Judgment CHITRA VENKATARAMAN, J. The petitioner herein is challenging the order of the second respondent cancelling the community certificate given to the petitioner as one belonging to Hindu Adi Dravidar Scheduled Caste. 2. It is seen from the facts narrated that the petitioner is belonging to Hindu religion and a certificate was issued to her as belonging to Hindu Adi Dravidar community. She got married in the year 1992 to one D. Manuel, who is a "Christian Adi Dravidar". Yet, the petitioner is stated to have retained her original religion and had not converted to christianity. In the year 2003, the petitioner is appointed as Junior Assistant (Temporary) on a consolidated pay basis, after verifying her community certificate. Subsequently, she wrote a special exam conducted by the fourth respondent for making her a permanent employee. At that time, since the fourth respondent insisted on the community certificate from her father's place of birth instead of her place of birth, she applied for fresh community certificate with the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Bhavani, fifth respondent herein. The Revenue Inspector furnished a report to the Tahsildar that she belonged to "Christian Adi Dravidar". Based on the report, the fifth respondent issued community certificate on 1.8.2008 stating that the petitioner belongs to Christian Adi Dravidar, which is a Backward Class as per G.O.(Ms) No. 28, Backward Classes and Most Backward Classes Welfare dated 19.7.1994. It is stated that in the meantime, the fourth respondent had sent her BC community certificate, issued by the fifth respondent, for verification as to the genuineness of the certificate to the District Level Vigilance Committee and to an Anthropologist member by name K.Parimurugan, who visited the petitioner's house at Bhavani and enquired about her community and religion. Based on his visit, the petitioner has called upon to appear for an enquiry for verification of the claim. Accordingly, she appeared on 26.12.2011 before the second respondent Vigilance committee. It is stated by the petitioner that even after the marriage, she retained her religion as that of Hindu and she had not converted to christianity and that she had not been baptized after marriage. However by proceedings dated 26.12.2011, the District Level Vigilance Committee rejected the petitioner's claim and hence, the present writ petition. 3. It is stated by the petitioner that even after the marriage, she retained her religion as that of Hindu and she had not converted to christianity and that she had not been baptized after marriage. However by proceedings dated 26.12.2011, the District Level Vigilance Committee rejected the petitioner's claim and hence, the present writ petition. 3. A perusal of the proceedings now impugned before this Court shows that at the time of enquiry, the petitioner's husband informed to Anthropologist that he and his wife, the petitioner herein, visit Church and and living as Christians. Based on the enquiry report and in particular on the statements recorded from the public, the District Level Vigilance Committee held that even though the petitioner was a Hindu Adi Dravidar by birth, yet, by conversion, she could only be treated as belonging to the better community. 4. On notice, the second respondent filed a counter affidavit reiterating the order under challenge. In paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit, the second respondent referred to the statement of the petitioner which reads as under, VERNACULAR (TAMIL) PORTION DELETED The counter further pointed out that the statement of the petitioner would show that she along with family members visit Church and hence, she belonged to Christian Adi Dravidar community. Thus, based on this averments, a decision was ultimately arrived at that the petitioner does not belong to Hindu Adi Dravidar. 5. In the decision reported in AIR 1996 SUPREME COURT 1011 - VALSAMMA PAUL v. COCHIN UNIVERSITY, the Apex Court had an occasion to consider the status of the religion on marriage of a person. The Apex Court pointed out that inter-caste marriages and adoption are two important social institutions through which secularism would find its fruitful and solid base for an egalitarian social order under the Constitution. Therefore, due recognition should be accorded for social mobility and integration and accordingly its recognition must be upheld as valid law. The Apex Court further pointed out that the object of reservation is to remove these handicaps, disadvantages, sufferings and restrictions to which the members of the Dalits or Tribes or OBCs were subjected to and was sought to bring them in the mainstream of the nation's life by providing them opportunities and facilities. The Apex Court further pointed out that the object of reservation is to remove these handicaps, disadvantages, sufferings and restrictions to which the members of the Dalits or Tribes or OBCs were subjected to and was sought to bring them in the mainstream of the nation's life by providing them opportunities and facilities. A candidate who had the advantageous start in life being born in forward caste and had march of advantageous life but is transplanted in backward caste by adoption or marriage or conversion, does not become eligible to the benefit of reservation either under Article 15(4) or 16(4) as the case may be. The Apex Court further observed that the acquisition of the status of Scheduled Caste etc. by voluntary mobility into these categories would play fraud on the Constitution, and would frustrate the benign constitutional policy under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution. The recognition of the candidate by the members of backward class would not be relevant for the purpose of his entitlement to the reservation under Article 16(4). 6. The case of the petitioner herein is a converse one. Admittedly, the petitioner is belonging to Hindu Adi Dravidar community and she got married to a person belonging to a christian religion. On the score of the marriage of a person belonging to the christian religion and in the absence of any evidence that the petitioner had in fact converted to christianity, the mere fact of marriage to a christian by itself would not be a ground to hold that the person loses her status as Hindu Adi Dravidar, which the person originally belongs to. The order impugned goes on the footing of an enquiry made which revealed that the petitioner has been visiting Church and offering rituals as per christianity. The constitution recognizes freedom to practice any religion. Visiting places of prayer or worship is a matter of individual choice or preference. Such mobility is available to a person without even changing to any religion from the one in which one is born. We do not understand how visiting Church, per se would result in the conversion from one religion to another. The enquiry merely revealed that the petitioner observed rituals of the christianity. Except for this, the report has no where stated that the petitioner, in fact, embraced christianity. We do not understand how visiting Church, per se would result in the conversion from one religion to another. The enquiry merely revealed that the petitioner observed rituals of the christianity. Except for this, the report has no where stated that the petitioner, in fact, embraced christianity. In the circumstances, we do not think the claim of the second respondent that the petitioner is not entitled to a community certificate that she belongs to Hindu Adi Dravidar community, could be accepted. 7. In the circumstances, we set aside the order of the second respondent, thereby, allowing the writ petition. The sixth respondent is hereby directed to issue community certificate to the petitioner as one belonging to Hindu Adi Dravidar Schedule Caste Community forthwith. No costs. Consequently, connected MP is closed.