SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Mad) 1921

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS 
MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ., G.ARUL MURUGAN, J. 
E.Hariharan, S/o. K.Elango - Petitioner 
Versus  
Union of India, Rep. by Union Territory of Puducherry –Respondent
WP No.26303 of 2025 and WMP No.29608 of 2025 
Decided On : 05-03-2026 

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Ms.R.Vaigai, Senior Counsel For M/s.S.Meenakshi
For the Respondents: Mr.V.Vasanthakumar, Additional Government Pleader

The denial of nativity certificates for temporary residence without proper assessment is arbitrary. Disability assessments must consider actual capabilities rather than mechanical standards, respecting the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act.

Headnote:(A) Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - Section 33 and 47 - Writ of Mandamus - Denial of Nativity and Community Certificates to physically challenged petitioner for Junior Engineer post based on temporary residence - Court emphasizes sensitivity in handling applications from persons with disabilities - Decision on nativity certificate was illegal and arbitrary, requires issuing of certificate - Medical Board to re-evaluate petitioner's fitness considering both disability and prior qualifications. (Paras 1, 4.2, 24, 60)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a physically challenged individual, was denied a nativity certificate after relocating temporarily due to family circumstances. He asserts his rights under the Act and presents his qualifications and prior certifications as proof of his nativity.

Findings of Court:
The Court ruled that the denial of the nativity certificate was based on a mechanical application of rules, ignoring compassionate grounds, and mandated an evaluation of the petitioner's qualifications to ascertain his medical fitness for the job in question.

Issues: (i) Whether the denial of nativity certificate was arbitrary? (ii) Whether the rejection of the petitioner's appointment based on medical unfitness lacked proper evaluation?

Ratio Decidendi: The Court observed that nativity based on residence should not exclude those born in Puducherry and emphasized the need for compassionate assessment based on circumstances. Also, it directed an expert panel to determine fitness considering the petitioner's qualifications.

Result: Writ petition allowed; nativity certificate and medical evaluation as stated ordered.

Table of Content
1. right to justice and equality (Para 1 , 2)

ORDER :

MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ.

The right to access to justice and right to equality and equal treatment claimed by a person with disability are ingrained in the basic human rights, in addition to it being recognized under the Constitution of India and given effect to by the law makers by enacting the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 [for brevity, “the Act”]. However, those principles enshrined in texts, at times, find difficult to be operated on ground realities majorly because of attitudinal behaviour and approach which lacks sensitivity, in utter disregard to right to equality.

2. The petitioner seeks issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct respondents 1 to 3 to issue Nativity and Community Certificates within two weeks to the petitioner based on the G.O.Ms.No.48 dated 12.12.2002 and, consequently, direct respondent No.4 to act on such certificates for the purpose of his appointment as Junior Engineer.

3.1. A recount of the facts, in a nutshell, runs thus: The petitioner is a physically challenged person and was selected for appointment as a Junior Engineer in the Electricity Department in Puducherry. Though the petitioner was born and bred in Puducherry, the nativity certificate has been denied to him for the sole reason that after his mother’s death during Covid, as there was no one to help him in Puducherry, the petitioner went to stay with his sister and relatives in Arasalankudi Village, which is nearer to the border of Karaikal.

3.2. The asseverations are to the effect that the petitioner was born in Puducherry on 04.10.1992 and pursued his school education in Puducherry, followed by B.Tech in Electrical and Electronics Engineering from Pondicherry Engineering College, Puducherry. The Deputy Tahsildhar, Thaluk Office Olugeret, Puducherry, had already issued a community certificate dated 28.08.2007 certifying that the petitioner belongs to Thuluva Vellela community and the Government of Puducherry, Department of Revenue and Disaster Management, Thaluk Office, Oulgaret, had issued certificate dated 15.12.2007 certifying that the petitioner is an Indian national and resident of Union Territory of Puducherry.

3.3. According to the petitioner, he suffers from “hereditary sensory motor neuropathy” and the Department of Orthopaedics, Government General Hospital, Puducherry and District Centre for Disability, D.S.W., Puducherry, has issued medical certificate dated 09.12.2009 certifying that the petitioner falls under the category of orthopaedically handicapped persons, fixing the extent of disability at 40%. The petitioner was issued unique disability identity card by the Government of India certifying locomotor disability at 40% and is, forsooth, receiving monthly financial assistance under the Social Welfare Department, Puducherry. Moreover, it is pleaded that all his government issued identity proofs, namely Aadhar Card, Ration Card, Pan card and Voter ID, would reflect that he is a native of Puducherry.

3.4. It is asserted that the petitioner applied to the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) and participated in the competitive exam. He secured 65.50 marks and was provisionally selected for the said post under the OBC category, subject to verification of original certificates issued by the competent authorities. Subsequently, the fourth respondent herein called upon the petitioner to appear for certificate verification and required the petitioner to produce Nativity/Residence Certificate and Community Certificate issued within one year from the date of the results of selection.

3.5. It is stated that the petitioner immediately applied to the third respondent for issuance of nativity certificate and community certificate. The third respondent issued “Previous Residence Report” dated 23.06.2025 stating that the petitioner earlier resided at No.255, M.G.Road, Muthialpet, Puducherry, from the year 2001 to 2004, and later shifted the residence to some

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top