JUDGMENT
[ENTITY], Actg. C.J.
1. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorarl quashing the order dated 10-4-2003, contained in Annexure No. 10 to the writ petition, passed by the Director General, Medical Education and Training, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow cancelling the admission of the petitioner in M.B.B.S. course in King George Medical College, Lucknow with a further prayer to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to let the petitioner continue the study in M.B.B.S., course in King George Medical College, Lucknow.
2. The facts and circumstances under which the impugned order cancelling the admission of the petitioner was passed are that under the Xth schedule to [ACT], 55 seats were allotted for admission in various Medical Colleges of Uttar Pradesh to the residents of [ENTITY]. The Bundelkhund University. [ENTITY] was entrusted to conduct the entrance examination for 55 seats allotted to [ENTITY] in various Medical Colleges of Uttar Pradesh.
3. An advertisement was made inviting the applications for entrance examination and a [ENTITY] was also published along with entrance examination form by the University.
4. According to the [ENTITY], which is contained in Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition, out of 55 seats, 33 seats were allotted to M.B.B.S. course in various Medical Colleges, 3 seats for B.D.S. course, 15 seats for B.H.M.S. course and 4 seats for B.U.M.S. course. Reservation in admission was given to the reserved category candidates, in which 19% seats were reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates, 4% were reserved to Scheduled Tribe candidates, 14% were reserved to Other Backward Classes candidates and 2% for dependants of freedom fighters.
5. [ENTITY] for [ENTITY] Combined Pre-Medical Test-2002, contained in Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition, provides eligibility of the candidates. [SECTION] of aforesaid [ENTITY], which is in Hindi, provides that a candidate must be citizen of India and bona fide resident of [ENTITY]. According to the [ENTITY], bona fide residents are those who have permanent home in [ENTITY]. This shall also include such residents of [ENTITY] who have been residing for 15 years or who have permanent home in [ENTITY] but have been residing outside the State for their livelihood. The persons having permanent home would mean such persons who have been residing in [ENTITY] through their descends and have their ancestral home in [ENTITY]. Along with the [ENTITY] certificate for permanent residence was provided.
6. The petitioner obtained a certificate of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, [ENTITY], District-Nainital on 6-9-2002 on the prescribed pro forma, contained in Annexure No. 4 at page 39 of the writ petition. The certificate so obtained by the petitioner which is in Hindi is reproduced below in English:
(Permanent residence Certificate) Certified that Km. [ENTITY] Daughter of [ENTITY], resident of village/Mohalla/Ward [ENTITY], Tehsil [ENTITY], District Nainital is permanent resident of [ENTITY].
It is also certified that before issuing the aforesaid certificate all the prescribed conditions have been carefully examined and I am fully satisfied with the same.
Sd. (illegible) On the basis of permanent 6-9-02 certificate No. 548 Sub-Divisional dated 14-6-2001. Magistrate [ENTITY] (Nainital) Note: 1. Definition of original resident of [ENTITY].
(a) Must be citizen of India and bona fide residents of State of [ENTITY] and further provided that bona fide residents means those persons who have permanent home in [ENTITY] and shall also include such residents of [ENTITY] who have been residing for 15 years or who have permanent home in [ENTITY] but have been residing outside the State for their livelihood. The persons having permanent home would mean such persons who have been residing in [ENTITY] through their descends/have their ancestral home in [ENTITY].
(b) As an exception to the conditions prescribed in point No. (a) in special matters such persons shall also be deemed as bona fide residents of [ENTITY] who have been in employment in permanent capacity under the State Government/Semi-Government Institutions. The persons employed in permanent capacity in [ENTITY] of Central Government or undertakings and whose services are non-transferable outside the [ENTITY], shall also be included in this category. For this purpose sufficient evidence shall have to be made available by the applicant."
7. The certificate as quoted above was obtained by the petitioner on the basis of certificate of permanent residence issued to her bearing No. 548 dated 14-6-2001. The certificate of permanent residence dated 14-6-2001 was issued under the joint signatures of [ENTITY] and Tehsildar, Nainital for District Magistrate, Nainital. The said certificate contained as Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition which is in Hindi is being reproduced below in English:
"Permanent Residence Certificate Certificate No. 548/97 Typist Dated 14-6-2001 On the basis of report of Tehsildar/Land Record Inspector dated 14-6-2001 certified that Km. [ENTITY] D/o [ENTITY], resident of [ENTITY], is permanent resident of Tehsil [ENTITY], District-Nainital.
Dated 14-6-2001 Sd/- (illegible) Sd/- (illegible) 14-6-01 Tehsildar Deputy Collector [ENTITY] (Nainital) [ENTITY] For District Magistrate Nainital".
