IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO.

1661 of 2011 (M/S) Ayush Kumar Versus State of Uttarakhand & others .Respondents. ..Petitioner.

Present: Mr. G.C. Kandpal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.

WRIT PETITION NO. 1510 of 2011 (M/S) Km. Akansha Sharma Versus State of Uttarakhand & others .Respondents. ..Petitioner.

Present: Mr. Manish Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. G.D. Joshi, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate for respondent no. 5.

WRIT PETITION NO. 1549 of 2011 (M/S) Km. Garima Garg Versus State of Uttarakhand & others .Respondents. ..Petitioner.

Present: Mr. Alok Mehra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.

WRIT PETITION NO. 1556 of 2011 (M/S) Km. Preeti Raj Arya Versus State of Uttarakhand & others .Respondents. ..Petitioner.

Present: Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. G.D. Joshi, Advocate for respondent no. 3.

WRIT PETITION NO. 1557 of 2011 (M/S) Amit Kumar Yadav Versus State of Uttarakhand & others .Respondents. ..Petitioner.

Present: Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. J.D. Joshi, Advocate for respondent no. 3.

WRIT PETITION NO. 1569 of 2011 (M/S) Narendra Singh Versus State of Uttarakhand & others .Respondents. ..Petitioner.

Present: Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Ms. Geeta Parihar, Advocate for respondent no. 3.

WRIT PETITION NO. 1570 of 2011 (M/S) Rohit Kumar Singh Versus State of Uttarakhand & others .Respondents. ..Petitioner.

Present: Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Ms. Geeta Parihar, Advocate for respondent no. 3.

WRIT PETITION NO. 1571 of 2011 (M/S) Saurabh Kumar Versus State of Uttarakhand & others .Respondents. ..Petitioner.

Present: Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Ms. Geeta Parihar, Advocate for respondent no. 3.

WRIT PETITION NO. 1587 of 2011 (M/S) Dimple Bhakuni & Another Versus State of Uttarakhand & others .Respondents. ..Petitioners.

Present: Mr. Atul Bahuguna, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.

WRIT PETITION NO. 1589 of 2011 (M/S) Aishwarya Anand & another Versus State of Uttarakhand & others .Respondents. ..Petitioners.

Present: Mr. D.S. Mehta, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.

WRIT PETITION NO. 1598 of 2011 (M/S) Akash Sukla Versus State of Uttarakhand & others .Respondents. ..Petitioner.

Present: Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Ms. Geeta Parihar, Advocate for respondent no. 3.

WRIT PETITION NO. 1613 of 2011 (M/S) Km. Rinki Versus State of Uttarakhand & others .Respondents. ..Petitioner.

Present: Mr. B.S. Parihar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. G.D. Joshi, Advocate holding brief of Mr. B.S. Rawat, Advocate for respondent no. 3.

WRIT PETITION NO. 1622 of 2011 (M/S) Ishank Sharma Versus State of Uttarakhand & others .Respondents. ..Petitioner.

Present: Mr. B.S. Parihar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. G.D. Joshi, Advocate holding brief of Mr. B.S. Rawat, Advocate for respondent no. 3.

WRIT PETITION NO. 1632 of 2011 (M/S) Km. Himani Davar Versus State of Uttarakhand & others .Respondents. ..Petitioner.

Present: Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Ms. Geeta Parihar, Advocate for respondent no. 3.

WRIT PETITION NO. 1775 of 2011 (M/S) Gyan Prakash Tewari Versus State of Uttarakhand & others .Respondents. ..Petitioner.

Present: Mr. G.C. Kandpal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.

WRIT PETITION NO. 1776 of 2011 (M/S) Mohd. Shoiab Versus State of Uttarakhand & others .Respondents. ..Petitioner.

Present: Mr. G.C. Kandpal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.

WRIT PETITION NO. 1805 of 2011 (M/S) Dinesh Kumar & another Versus State of Uttarakhand & others .Respondents. ..Petitioners.

Present: Mr. D.S. Mehta, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.

WRIT PETITION NO. 1806 of 2011 (M/S) Hari Pal Versus State of Uttarakhand & others .Respondents. ..Petitioner.

Present: Mr. D.S. Mehta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.

WRIT PETITION NO. 1807 of 2011 (M/S) Smt. Tarannum & others Versus State of Uttarakhand & others .Respondents. ..Petitioners.

Present: Mr. D.S. Mehta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.

WRIT PETITION NO. 1808 of 2011 (M/S) Harshit Kushal Versus State of Uttarakhand & others .Respondents. ..Petitioner.

Present: Mr. D.S. Mehta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.

WRIT PETITION NO. 1834 of 2011 (M/S) Mohd. Rashid Versus State of Uttarakhand & others .Respondents. ..Petitioner.

Present: Mr. Rajesh Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Ms. Geeta Parihar, Advocate for respondent no. 4.

WRIT PETITION NO. 1893 of 2011 (M/S) Km. Kirti Mehta and another Versus State of Uttarakhand & others .Respondents. ..Petitioners.

