KALAIARASI C vs THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR

W.P.No.960 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 12/10/2026
Pronounced on : 16/10/2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. SURENDER
WP No. 960 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA010076862026}
AND
WMP NO. 5884 OF 2026,
WMP NO. 5885 OF 2026
Kalaiarasi C
D/o. Caliaperoumal,
42 Thiru Vi Ka Street,
Shanthi Nagar,
Lawspet,
Puducherry 605 008
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The District Collector
Puducherry
2. The Sub Collector (Revenue ) North
Puducherry
3. The Tahsidlar cum Executive Magistrate
Taluk office,
Oulgaret Taluk, Puducherry
Page1 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:11 pm )

W.P.No.960 of 2026
4. Centralised Admission Committee
Rep. by Co-Ordinator (admission ) .
Kamaraj Manimandapam,
Puducherry
5. Sri Manakula Vinayagar
Medical College And Hospital,
Represented by its Chairman, Madagadipet,
Puducherry.
(R5 IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED
11.02.2026 MADE IN WMP.5880/2026 IN
WP.960/2026 BY DBCJ)
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the
issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records on the file of the 2nd
respondent in No. 8783/ SC (R) N/ A2/ RC/ 2025/ 25 dated 6.01.2026 and the proceedings
No. 10118 / TOO/A/ Comm and Resi Certi / 2005 Puducherry dated 10.12.2025 issued by
the 3rd respondent and to quash the same and direct the 3rd respondent herein to issue the
Residence certificate to the petitioner to certify that the petitioner is the resident of Union
Territory of Puducherry and to direct the 4th respondent herein to grant PG Admission to
the petitioner if she is otherwise qualified and eligible on the basis of her merit for the year
2025- 2026 within the limited time frame as fixed by this Honble court
AMENDED AS
Page2 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:11 pm )

W.P.No.960 of 2026
Calling for the records on the file of the 2nd Respondent in
No.8783/SC(R)N/A2/RC/2025/25 dated 06.01.2026 and the proceedings No.
10118/TOO/A/comm and Resi Certi/ 2005 Puducherry dated 10.12.2025 issued by the 3rd
respondent and PG NEET Medical (M.D.-M.S.) Courses - Revised In-Eligible Candidates
List - GOVERNMENT QUOTA - U.T. - OVERALL of the 4th respondent dated
10.02.2026 and to quash the same and direct the 3rd respondent herein to issue the
Residence Certificate to the Petitioner to certify that the Petitioner is the resident of Union
Territory of Puducherry and to direct the 4th respondent herein to convert the Management
quota seat in MD Physiatry course available at the 5th respondent college as Government
Quota seat under SC category for this academic year with directions to adjust the same by
allotting the seat under the Government quota to that of Management Quota in the
succeeding year and to grant admission to the petitioner to MD Psychiatry course at 5th
respondent college for the year 2025-2026 and pass. (PRAYER AMENDED VIDE
ORDER DATED 11.02.2026 MADE IN WMP.5882/2026 IN WP.960/2026 BY DBCJ)
For Petitioner(s): Mr.M.Ravi
For Respondent(s): Mr.J.Kumaran
Government Pleader
assisted by Ms.Atchaya
for R1 To R4
Page3 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:11 pm )

W.P.No.960 of 2026
O R D E R
This writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the order dated 06.01.2026
passed by the second respondent in No.8783/SC(R)N/A2/RC/2025/25 and the
proceedings dated 10.12.2025 issued by the third respondent, whereby the petitioner’s
application for a residence certificate was rejected, and to direct the third respondent to
issue a residence certificate to her.
2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:-
The petitioner was born in Puducherry, completed her schooling there and obtained her
Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS) degree from PIMS, Puducherry.
She states that she continues to reside at Shanthi Nagar, Puducherry. To secure admission
to a postgraduate medical course through CENTAC, she submitted an application for a
residence certificate to the Tahsildar, along with the following documents:
1. Copy of birth certificate of Tmt.Kalaiarasi
2. Copy of Secondary School Leaving Certificate of Tmt.Kalaiarasi
3. Copy of Higher Secondary Course certificate of Tmt.Kalaiarasi
Page4 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:11 pm )