8. The entrance examination was conducted by the Bundelkhund University on 15-7-2002 in which the petitioner appeared on the basis of aforesaid certificate of permanent residence dated 6-9-2002 which was issued on the basis of certificate No. 548 dated 14-6-2001. The result was declared placing the petitioner at serial No. 1 in [ACT] list women category and VIIIth rank in general category as stated by the petitioner in Para 16 of the writ petition. After the counselling the petitioner was given admission in Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj Medical University earlier known as King George Medical College, Lucknow and the petitioner started studying the course of M.B.B.S. from October 2002 and continued till the cancellation of her admission by the impugned order.
9. One Sri [ENTITY] s/o Sri [ENTITY] made a complaint on 16-11-2002 that the petitioner is a permanent resident of [ENTITY] where she completed her education upto Intermediate. Her family resides at [ENTITY]. So the certificate issued to her on 14-6-2001 was illegal. He also filed a writ petition bearing [CASE NUMBER] before this Court in December 2002 praying the following relief:
(a) "Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to conduct an enquiry about the [ENTITY] domicile of those who are depriving the bona fide domicile of [ENTITY] to M.B.B.S. courses in various categories in various Medical Colleges of Uttar Pradesh.
(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to admit the petitioner for M.B.B.S. course either as a General Candidate or under the [ACT] category at any of the State Medical Colleges of Uttar Pradesh for [ENTITY] domiciles notified in the [ENTITY] (Annexure No. 1).
(c) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the notification dated 23-11-2002 and 11-12-2002 (Annexures IXA and IXB) to the petition.
(d) Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case.
(e) Award cost of the petition."
10. In the aforesaid writ petition notices were issued to all the respondents including the petitioner. After the issuance of notice the State of [ENTITY], vide its letter dated 4-12-2002 bearing No. 1762/Medical-1-2-89/2002 ordered an inquiry into the matter and directed the District Magistrates, Nainltal and [ENTITY] to inquire about the permanent residence of the petitioner and to report. The District Magistrate, Nainital got the matter inquired by the [ENTITY]/ Deputy Collector, [ENTITY] and submitted his report on the basis of inquiry held by the [ENTITY], [ENTITY] that [ENTITY] is not a permanent resident of [ENTITY] and certificate was obtained by her on the basis of misrepresentation.
11. The District Magistrate, [ENTITY] got the matter inquired through Tehsildar, [ENTITY] and A.D.M., [ENTITY] submitted a report on behalf of District Magistrate, [ENTITY] that the petitioner is permanent resident of District [ENTITY] which is contained in Annexure No. 9 to the writ petition at page 94 of the Paper-book. It has been mentioned in the report of A.D.M., [ENTITY] that on the basis of inquiry held by the Teshildar dated 18-12-2002 [ENTITY], father of petitioner was found to be the permanent resident of [ENTITY]. His mother was in service in [ENTITY]. [ENTITY] purchased the house in which they were residing on rent. He resides permanently in [ENTITY]. [ENTITY] has a house at 4 Ashapuram, Delapeer, Stadium Road, [ENTITY]. Km. [ENTITY], d/o [ENTITY] is permanent resident of [ENTITY] and is 'Teli' by caste under the [ACT] category.
12. The A.D.M., [ENTITY] reported that the father of the petitioner is permanent resident of [ENTITY] and the petitioner is permanent resident of [ENTITY].
13. On the report of the District Magistrate, [ENTITY] and the District Magistrate, Nainital, the Additional Secretary, State of [ENTITY], vide his letter dated 1762/ Medical-1-2002-89/2002, dated 1-12-2002 informed the Director General, Medical Education and Training, Uttar Pradesh that the certificate of permanent residence of [ENTITY] was obtained by the petitioner Km. [ENTITY] d/o [ENTITY] by misrepresentation. Therefore, she was not eligible for admission against the seats reserved for the candidates who are permanent residents of [ENTITY]. As such the impugned order was passed.
14. During the course of hearing we summoned the entire record from the State of [ENTITY] and also required the Commissioner, Kumaon Division to submit his report on the permanent residence status of the petitioner. The Commissioner, Kumaon Division submitted his report dated 12-5-2003, which was taken on record.
15. Sri [ENTITY], learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the impugned order of cancellation of admission of the petitioner was passed in violation of principles of natural justice as the petitioner has not been given further opportunity by the Director General, Medical Education and Training, U. P. The petitioner at no stage has seen the report of the District Magistrate, [ENTITY] and recommendation of the District Magistrate, Nainital and she was not informed that on which ground the admission of the petitioner was cancelled. He further contended that the petitioner has been residing in [ENTITY] since 1978 and has a permanent house much before the petitioner sought admission in Medical College. The petitioner is permanent resident of State of [ENTITY] according to the G.O. dated 20-11-2001 as the petitioner was born at [ENTITY]. The petitioner studied in Pant Nagar University both Agriculture and Veterinary courses. The report of the Additional Pistrict Magistrate, [ENTITY] sent on his behalf by the District Magistrate has been ignored in which it has been reported that the petitioner is permanent resident of [ENTITY].
16. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner's grandfather [ENTITY] settled at [ENTITY], District Nainital about 42 years back and he was doing business of selling ice and the petitioner's mother Smt. [ENTITY] was midwife in the Welfare Health Centre and they lived at [ENTITY] since the time grandfather shifted there. The petitioner's father started dry-cleaning shop business in the name "Shyama Dry Cleaner" opposite Nanak Sweet House at [ENTITY] in the year 1980. The petitioner's father was a tenant of 9/17 [ENTITY], [ENTITY] Road [ENTITY] since 1978 and ultimately he purchased the house by sale deed in 2001, The name of the father of the petitioner has also been mutated. The father of the petitioner has paid house-tax. The grandfather of the petitioner died in [ENTITY] in the year 1985. The requirement of bona fide residence in a State is fulfilled in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in [ENTITY] v. State of U. P., reported in (1990) 3 SCC 355 : (AIR 1991 SC 356).
17. The learned Additional Advocate General Sri [ENTITY] on the basis of the report of the Commissioner, which is also based on record, submitted that a perusal of the Government Order dated 20-11-2001 shows that such certificate shall only be issued to those persons who are Indian citizens and bona fide residents of [ENTITY]. In the matter of petitioner this is an admitted fact that she has neither been residing in [ENTITY] for 15 years, as admittedly she has had her education in [ENTITY] with her parents nor she had any permanent home in [ENTITY] i.e. in the State of [ENTITY] at the point of submitting application for the certificate, in question. The petitioner further cannot claim the permanent residence status through her parents as she herself did not reside in [ENTITY] with her parents as admittedly she stayed with her parents and has had her education in [ENTITY] only nor did she have any ancestral house at the point of time i.e. at the time of seeking certificate for permanent residence in the State of [ENTITY]. This is further not denied that in the year 1999 a certificate relating to the caste was issued to the petitioner by the Tehsildar [ENTITY] wherein she has been shown to be a resident of '153, Kasgaraan, [ENTITY]'.
18. Learned Addl. Advocate General further submitted that the claim of the father of the petitioner that he had been residing in [ENTITY] for last 23 years in House No. 9/71, [ENTITY], [ENTITY] Road, [ENTITY] stands belied in view of the report submitted by the Executive Officer. Nagarpalika, [ENTITY], which states that in the house in question one Smt. [ENTITY] (landlady) wife of Sri [ENTITY] has been residing since 1986-87 and no tenancy of any person has been recorded in the referred house in the Nagarpalika records. The petitioner's claim for the grant of permanent residence certificate stands rejected in view of the fact that neither she has a permanent home in [ENTITY] nor she resided with her parents at [ENTITY] and further that as she had her education in [ENTITY] only. He further submitted that the contention of the father of the petitioner in his reply to the [ENTITY], when the latter was conducting the enquiry that the house in which he was allegedly living for the last 23 years has since been purchased by him, is false as per the records. The father of the petitioner only has purchased a room with an area of 15 Sq. meters in the said building that too in December 2001. It is apparently an effort to substantiate his claim of having a permanent home in [ENTITY]. The copy of the Ration card given to the [ENTITY] was issued only in the year 1999, which does not support the claim of petitioner of an extended or longer stay.
19. Before dealing with the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents we may examine as to whether the conditions of eligibility contained in the [ENTITY] and conditions for grant of permanent residence certificate contained in the [ENTITY] are mandatory or directory.
20. The Apex Court in [PRECEDENT] in para 9 has held as under :
"It is the Central Government which bears the financial burden of running the Medical College. It is for it to lay down the criteria for eligibility. From the very nature of things it is not possible to throw the admission open to students from all over the country. The Government cannot be denied the right to decide from what sources the admission will be made. That essentially is a question of policy and depends inter alia on an overall assessment and survey of the requirements of residents of particular territories and other categories of persons for whom it is necessary to provide facilities for medical education. If the sources are properly classified whether on territorial, geographical or other reasonable basis it is not for the Courts to interfere with the manner and method of making the classification."
21. The Apex Court in [PRECEDENT], held that the rules laid down in prospectus has force of law. Paras 12 and 13 of the report are reproduced as under :
"12. Right of admission to an educational institution, run either by the State or by a State aided institution, is considered sufficiently important to be classified as a fundamental right in [SECTION] of our [ACT]. We may also refer here to the term 'State' as used in [SECTION] for the purposes of [SECTION] of the [ACT], which would include, for the purposes of enforcing fundamental rights, institutions such as Medical Colleges run by the State which do not have legally separate entities. The rules made by such a college or on its behalf, by the State Government would be law. Law, as defined by [SECTION] "includes any ordinance, order, bye-law, rule, regulation, notification, custom or usage having in the territory of India the force of law."
