A person born in Puducherry can claim Nativity Certificate even if not residing in Puducherry continuously for a period of five years, if they can establish their intention to return to Puducherry.

JUDGMENT :

R. SUBRAMANIAN, J.

Prayer: Writ Petition filed Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records on the file of the 1st respondent relating to the impugned orders on the file of the respondent relating to the impugned order bearing No. 1-4/SS [Rev]/DRDM/PA/2010 dated 07.01.2016 and the 2nd respondent relating to the impugned order bearing Ref. No. 2712/TOB/AI/CERT/2015-16 dated 20.01.2015 and quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to issue Resident Certificate to the petitioner.

1. Challenge in the writ petition is to the rejection of the claim for Nativity Certificate made by the petitioner.

2. The petitioner who is a native of Puducherry by birth, applied for the post of Primary School Teacher called for by the Government of Puducherry and got selected. Upon selection, the petitioner was required to produce a Nativity Certificate. The Prospectus that was issued calling for applications required that the applicant should be a native of Puducherry either by birth or by continuous residence.

3. Nativity by birth is shown to mean “the applicant should have been born in the Union Territory of Puducherry and should have been ordinarily residing within the Union Territory of Puducherry prior to the date of application.” Nativity by continuous residence is shown to mean “the applicant should have been residing continuously for five years in the Union Territory prior to the date of application.”

4. The petitioner would claim that she having born in Puducherry, is a native of Puducherry and she is residing at Puducherry on the date of the application and therefore, she is entitled to be favoured with a Nativity Certificate. The claim of the petitioner for Nativity Certificate was rejected by the Tahsildar, Bahur, on the premise that the petitioner has married one Mr. Gnana Sakthi Raja, a native of Pazhaniveerapathira Street, Vellore and is working as a Clerk in Andhra Bank, Kattukanalur, Vellore. The petitioner had come to her father's house for delivery, she has given birth to a girl child on 31.07.2015 and she has been temporarily staying at Puducherry for a period of four months. According to the Tahsildar, Bahour, Nativity Certificate could be issued to a person who is shown to be continuously residing in Puducherry for a period of five years prior to the date of application. Since the petitioner was not residing at Puducherry, continuously, for a period of five years prior to the date of application and she was married to a person from Vellore in the State of Tamil Nadu, according to the Tahsildar, Bahour, the petitioner cannot be treated as a native of Puducherry and cannot be favoured with a Nativity Certificate.

5. Mr. R. Saravanan, learned counsel representing Mr. N. Prasanna, learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the entire premise on which the rejection order has been passed is erroneous. He would draw my attention to G.O.Ms. No. 48 dated 12.12.2002 issued by the Revenue Department of the Government of Puducherry wherein the procedure and conditions for issuance of Nativity Certificate has been detailed. According to the learned counsel, the Government Order contemplates two kinds of nativity. One, nativity by birth and the other, nativity by continuous Puducherry by birth. She had got married to a person from the neighbouring State of Tamil Nadu and had shifted her residence to her husband's viiage. The moot question would be whether such marriage and shifting of residence would disentitle her from claiming as a native of Puducherry.

6. Nativity by birth, according to the Government Order, means “the applicant should have been born in the Union Territory of Pondicherry and should have been ordinarily residing within the Union Territory prior to the date of application. In order to satisfy the criterion of “Ordinarily resident” the person should have been staying either by himself or with his family with