Present: Mr. Pradeep Hairiya, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. G.D. Joshi, Advocate present for respondent no. 3.

WRIT PETITION NO. 1918 of 2011 (M/S) Laxita Bisht Versus State of Uttarakhand & others .Respondents. ..Petitioner.

Present: Mr. Bhupendra Bisht, Advocate holding brief of Mr. D.S. Patni, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.

WRIT PETITION NO. 1988 of 2011 (M/S) Gaurav Joshi Versus State of Uttarakhand & others .Respondents. ..Petitioner.

Present: Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Ms. Geeta Parihar, Advocate for respondent no. 3.

WRIT PETITION NO. 1992 of 2011 (M/S) Varun Dixit Versus State of Uttarakhand & others .Respondents. ..Petitioner.

Present: Mr. Bhupendra Bisht, Advocate holding brief of Mr. D.S. Patni, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.

WRIT PETITION NO. 1994 of 2011 (M/S) Amit Kumar Versus State of Uttarakhand & others .Respondents. ..Petitioner.

Present: Mr. D.S. Mehta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.

WRIT PETITION NO. 2007 of 2011 (M/S) Brajesh Kumar Gupta Versus State of Uttarakhand & others .Respondents. ..Petitioner.

Present: Mr. G.C. Kandpal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.

WRIT PETITION NO. 2010 of 2011 (M/S) Himanshu Saran & another Versus State of Uttarakhand & others .Respondents. ..Petitioners.

Present: Mr. D.S. Mehta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.

Honble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.(Oral) 1. Heard learned counsels for the petitioners as well as the

State. 2. In this bunch of writ petitions, the common factor is that

all the petitioners were candidates for MBBS Course in the State of Uttarakhand and hence had written an examination known as Uttarakhand Pre-Medical Test, 2011 (from hereinafter referred to as UPMT, 2011). All the petitioners seems to have qualified the written test but the respondents refused to grant them admission as they did not fulfill one mandatory condition which is that each candidate must submit a proof that he or she has done his high school and intermediate from the Board of Uttarakhand. In case, if a candidate has not done either high school or intermediate or both from Uttarakhand then in such a condition he must show an original resident certificate issued by the appropriate authorities in terms of the Government Order dated 20.11.2001. All the petitioners claim to be permanent and bona fide resident of Uttarakhand, and each one of them has either not done high school or intermediate or in some cases both, from the Board in Uttarakhand and have done the same from outside Uttarakhand which is duly recognized in Uttarakhand. All the same, since they have not done their high school or intermediate from Uttarakhand (as the case might be), they have submitted a permanent resident certificate before the concerned authority in terms of Government Order dated 20.11.2001. The authority in all cases has refused to recognize this permanent resident certificate on the ground that what is actually required under the law and under the terms and conditions of the brochure is not a permanent resident certificate but original resident certificate.

3.

Since admission was not being granted to the petitioners,

all the petitioners approached to this Court by filing separate writ petitions and in each of such cases, this Court directed the respondents to give them provisional admission in medical college on the basis of the permanent resident certificate. They are all presently studying in their respective medical colleges, which is another common aspect with all the petitioners which is that on the strength of interim order of this Court they are undergoing medical course in the respondent institutes in the State of Uttarakhand. 4. State has filed counter affidavit in most of the writ

petitions rebutting the claim of the petitioners. Pleadings are complete. Matter is being heard finally. 5. Such matters, as the present pertaining to residence

certificate are coming before this Court on a regular basis. The Court also finds that there was no clarity with the respondent State or its officers as to what constitutes permanent resident, bona fide resident, domicile or even original resident. Therefore a learned Single Judge of this Court decided a bunch of writ petition being Writ Petition (M/S) No. 124 of 2011 (Ajay Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand and another) as leading case on 17.8.2012 by observing as to what constitutes original residents and as to who should be given a caste certificate based on the original resident. In the said judgment, the guidelines were given by the learned Single Judge which are being reproduced below :(i) The words resides, residence, ordinarily resides, original resident (mool niwasi) and domicile in relation to the issuance of a caste certificate means permanent residence where a person is staying for all practical purposes in a permanent capacity for a considerable long period of time.