W.P.No.960 of 2026
4. Copy of caste certificate of Tmt.Kalaiarasi issued by Oulgaret Taluk dated
26/8/2025.
5. Copy of Transfer Certificate of Tmt.Kalaiarasi Vivekanandha Hr.Sec.School,
Sellaperumalpet
6. Copy of family ration card of Tmt.Kalaiarasi
7. Copy of combined Nationality Caste/Residence/Native Certificate dated
24/1/2021 of Tmt.Kalaiarasi
8. Copy of Voter I.D of Tmt.Kalaiarasi
9. Copy of Adhaar certificate of Tmt.Kalaiarasi
10. Copy of M.B.B.S degree certificate of Tmt.Kalaiarasi
11. Copy of marriage invitation of Tmt.Kalaiarasi
12. Copy of birth certificate of Thiru.Caliaperoumal, F/o. Kalaiarasi
13. Copy of Voter I.D of Thiru.Caliaperoumal, F/o Kalaiarasi
14. Copy of Adhaar certificate of Thiru Caliaperoumal, F/o.Kalaiarasi.
3. After receiving the application, the Tahsildar summoned the petitioner and
thereafter rejected her application for a residence certificate for the following reasons:
Page5 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:11 pm )

W.P.No.960 of 2026
“on local enquiry & documents submitted it is noted
that the applicant is a native resident of Puducherry and
belong to Hindu Adidravida (Origin). She got married to
Thiru.Yuvaraj, S/o Venkatesan, who is a native resident of T.N.
After 14.11.2024, she is not an ordinary resident at the given
address since November, 2024. However, she is a native of
Puducherry by virtue of birth has requested to avail caste
certificate.”
4. Aggrieved by the refusal of the Tahsildar to issue the certificate, the petitioner
preferred an appeal before the Sub-Collector, Puducherry. The Sub-Collector rejected the
appeal by the impugned order, the relevant portion of which reads as follows:
“ AND WHEREAS, the G.O. Ms.No.48 dated 12/12/2002
of the Revenue Department, Government of Puducherry,
stipulates the conditions for determining the status of nativity in
respect of any applicant whether by birth of by continuous
residence as follows:-
Page6 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:11 pm )

W.P.No.960 of 2026
“a. Nativity by birth: The applicant should have
been born in the Union Territory of Pondicherry
and should have been residing within the Union
Territory prior to the date of application. In order
to satisfy the criterion of the “Ordinarily
resident”, the person should have been residing
either by himself or with his family within the
Union Territory of Pondicherry continuously with
a clear intention of residing there permanently, but
for temporary absences from such place of
residence for reasons of job or education, etc. As
long as the applicant is able to establish
satisfactorily his intention to return to his place of
residence on the conclusion of such temporary
absence, he may be considered to be a person
ordinarily residing in the Union Territory.
(b). Nativity by continuous residence: The
applicant should have been residing continuously
Page7 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:11 pm )

W.P.No.960 of 2026
for five years in the Union Territory prior to the
date of the application”.
AND WHEREAS, the reports and
documents made available before the undersigned
indicates that the appellant, Tmt.Kalaiarasi, W/o.
Yuvaraj is not an ordinary resident of UT of
Puducherry prior to the date of application. The
petitioner is not physically residing in the said
address after her marriage on 14/11/2024 and has
shifted her residence to Thiruvallur District of
Tamil Nadu along with her husband. Moreover,
her pure intention to claim the residence certificate
in the Union Territory of Puducherry is to get
reservation in PG Medical Course at Puducherry
through CENTAC. Since the appellant is not an
ordinary resident of Union Territory of
Puducherry, she is not entitled for issue of
residence certificate for continuous period of 5
Page8 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:11 pm )

