R.Jayasimha Babu, J.: The action of the Tamil Nadu State Public Service Commission in treating the petitioner who was born in and brought up in Tamil Nadu, educated in Tamil Nadu and who has been practicing law in Tamil Nadu as a person not ‘belonging to Tamil Nadu, has been the cause for this writ petition.‘The reason given by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission for regarding the petitioner as being a person not belonging to Tamil Nadu is that the petitioner’s father who is now said to be aged 77 years was not born in Tamil Nadu. No other reason has been put forth by the Service Commission to support its denial of the relaxation in age to which the petitioner claimed that he was entitled as a Christian Nadar residing in Tamil Nadu as that community is a Backward Class in the list of Backward Classes recognised by the State. 2. In the affidavit filed by the Joint Secretary to the Government, Backward Classes, Most Backward Classes and Minorities Welfare Department, it is now admitted that a decision as to whether person belongs to or does not belong to Tamil Nadu does not depend solely on the place of birth of the person’s parents but is dependent on several other factors as well. An order made by the Social Welfare Department on 23.9.1986 has been referred to in the affidavit. It is averred that the Government in that order has clearly stated that factors such as the permanent residence of the father or grand father, possession of property, mother-tongue, place of education, marriage of the candidate as well as their parents length of stay outside and inside Tamil Nadu etc. should also be taken into account. None of these factors were admittedly taken note of by the Public Service Commission when it declined to entertain the Petitioner’s application to the post of Civil Judge Junior Division, which application had been made by him pursuant to an advertisement that had been issued by the Public Service Commission for recruitment to the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service for the year 1999. We must at this point note, that we had by an interim order permitted the petitioner to take up the examination which had been conducted by the Commission. We must at this point note, that we had by an interim order permitted the petitioner to take up the examination which had been conducted by the Commission. We had also directed the Commission to evaluate his answers and after such evaluation, it was found that the petitioner did not qualify himself for being called for an interview. 3. We are now called upon to decide only as to whether the reason given by the Commission for regarding the petitioner as a person not belonging to Tamil Nadu is tenable one, as the petitioner may in future also have occasion to apply to the Commission and the petitioner is not to be once again turned out for the same reason as had been offered by the Commission when it rejected his application for the post of Civil Judge/ Junior Division. 4. The guidelines issued by the Commission to the candidates who appear for the Examination conducted by it provides that persons who claim to belong to Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes, Backward Classes and notified communities must be persons “belonging to Tamil Nadu” besides being a person belonging to the communities mentioned in the list of recognised Scheduled Castes and Tribes or Backward Classes issued by the State Government. The guidelines further proceeded to state that “persons belonging to other states shall not be treated as persons belonging to the Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribe....” The term ‘belonging, used in that guideline has not been defined by the Public Service Commission. The guidelines merely indicate that the persons who may belong to another state will not be treated as person belonging to Tamil Nadu. Government Pleader has placed before us the G.O. issued by the state on 23.1.1976 being G.O.Ms.No.58 (Social Welfare Department). In that G.O. reference was made to the Communication received from the Service Commission and the suggestions made by it that only persons belonging to Tamil Nadu and one of the communities included in the list of Backward Classes would alone be entitled to the benefits given to the members of the Backward Classes in Tamil Nadu and such benefits would not be given to other persons though they belong to that class but who do not belong to Tamil Nadu. The Government accepted the suggestions of the Public Service Commission and amended the earlier G.O.No.437, Social Welfare Department dated 15.5.1972 by adding the following: "Only persons who belong to Tamil Nadu and to one of the communities included in the list of Backward Classes shall be treated as Backward Classes. Persons belonging to other States shall not be treated as Backward Classes in this State even though they may belong to one of the communities included in the list of Backward Classes." That order is deemed to have come into force from 11th December, 1975. The guidelines issued by the Public Service Commission merely reproduces the paragraph set out above. Several years later on 23.9.1986 the Government issued a clarification to the effect that the community of the candidate should not be determined by taking into account the birth place of the father alone, but by such other factors as the permanent residence of the father grandfather, possession of property, mother-tongue place of education, marriage of the candidates as well as their parents, length of stay outside and inside Tamil Nadu etc. should also be taken into account. 5. The term ‘belong’ to is defined in Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary as: (a) to be part of; to be related to or connected with (b) to be owned by; to be the possession of; (c) to be associated with; to be a member of; (d) to be the owner....." 6. The term ‘belonging’ has been defined in the same dictionary thus: (1) that which belongs to a person or thing (2) possession or property such as clothes, household goods etc., (3) close relationship affinity, rapport as, a feeling belonging. 7. When the term ‘belonging to’ was used by the Government in the order issued by it in the year 1976 and in communication limiting the benefits given to the Backward Classes, only to the persons belonging to such classes and also belonging to the state, all that could have been meant was that the persons who receive benefits extended to the Backward Classes in this State must be persons who had close affinity with this State. Such affinity is to be not merely emotional but has to be physical in the sense that such persons be residents or their parents be resident in this State or that they grew up and were educated here and regards this state as their home State. This is only illustrative. The link between the person and the State should be sufficiently strong to enable the State to regard him or her as a person belonging to the State, and also that person should have the feeling that he/she belongs to this State. 8. The place of birth of one of the parents of the person who claims the benefits extended to the Backward Classes in this State can by no means be regarded as the sole determinant of the question as to whether that person belongs or does not belong to Tamil Nadu. The fact that a person is born in Tamil Nadu is a factor of considerable significance in deciding the question as to whether he belongs to Tamil Nadu. If his or her parents also were born here, that would strengthen such person’s claim that he belongs to Tamil Nadu. In a case where as it is shown in this case, the person is not only one born in this state but his parents are permanent residents of this State and he has received his education in the State and is practising his profession in this State; and has also settled down in the State, he is clearly a person who is required to be regarded as one who ‘belongs’ to the State of Tamil Nadu. 9. Art.5 of the Constitution of India which deals with Citizenship at the commencement of the Constitution provides inter alia that every person who has domicile in the Territory of India and who was born in the Territory of India, shall be a citizen of India. Those born and domiciled in Tamil Nadu must be regarded as ‘belonging’ to Tamil Nadu for purpose of claiming the benefits of reservation. 10. Petitioner is clearly a person who belongs to Tamil Nadu and is entitled to the benefits given to the Backward Classes in this State, as there is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner belongs to Christian Nadar Community which is in the list of Backward Classes. We may also note here that the mother tongue of the petitioner is Tamil. We may also note here that the mother tongue of the petitioner is Tamil. Having noticed that fact, we must hasten to add to avoid any misconception on this score, that for a person to claim that he belongs to the State, it is not essential that his mother tongue be Tamil. Linguistic minorities have, as much rights as those whose mother tongue is the language of the State, to regard themselves and be treated as persons belonging to this State. 11. Respondents shall treat the petitioner as a person belonging to the State of Tamil Nadu for the purpose of extending to him the benefits accorded to Backward Classes. Writ petition is allowed to this extent. The W.M.P. is closed.