(Amended Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records of the rejection order passed by the second respondent in No.2356/TOO/TAH/A/2026 dated 07.08.2026 and quash the same and further direct the second respondent to reissue / revalidate the Community Certificate dated 21.07.2026 and the admitted Nativity Certificate.

(Prayer amended as per order dated 24.08.2026 in W.M.P.No.36251 of 2026 in W.P.No.32315 of 2026)

During the course of hearing, the petitioner has filed W.M.P.No.36251 of 2026, seeking amendment of the prayer in the writ petition. The said petition has been allowed by this Court today, i.e., on 13.08.2026. Accordingly, the amended prayer is considered while deciding this writ petition.

2. The petitioner now seeks a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order dated 07.08.2026 and to quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to reissue / revalidate the Community Certificate dated 21.07.2026 and the admitted Nativity Certificate and for such further or other orders.

3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are that, by a notification dated 23.01.2026, applications were invited for direct recruitment to the post of Physical Education Teacher in the Union Territory of Puducherry. Considering herself to be eligible under the Most Backward Class (MBC) quota, the petitioner applied for the post and participated in the selection process. By a notification dated 06.07.2026, provisional selection list was published, in which the petitioner had scored 73.2264 marks and stood at Serial No.1 in the list of candidates selected under the Most Backward Class quota. Thereafter, the petitioner was called upon to appear for certificate verification by a communication dated 10.07.2026. Pursuant thereto, when the petitioner appeared for certificate verification, it is seen that upon objection being raised about her candidature from third parties and other quarters on the spot, originals of the Nativity and Community Certificates of the petitioner were snatched away by the respondent authorities and thereafter, neither renewed online Community Certificate was given to the petitioner nor order of appointment was issued to the petitioner, and at that stage, the petitioner has approached this Court.

4. When the matter came up for hearing, it was represented on behalf of the respondent authorities that they have passed an order dated 07.08.2026, cancelling the Community Certificate issued to the petitioner as belonging to the Most Backward Class of Puducherry origin. Under the said circumstances, the petitioner had filed an amendment application, and the relief was amended to impugn the said order.

5. I have heard Mr.Srinath Sridevan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

6. The learned Senior Counsel would first point out the Birth Certificate of the petitioner. The Birth Certificate issued in Serial No.347252 mentions that the petitioner was born in Puducherry on 09.06.1993 at St.Joseph Hospital, Puducherry and that the Birth Certificate was issued by the Puducherry Municipality. Thereafter, Nativity Certificate was issued as early as on 22.07.2003 by the Tahsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate of Puducherry Taluk office, holding that the petitioner Pugazhenthi, being the daughter of Karthikeyan, is a native of Puducherry with a continuous residence of not less than three years. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that the said certificate would point out that the petitioner and her parents were residents of Puducherry since the year 2000. Thereafter, the petitioner studied only in Puducherry, in Sinnatha Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Muthialpet, Puducherry, up to class XII and the Transfer Certificates issued to the petitioner for both X and XII standards were also pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel. Further education of the petitioner was at Puducherry University Community College, where she completed her Bachelor of Physical Education, and the certificate in respect thereof is also pointed out.

7. The learned Senior Counsel would take this Court through a series of Nativity and the Community Certificates issued on various dates, whereby Community Certificate was issued, as if the petitioner belonged to the Most Backward Class (Hindu Vanniar) of Puducherry origin. The latest Nativity Certificate was issued on 21.07.2026 and the Community Certificate was also issued on the same day, which were relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel. The petitioner is also married, has settled down in Puducherry, and is residing along with her husband only in Puducherry. Under the said circumstances, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that the impugned order suddenly proclaims to have conducted a roving inquiry behind the back of the petitioner, without issuing any show cause notice whatsoever, and as such, is illegal for not affording any opportunity to the petitioner. In this regard, the learned Senior Counsel would rely upon G.O.(Ms)No.8, Revenue and Disaster Management Department dated 19.03.2025, which superseded and referred to all the earlier Government Orders and directed the procedure to be followed with reference to the cancellation of caste certificate. In paragraph 3(x) of the said Government Order, the authorities were directed to follow G.O.(Ms)No.152, Revenue and Disaster Management Department dated 24.11.2005, for cancellation. The learned Senior Counsel would also rely upon Paragraph No.3(v) of the Government Order. Under the said circumstances, he would assail the impugned order by stating that merely by mentioning orally, the petitioner was informed and that the earlier certificate was only provisional. When the earlier certificate does not speak that it is a provisional certificate, the illegality committed by the respondents cannot be overcome by cancelling the earlier certificate without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. As such, the impugned order is violative of the principles of natural justice, as well as the mandate contained in the Government Orders issued by the Government of Puducherry.

8. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that when the birth has been recorded and the petitioner studied in a school at Pudhucherry, her own residence is also at Puducherry. When the party’s intention is to reside within Puducherry, the authorities cannot embark into a roving enquiry especially when there is an allegation about the residence just across the border. The intention of the parties should be gauged by the consecutive and consistent certificates that are obtained, which would prove that the party intended only to live in Puducherry. In view thereof, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that the impugned order has to be quashed and the respondents should be directed to issue the offer of appointment pursuant to the provisional list to the petitioner.

9. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents would submit that it is true that only at the time of certificate verification that there was some unverifiable information. But, however, such allegations are being made whenever selection takes place and at that stage, the authorities would strictly verify the credentials. Accordingly, when strict action was taken, after due oral intimation to the petitioner and it was verified, the authorities have found that all along the petitioner’s parents were residing only at Door No.48, Sathya Nagar, Chinnakottakuppam, Vannur Taluk, Villupuram District. Only because it is an adjacent village across the border, normally the children travel to Puducherry for their education. Even for the birth, all these residents across the border use the Puducherry hospitals and that by itself will not make their parents as residents of Puducherry for the purpose of considering the candidates for reservation in Puducherry.

10. The learned Additional Government Pleader would further submit that the issue has now been settled that the candidature can be considered under the reserved quota only if they belong to the concerned class, being the origin of Puducherry. As far as the Most Backward Class is concerned, the date is 19.02.2001. That is the date of notification of the Backward Class. As far as the Union Territory of Puducherry is concerned, the question of residence is different. If the petitioner is now residing with her husband in Puducherry, she will be entitled for consideration under the general quota as a resident of Puducherry which is different from considering her case under the reserved category. For the reserved category, she must be of Puducherry origin, which means that as of the year 2001, herself and her parents should have been normal residents of Puducherry. Now the documents unearthed during the inquiry reveal that all along, they were residing only at Chinnakottakuppam, which is in the Tamil Nadu limits, and not within the Union Territory of Puducherry. The petitioner herself has obtained a Community Certificate from the Tamil Nadu authorities on 14.06.2016 and even in her marriage registration, she had mentioned her address only as Chinnakottakuppam Village. Several other documents which have come during the course of inquiry are also placed on record. Therefore, the learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that this is a case where the petitioner and her family members are residing across the border and her father is also elected as a Councillor in the Panchayat and therefore, they are taking advantage merely because the petitioner is admitted into a school and College in Puducherry. When the earlier certificates granted are found to be incorrect in nature, the authorities in Puducherry always have the power to cancel the same, especially when it relates to reservation.

11. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the material records relating to the case.

12. Even on a perusal of the impugned order, it is not denied that the petitioner is a resident of Puducherry. The petitioner has produced her Birth Certificate, School and College Certificates, including Transfer Certificates to show that she is a native of Puducherry. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is selected only as against the Most Backward Class quota. It is also not in dispute that in order to get accommodated under the reserved category, the petitioner has to produce a valid Community Certificate as being the Most Backward Community of Puducherry origin, in order to avail the said reservation. In order to issue Community Certificate of Puducherry origin, the cut-off date falls in the year 2001. But it must be seen that all along the Nativity Certificate and Community Certificate to the said effect have been granted to the petitioner. By the impugned order, the said status is now cancelled and the petitioner is said to be a migrant having resided all along in Chinnakottakuppam Village and now only residing along with her husband in Puducherry. Under the said circumstances, the impugned order is nothing but an exercise of power cancelling the Community Certificate and the Nativity Certificate earlier granted. As rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, by a careful reading of G.O.(Ms).No.8 dated 19.03.2025, it must be seen that the cancellation should be done only by following the due procedure.

13. Admittedly, even as per the impugned order when the petitioner produced the certificates for verification, it was taken away from the petitioner and she was only orally informed that by the residence of herself or by the residence of her parents before the year 2001 that she is not entitled to be considered as of MBC origin in Puducherry. The petitioner was not given any opportunity to put forth her case. Therefore, when the impugned order has been passed without granting an opportunity to the petitioner, the same cannot stand the scrutiny of law. The matter has to be remanded to the file of the second respondent for considering the matter afresh. Needless to mention that if any other person is subsequently selected from the waiting list and appointed, her or his appointment will always be subject to the petitioner succeeding in the proceedings. Once the petitioner succeeds in the proceedings or the respondents ultimately drop the cancellation proceedings, the petitioner will be entitled to be immediately appointed as a Physical Education Teacher as per her selection and seniority and position in the provisional selection list.

14. In view thereof, this Writ Petition is allowed on the following terms:

                          (i) The impugned order dated 07.08.2026 shall stand set aside, and the matter is remanded back to the file of the second respondent for fresh consideration.

                          (ii) It will be open for the second respondent to issue a show cause notice in writing to the petitioner and the petitioner shall submit such explanation and such other documents in her support.

                          (iii) After considering the explanation on its own merits, orders afresh in accordance with law, shall be passed by the second respondent. Depending on the outcome, further orders relating to the issue of appointment order shall be passed, by considering the observations made supra.

                                (iv) The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a web copy of the order. No costs. Connected W.M.P.Nos.35486 & 36252 of 2026 are closed.