W.P.No.960 of 2026
years preceding the date of application from this
Puducherry U.T.”
5. Aggrieved by these orders, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition
seeking the relief set out above.
6. Heard Mr.M.Ravi, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr.J.Kumaran,
learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 4.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that she was born and brought up
in the Union Territory of Puducherry and completed both her schooling and MBBS course
there. She married Dr.Yuvaraj, who is working at Vels Medical College Hospital,
Tiruvallur District, on 14.11.2024.
8. The petitioner’s case is that, even after her marriage, she stayed with her
parents in Puducherry for most of the time and visited her husband in Tiruvallur District.
Her husband also frequently visited her at her parents’ house. She contends that, as she
continued to reside in Puducherry even on the date of applying for the postgraduate course,
the refusal to issue a residence certificate is erroneous.
Page9 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:11 pm )

W.P.No.960 of 2026
9. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.711 of 2022
dated 29.03.2022.
10. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that the
petitioner was residing with her husband after her marriage and was therefore not entitled
to a residence certificate. According to the respondents, she did not satisfy the requirement
of residence in Puducherry on the date of application and continuously for the preceding
five years.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of this Court in
W.P.No.711 of 2022 dated 29.03.2022 ( DIVYA DINESH Vs. THE GOVERNMENT OF
PUDUCHERRY).
12. Perused the materials available on record.
13. The criteria prescribed for determining residence in the Union Territory of
Puducherry, vide guidelines dated 6/10/2003, are as follows:
Page10 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:11 pm )

W.P.No.960 of 2026
“(1). DETERMINATION OF THE “RESIDENTS”
TERRITORY OF PONDICHERRY. IN THE UNION, the
following shall be the criteria prescribed for determining
persons as residents of the Union Territory:
(i). The candidate or whose parent (either Mother or
Father or Both) or Guardian (in the case of children who have
lost both the parents) has been residing continuously in this
Union Territory for atleast five years preceding the date of
application.
(ii). Those who have passed SSLC/HSC or any other
public examination and for that purpose had undergone
academic studies continuously for five successive classes
immediately preceding the qualifying examination (including
the year of qualifying examination) in recognized educational
institution(s) located in Pondicherry UT and having their
residence in Pondicherry UT for 5 years continuously during
that period.
(iii). Children of Central/State Government
Servants/Defence Personnel/Central Paramilitary
Page11 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:11 pm )

W.P.No.960 of 2026
Forces/Employees of Public Sector Undertakings wholly or
substantially run either by the Central Government or by the
Pondicherry UT Administration posted and serving in the
pondicherry UT for atleast a minimum period of one year prior
to the last date of submission of application.
(iv) Children of Defence Personnel who were killed or
disabled in action and children of Central Government
Servants/Pondicherry UT Government Servants/Defence
Personnel/Employees of Public Sector Undertakings as
referred in category (iii) who died while in service in the
Pondicherry U.T.
(v). French Nationals residing in the Pondicherry UT
and covered by the terms of the Treaty of Cession shall be
treated on par with the candidates who produce the prescribed
Pondicherry UT residence certificate. Such French Nationals
will not be required to produce residence certificate, instead
they should be produce a certificate of registration issued for
the purpose from them.”
Page12 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:11 pm )

W.P.No.960 of 2026
14. Each of the categories set out above provides an independent basis for
determining residence. An applicant need only satisfy the applicable category. It is not in
dispute that both parents of the petitioner are permanent residents of Puducherry and that
she was born and resided there before her marriage. The rejection rests on the report of an
official of the Tahsildar’s office that, after her marriage, she shifted to the place where her
husband resides and was therefore not entitled to a residence certificate.
15. Learned Additional Government Pleader relied on the Note dated 07.01.2010
concerning the residence status of married women. The Note addresses the situation of
women who have moved out of Puducherry after marriage but whose names continue to
appear in their family ration cards. It cannot, merely on that account, be applied to defeat a
claim founded independently on the prescribed parental-residence criterion.
16. In the present case, it is not disputed that the petitioner’s parents continuously
resided in Puducherry for the five years preceding her application. The prescribed
parental-residence criterion is therefore satisfied. The approach of treating the petitioner as
ineligible solely because she married and was stated to be living with her husband outside
Page13 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:11 pm )

