JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 2nd respondent herein in No.13509/DCR/SDM/B3/KKL/2021/227 dated 09.06.2021 quash the same and direct the 2nd and 3rd respondent herein to issue Residence Certificate to the petitioner.)

1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 2nd respondent in No.13509/DCR/SDM/B3/KKL/2021/227 dated 09.06.2021, to quash the same and to direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents to issue Residence Certificate to the petitioner.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was born in Karaikal and completed her education in Karaikal. Thereafter she applied for the post of Guest Balasevika in the Education Department of Puducherry and was shortlisted for selection to the said post. She was directed to produce a Residence Certificate for the current period and hence she applied to the third respondent for issuance of Residence Certificate. Thereafter based on the advise of the staff of the third respondent, the petitioner applied for Residence Certificate with the fourth respondent. After enquiry, the fourth respondent passed an order dated 19.01.2021 refusing to issue Residence Certificate and the third respondent also vide order dated 01.02.2021 rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that her right of residence ceases once she shift her residence to Tamil Nadu after marriage. However, though the petitioner performed marriage with one Venkatesan, a resident of Samayapuram in Trichy District of Tamilnadu, immediately after marriage, her husband's name was removed from his family card in Tamil Nadu and was added in the petitioner's family card in Karaikal and the petitioner's husband was employed in Oman and after his return from Oman, he was continuously staying with the petitioner in Karaikal. The petitioner submitted all the relevant documents to prove her continuous residence at Karaikal, however, the said facts were not properly considered by the respondents 3 and 4 and the same was confirmed by the second respondent, which is non-est in law.

3. The learned appearing for the petitioner would submit that admittedly, the petitioner is native/resident of Karaikal. The petitioner has two houses one situated in Thirunallar and another situated in Karaikal and admittedly the petitioner is a resident of Karaikal along with her parents. She completed her studies in Karaikal and her marriage was performed in the year 2015 and even thereafter, she continuously resided with her parents since her husband was working in Oman. Immediately after marriage, the name of the petitioner's husband was deleted from his family card in Samayapuram, Tamil Nadu and was added in the petitioner's family card in Karaikal and that itself is sufficient to prove that the petitioner is a resident of Karaikal and no document was held against the petitioner as if she is a resident of Samayapuram in Tamil Nadu. In the absence of any proof to show that the petitioner is resident of Tamil Nadu, rejecting her request for Residence Certificate inorder to get a job in the Education Department of Puducherry is non-est in law.

4. The learned Government Pleader (Pondicherry) appearing for the respondents would submit that as per Circular of the Revenue Department No.6260/C2/Rev/2003 dated 06.10.2003, actual physical residence of the petitioner is essential and mere ration card is not the sole criteria for issuance of Residence Certificate. Though the petitioner was born and brought up in Karaikal, after marriage, she shifted her residence to Samayapuram in Tamilnadu and would further submit that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands since the petitioner made two applications seeking Residence Certificate one in Karaikal and another in Thirunallar and hence the impugned order was rightly passed and it needs no interf