In A. Manikandan Vs Union of India & Ors., [W.P No. 28886/2024], the Madras High Court held that in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226, High Court cannot direct issuance of certificate that the Petitioner belonged to Hindu Adi Dravida Community on the sole ground that the Petitioner’s father and other relatives possessed such a caste certificate, when the authorities find otherwise during enquiry.

CASE SUMMARY

FACTS OF THE CASE:

- Petitioner’s father possesses a Hindu Adi Dravida Community certificate issued by the authorities of the Government of Puducherry.

- When the Petitioner applied for the community certificate, the authority conducted enquiry and rejected the Petitioner’s request on the ground that the Petitioner’s father was not a native of Puducherry as on the cut-off date mentioned in the Presidential Order, 1964.

- The statutory appeal preferred by the Petitioner was also turned down based on the enquiry conducted by the original authority. Hence, the writ petition.

SUBMISSION OF THE PETITIONER:

- The caste certificate was issued to the Petitioner’s father based on the Presidential notification of the year 1964. Since the Petitioner’s father was issued with the certificate that he belonged to the Hindu Adi Dravida community, similar certificate is to be issued to the Petitioner, who is his son.

SUBMISSION OF THE RESPONDENT:

- The enquiry conducted by the revenue officials revealed that the Petitioner’s father/grandfather was not a resident of Puducherry as on the cut-off date mentioned in the Presidential notification of the year 1964 and that the Petitioner did not possess any evidence that his grandfather was a Puducherry resident as on the cut – off date. Therefore, based on the Presidential notification and the guidelines for granting community certificate applicable to Puducherry, the Petitioner could not be granted the community certificate as requested based on his father’s community certificate.

DECISION OF THE COURT:

Writ Petition was dismissed.

REASONS:

- Court cannot form the opinion contended by the writ petitioner that he was entitled to the caste certificate since his father was granted the certificate, as the genuineness of the certificate issued to the father is also to be enquired into.

- Puducherry government has issued several guidelines for issuance of community certificate for the purpose of reservation in public employment so that ineligible candidates who are not native to Puducherry do not avail the benefits of reservation. However, in earlier days there were no such strict procedures to verify the origin, nativity etc. Therefore, in such changed circumstances, the genuineness of community certificate should be gone into by conducting detailed enquiry.

- Courts cannot issue any direction to issue such community certificate merely on the ground that the Petitioner has produced the caste certificate of his father.  

-  Court cannot conduct a roving enquiry into the genuineness of the caste of a person and therefore issuing a direction to issue a particular caste certificate is beyond the realm of a writ court.

- Disputed questions of facts can only be adjudicated before the competent authorities. Particularly, in the present case the authorities have come to a conclusion that the Petitioner could not establish his origin to Puducherry as on the cut-off date mentioned in the Presidential notification.

- Courts are expected to exercise restraint in issuing direction to issue community certificate to a person and it is to be granted only by conducting enquiry with reference to the documents and evidence available.  

DATE OF THE JUDGMENT: 26.03.2025

COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER: Mr. R. SARAVANAN;

COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT (Govt of Puducherry): Mr. R. SREEDHAR, Additional Government Pleader.

[This is a case summary and not an opinion piece.]