W.P.No.960 of 2026
Puducherry is erroneous. The Note dated 07.01.2010 cannot be treated as an absolute
prohibition against the issuance of residence certificates to married women. Its application
must be considered in the context of the governing eligibility criteria and the basis on
which the certificate is sought.
17. Clause (i) of the guidelines dated 06.10.2003 recognises residence through the
candidate or either parent. To insist additionally on the candidate’s own continuous
residence in every case would deprive the parental alternative of independent operation.
The relevant enquiry here is whether the parent whose residence is relied upon actually
and continuously resided in Puducherry during the prescribed period. That fact is not
disputed in the present case.
18. In Divya Dinesh v. The Government of Puducherry, (W.P.No.711 of 2022),
decided on 29.03.2022, this Court held that the prescribed categories are independent and
that a candidate whose parents continuously resided in Puducherry for the preceding five
years qualifies under category (i). The Court also distinguished the 2010 Note concerning
continued inclusion in family ration cards after migration. That reasoning applies to the
undisputed parental residence in the present case.
Page14 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:11 pm )

W.P.No.960 of 2026
19. The Note must be read harmoniously with the governing guidelines. Its
purpose of preventing reliance on an outdated ration-card entry does not justify adding a
disqualification to an independently satisfied eligibility criterion. A ration card is evidence
requiring verification; neither its possession nor the applicant’s marriage, by itself,
determines entitlement under every category. It is unnecessary in this case to pronounce
upon the validity of the Note in its entirety.
20. Further, marriage to a person residing outside Puducherry cannot, by itself,
extinguish an eligibility otherwise available under the prescribed guidelines. Denying the
parental-residence route to a married woman, while retaining it for other candidates
satisfying the same conditions, would introduce a distinction absent from the guidelines
and raise concerns under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. The present conclusion
rests on the existing criterion and the undisputed facts, without creating any exemption
from the requirement of genuine residence.
21. The appellate authority’s reliance on the conditions governing nativity does
not answer the petitioner’s separate claim under the residence guidelines. Nor does her
intention to use the certificate for postgraduate admission constitute a ground of
disqualification. The claim must be tested against the prescribed residence criteria. In view
Page15 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:11 pm )

W.P.No.960 of 2026
of the undisputed residence of her parents, a further enquiry into the competing assertions
concerning her own post-marital residence is unnecessary to decide this claim.
22. For the reasons stated above, the impugned orders declining to issue a
residence certificate to the petitioner are set aside. The third respondent shall forthwith
issue the residence certificate to the petitioner. The finding in this writ petition is confined
to her entitlement to a residence certificate.
23. Issuance of the residence certificate shall not, by itself, confer a right to
admission, conversion of a management-quota seat into a government-quota seat, or
adjustment of seats in a succeeding academic year. No such direction is issued. Any claim
to admission remains subject to the applicable admission rules, merit, reservation,
availability of seats and binding admission deadlines.
24. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed . No costs. Consequently, the
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
(K.SURENDER,J)
16/10/2026
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
mvs.
Page16 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:11 pm )

W.P.No.960 of 2026
To
1. The District Collector
Puducherry
2. The Sub Collector (Revenue ) North
Puducherry
3. The Tahsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate,
Taluk Office,
Oulgaret Taluk, Pudu cherry.
4. The Co-Ordinator (admission ) .
Centralised Admission Committee
Kamaraj Manimandapam,
Puducherry
Page17 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:11 pm )

W.P.No.960 of 2026
K.SURENDER J.
mvs.
Pre-delivery order made in
WP No. 960 of 2026
16/10/2026
Page18 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:11 pm )