order of the fourth respondent dated 13.10.2020 rejecting the Nativity Certificate in application TN-3202010134102 "based on VAO and RI report" as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, to direct the fourth respondent to issue a Nativity Certificate to the petitioner without undue delay.
2. The petitioner was born on 17.04.2002 in Hyderabad, where her maternal uncle was working, in whose house her mother stayed for delivery. The petitioner's mother was diagnosed with cancer forcing them to move to Chennai for undergoing treatment at Adyar Cancer Institute. From the year 2004, the petitioner along with her mother was to stay with the petitioner's maternal grandmother at Bangalore, where her mother breathed last on 03.09.2006. The petitioner was four years old at that time. The petitioner was to stay with her maternal grandmother and uncle at Bangalore till 29.02.2016 and to complete 8th Standard. When her maternal uncle moved to Srirangam, Tiruchirappalli in March 2016, she had to come over with them to pursue her studies from 9th Standard. The petitioner claimed that since March 2016, she has been living in Srirangam. While so, her name has been included in the ration card held by her paternal grandfather in Nanganallur, Chennai. Besides the ration card, she was given Aadhar card bearing No. 9674 5676 0872 containing the said address of her paternal grandfather.
3. The petitioner states that she, having lost her mother to cancer, was always ambitious to become a Doctor. She passed the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) by securing 575 marks out of 720 in her maiden attempt. The petitioner fulfils all eligibility criteria for seeking admission in MBBS/BDS Course, such as, age, citizenship, marks in school subjects and also NEET, etc. One other criterion to seek admission in medical courses in the Tamil Nadu State is that the candidate must be a native of Tamil Nadu. The clause governing "Nativity", as stated in the Prospectus is relevant and the same is extracted hereunder:
"4h. Candidates who are Native of Tamil Nadu, but have studied from VI Standard to XII Standard outside Tamil Nadu either partly or completely in one or more States should produce the Nativity Certificate and Community Certificate of the candidates along with the true copies of their parent's certificates such as Driving Licence, Ration Card/Passport, SSLC/10th, 12th Mark Sheet and Transfer Certificate (any one Certificate will suffice). The Community Certificate of the parents should be enclosed to claim Communal Reservation. In case, parents are not literate, then No Graduation Certificate for parents/First Graduation Certificate of the candidates, from the Revenue Authority of competent jurisdiction should be submitted to substantiate their parent's place of birth in Tamil Nadu along with the above mentioned certificates. If the candidates do not submit the above mentioned certificates, then the candidate's application will be summarily rejected."
4. As per the above condition, the petitioner has to submit the nativity certificate along with the other documents and hence, she submitted an online application bearing No. TN-32020100810025 on 08.10.2020 with the fourth respondent. The said application was rejected on the same day on the ground that she did not furnish the birth certificate. Attaching the birth certificate, she again applied vide application No. TN-3202010134102 on 13.10.2020, which was rejected stating "based on VAO and RI report", which is impugned in this writ petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents.
6. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that both the parents of the petitioner were born and brought up in Chennai and they have completed their education till post-graduation in Chennai, which is more than the s
