No automatic equivalence of caste status across regions without reciprocal recognition; requires fresh consideration of valid local certificate.

The appellants assail the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.4654/2025, dated 28.11.2025, impelling several assertions; but primarily contending that a declaration as made therein was impermissible.

2. Sri.K.Anand, learned Senior counsel, assisted by Smt.Latha Anand - learned Standing Counsel for the appellants, argued that, when the 1^st respondent could not establish that he is a member of the “Thiyya” community in Kerala, the direction in the judgment, that he still ought to be appointed into a post reserved for such caste, under the statutory mandate, is illegal and unlawful. The learned Senior counsel showed us that, the only certificate to prove the caste of the 1^st respondent, produced before the appellants, is Ext.R3(f); in which, it has been shown that he is a permanent resident of Pondicherry, though stated to be belonging to “Thiyya” community. He argued that, when the Government of India has issued a notification including “Thiyya” as one among the castes entitled to protection in Pondicherry, a declaration that such caste is the same as “Thiyya” in Kerala - as has been made by the learned Single Judge, could not have been done under law. The learned Senior Counsel prayed that, consequently, the impugned judgment be set aside.

3. Sri.T.Asafali - learned counsel for the 1^st respondent/writ petitioner, however, submitted that, Ext.R3(f) is not a certificate to prove or establish the caste of his client; because, as evident therefrom, it is only a certificate to be produced by Other Backward Castes for posts under the Government of India. He explained that his client was not appraised that he should have obtained a caste certificate from Kerala; and therefore, under the impression that Ext.R3(f) certificate would have been sufficient. He explained that his client's parents are from Kerala, though settled for sometime in Mahe; and that they belong to “Thiyya community”. He added that, in fact, his client had produced Ext.P6 Caste Certificate - issued by the competent Authority in Kerala, to prove that he is a “Thiyya” of Kerala - before the learned Single Judge; and that it was also based on such, that his prayers have been allowed. He contended that, therefore, the impugned judgment is without error, in having found that his client belongs to “Thiyya community” in Kerala; and resultantly being entitled to be considered for appointment based on Ext.P3 notification, in which, he has been included by the appellants themselves, as belonging to the afore said community.

4. We have examined the judgment impugned; and notice that the learned Single Judge has found in favour of the 1^st respondent, after having gone into the history of the Malabar area, particularly Mahe. The learned Single Judge has found that the Revenue Authorities of Mahe, as also of Kuthuparamba, have certified that he belongs to “Thiyya community”; and that such community has been granted “OBC” status both in Kerala and in the Union Territory of Puducherry. The 1^st respondent was thus granted relief, even though, in Ext.R3(f), he is shown to be a resident of Mahe.

5. It is ineluctable from the afore narration that there are certain facts which remain undisputed.

6. The 1^st respondent/writ petitioner applied for appointment in the services of the appellants, in response to Ext.P1 notification. He was issued Ext.P2 Admit Card; and he went through the process of selection thereafter. The appellants published Ext.P3 notification, including the 1^st respondent as “Thiyya”, thus rendering him entitled to any vaca