10

(ii) Permanent residence means and qualifies such persons as per the parameters laid down in the Government Order dated 20.11.2001. (iii) Permanent resident would also include a person born in Uttarakhand as per the Government Order dated 29.03.2003. (iv) If after marriage, the wife adopts the permanent residence of her husband which is in the State of Uttarakhand she becomes a bonafide resident of the State of Uttarakhand and is entitled for issuance of a caste certificate in view of the decision of the court in Jyoti Bala (supra). (v) If a person is permanently allocated the State of Uttarakhand pursuant to the U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000, he is treated to be a bonafide resident as well as a permanent resident in view of the decision in Mrs. Jyotsana (supra). (vi) The appointed date of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order of 1950 and the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order of 1950 for the State of Uttarakhand is the date notified by the Central Government in the official Gazette which is 09.11.2000. (vii) Persons belongs to Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe or OBC residing in a permanent capacity on or before 09.11.2000 in any part of the State of Uttarakhand would be entitled, the benefits and privileges given by the State of Uttarakhand provided the caste of such persons is notified in the State of Uttarakhand. (viii) A person of Uttar Pradesh who belongs to the reserved category and who migrated from one part of Uttar Pradesh to another part of Uttar Pradesh and enjoyed the privileges of that caste in the State of Uttar Pradesh and who is staying for all practical purposes in a permanent capacity for a considerable period of time, will continue to enjoy the same privileges upon the creation of the State of Uttarakhand provided his caste is notified by the State of Uttarakhand. The said person could not be treated to be the original resident of Uttar Pradesh and the State Government of Uttarakhand could not treat this person as not an original resident of Uttarakhand or reject his application

11

on the ground that he originally belongs to the State of Uttar Pradesh. (ix) Once a caste is specified by the State, the person belonging to that caste is given the privilege in that State and it is immaterial if a particular person migrates from one corner to another corner of the same State. Consequently, when the State of Uttar Pradesh was bifurcated and State of Uttarakhand was created from the composite State of Uttar Pradesh, the geographical limits of the entire State of Uttar Pradesh will be taken into consideration in relation to the State of Uttarakhand, which has been bifurcated from the State of Uttar Pradesh. The geographical limits cannot be confined to those geographical limits, which has come in the State of Uttarakhand. (x) Any person who has migrated from one part of Uttar Pradesh to another part of Uttar Pradesh and was living permanently for a considerable period of time and was enjoying the privileges of that particular caste in the State of Uttar Pradesh and that part has now become a part of Uttarakhand would be treated as a permanent resident of Uttarakhand upon the creation of the State of Uttarakhand and would also be entitled to all the benefits and privileges of that caste provided that caste was also notified in the State of Uttarakhand. (xi) Original resident (Mool Niwasi) does not mean that the person or his forefathers must be the original resident of the State of Uttarakhand or reside in the geographical limits of Uttarakhand prior to its creation on or before the date of the issuance of the first Presidential Order of 1950. The geographical limits means and includes the geographical limits of the entire State of Uttar Pradesh prior to the creation of the State of Uttarakhand. 6. Another finding in the above judgment is that the terms

original resident, permanent resident, bona fide resident, domicile are used primarily to mean permanent resident or bona fide resident and in order for the candidate to get the certificate all he has to show is that he was residing in the territory of Uttarakhand on the appointed date i.e. 9.11.2000.

12

7. the

Curiously, in the present case, all the petitioners have same before the concerned authorities. There are

got a permanent resident certificate and had duly submitted documents attached by some of the petitioners which are certificate of the concerned authority showing that they had been issued permanent resident certificate though not original resident certificate. The petitioners contend that this "permanent resident certificate was the requirement in terms of the brochure which has specifically stated that the permanent resident certificate or original resident certificate in terms of Government Order dated 20.11.2001 has to be submitted, which they have done. Therefore, denying the admission purely on the ground that they have not submitted the original resident certificate is wholly misconceived. 8. As already stated above, while removing the irregularities

which were occupying the field earlier, it has been held (in Ajay Kumar case supra) that there is no difference between certificates given by different nomenclatures by the State Government. Further if a person can show to the concerned authority that he was residing in the State of Uttarakhand on or before the appointed date i.e. 9.11.2000 he was liable to be given the caste certificate and consequently all the benefits, holding him to be an original resident of Uttarakhand. 9. The contention of the State Counsel Sri Paresh Tripathi,

on the other hand, would be that since the State Authorities while inviting the application from the candidate for the said examination had clearly stipulated one of the mandatory requirements that in case the candidate has not done high school or intermediate or both from Uttarakhand, he will have

13

to submit original resident certificate, they cannot by-pass this mandatory condition. 10. itself terms The above contention of the state counsel does not they of have asked for original dated resident/permanent 20.11.2001. The

appear to be correct for two reasons. Firstly in the brochure resident certificate and that such certificate should be in Government Order Government Order dated 20.11.2001 has also been perused. It only talks about permanent resident certificate and not about original resident certificate. Therefore, all the petitioners, in any case, had complied fully with the condition as they had submitted the certificates in terms of Government Order dated 20.11.2001 which, inter alia, talks of grant of permanent resident certificate. This is so because each of the petitioners had submitted their permanent resident certificates. What constitutes permanent resident or original resident or domicile is clearly a misnomer with the authorities as has been given by this Court in Seminal decision of Ajay Kumars case (supra). On these facts, this Court is of clear view that denying the admission to the petitioners was wholly improper. Since vide interim order of this Court all the petitioners have already been granted admission, Petitioners are declared to be successful and eligible candidates, they are presently undergoing their studies and their MBBS Course. They shall continue to do that and shall not be disturbed. 11. 12. Writ petitions succeeds and are hereby allowed. No order as to costs.

(Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.)