IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that nativity claims can be supported by familial ties and residency, overriding birthplace considerations when guidelines are met.

ORDER :

The petitioner is a minor aged around 17 years at the institution of this writ petition. The deponent in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is his father, who is an employee with the Reserve Bank of India.

2. The petitioner wishes to pursue the study of Medicine and has appeared for the NEET examination held on 05.05.2024. The eligibility criteria prescribed for the NEET, includes a nativity certificate issued by the competent authority in the Government of Tamil Nadu if the petitioner is to be considered for admission in this State.

3. An application had been made by the petitioner on 02.05.2024, which came to be rejected on 04.05.2024 on the ground

'Not recommended based on RI report, applicant place of birth Maharashtra State hence Rejected'. The petitioner claims to be a Tamilian and a native of Tamil Nadu. The petitioner did not give up and filed a second application on 08.05.2024, this time, accompanied with various documents in support of the same. It met with the same fate as the earlier application and came to be rejected on the same day.

4. The petitioner makes a third attempt vide application dated 12.05.2024 enclosing judgments in support of his claim of nativity. That application came to be rejected on 21.05.2024 as against which, the present writ petition has been filed.

5. A lukewarm submission made by the respondent is that the impugned order does not contain the word 'rejected' and that the application has thus only been returned. This submission is rejected. The reasoning given in order dated 21.05.2024 is identical to the reasoning given in order dated 04.05.2024, that the birth place of the petitioner is Maharashtra. Since the order dated 04.05.2024 categorically rejects the application, it is very clear that order dated 21.05.2024 is also an order of rejection.

6. Mr.Chevanan Mohan, appearing for the petitioner argues that the parents of the petitioner are Tamilians, who were born and brought up in Tamil Nadu. The family home is at No.483, 25th Block, Sathyamoorthy Nagar, Vyasarpadi, Chennai 600 039 ('permanent address'). The aforesaid permanent address is where the paternal grandmother of the petitioner resides presently as well. Unfortunately, when the Revenue Inspector had inspected that address, she had been visiting the petitioner and the family at Kanpur where the petitioner's father is presently stationed. Hence the authorities assume that house is not presently inhabitated.

7. Learned counsel confirms that the petitioner's grandmother resides at the permanent address only. The petitioner and his family members also reside there whenever they visit Madras. He would also draw attention to the fact that a ration card has been issued in respect of the permanent address and the petitioner's name figures therein.

8. Reliance is placed on the four judgments (i) Varsha Parappa Totagi v the District Collector, Chennai District and another [dated 11.11.2020, W.P.No.15393 of 2020], (ii) Vardhini Parthasarathy v The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. By Principal Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai and others [dated 20.11.2020, W.P.No.16292 of 2020], (iii) Shwetha Suresh v The Tahsildar, Velachery, Chennai [dated 15.07.2022, W.P.No.23836 of 2021] and (iv) Swathi Radhakrishnan v The District Collector, Trichy District, Trichy and others [dated 01.09.2022, W.P.(MD) No.20516 of 2022].

9. In the cases, the claim of those writ petitioners have been allowed accepting their nativity in similar facts and circumstances, as the present. Learned counsel for petitioner would also rely on G.O.Ms.No.2388 dated 27.11.1990 stating that the petitioner satisfies all the conditions set out therein.

10. Mr.P.Harish, learned Government Advocate, who appears for the respondents would first point out that the petitioner was born in Maharashtra and hence cannot claim nativity in Tamil Nadu. He would also draw attention to the Aadhar card of the petitioner's father,