13. We, therefore, conclude that we are justified in treating the rules laid down in the prospectus as having the force of law governing the rights of applicants for admission, the power and obligations of the college, its Selection Board, and the Government, in dealing with the cases of the petitioners for admission which we now proceed to examine."
22. After the forty-second amendment [SECTION] was deleted and the subject education, including technical education, medical education and Universities was inserted in [SECTION] of the [SECTION] of the [ACT], which reads as under :
"[25. Education, including technical education, medical education and universities, subject to the provisions of [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION] and [SECTION]; vocational and technical training of labour.]"
23. Thus, the Parliament as well as the State Legislatures are competent to legislate on the topics enumerated in [SECTION] which contains medical education. So far as the State legislation on the topic it will be subject to provisions of [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION] and [SECTION]. The State legislation has to be in accordance with the provisions of [SECTION] of the [ACT].
24. Both the Governments i.e. Government of India and State Governments are free to regulate the admission in the medical courses by executive orders in exercise of its power under [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the [ACT]. The law made by the Parliament shall prevail over the law made by the State Legislature subject to [SECTION] of the [ACT]. Likewise if the executive order is issued by the Government of India in absence of any law made by the Parliament, that will prevail over the executive order issued by the State Government in exercise of its power under [SECTION] of the [ACT], Neither any law has been made by the Parliament nor any Government order has been issued by the Government of India regulating the admission in Medical Colleges. Field is unoccupied. The State Government in its executive power can issue Government Order.
25. Therefore, the conditions contained in the [ENTITY] providing for eligibility of a candidate that he must be citizen of India and bona fide resident of State of [ENTITY] and further providing that bona fide resident must be citizen of India and must be bona fide resident of that State or area based on the G.O. dated 20-11-2001 of the State Government are statutory in nature.
26. The Apex Court upheld the reservation based on residence requirement for a period of not less than ten years, for admission in Medical Colleges in the State of Mysore in decision of [PRECEDENT] reads as under :
" The object of framing the impugned rule seems to be to attempt to impart medical education to the best talent available out of the class of persons who are likely, so far as it can reasonably be foreseen, to serve as doctors, the inhabitants of the State of Mysore
The State has, therefore, to formulate with reasonable foresight a just scheme of classification for imparting medical education to the available candidates which would serve the object and purpose of providing broad-based medical aid to the people of the State and to provide medical education to those who are best suited for such education
The counter-affidavit filed by the State on the other hand discloses the purpose to be that of serving the interests of the residents of the State by providing medical aid for them".
27. In Dr. [ENTITY] v. Union of India, reported in (1984) $ SCC [SECTION]4 : ([PRECEDENT] after, referring all the above judgments (supra) held as under (para 16) :
"The claim of State interest in providing adequate medical service to the people of the State, by imparting medical education to students who by reason of their residence in the State would be likely to settle down and serve the people of the State as doctors has thus been regarded by the Court as a legitimate ground for laying down residence requirement of admission to Medical Colleges in the State".
28. We have extracted above the translated form of these conditions in English. Originally it is published in Hindi. We have used words "must be" in our translation as in Hindi words "Avashyak hai" have been used. Use of words "must be" in the condition has a reason that after the enforcement of [ACT] the State of [ENTITY] came into being and the seats for admission in the Medical Colleges were to be allocated by the State of Uttar Pradesh for the residents of State of [ENTITY] as per the provisions under the [SECTION] of [ACT]. Accordingly, 55 seats were earmarked and allocated for residents of [ENTITY]. Therefore, these seats could only be filled by those candidates who are bona fide residents of [ENTITY].
29. The use of words "Avashyak hai/ must be" itself makes these conditions mandatory in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in [PRECEDENT] at page 726, in which the Apex Court has held as under :
"It will also be sufficient to hold the provision mandatory and it will not be necessary to pursue the inquiry any further."
30. As we have quoted above the certificate issued to the petitioner on 6-9-2002, contained in Annexure No. 4, page 39 of the Paper-book was issued on the basis of certificate issued on 14-6-2001, contained in Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition. The certificate dated 14-6-2001 was issued in terms of the Government Order dated 27th January, 2000 which was issued by the existing State of Uttar Pradesh prior to the enforcement of [ACT] and was in force by virtue of [SECTION] of the said Act within the meaning of law defined in [SECTION] of [ACT]. After issuance of Government Order dated 20-11-2001 and publication of [ENTITY], the conditions for admission and eligibility for entering in Combined Pre-medical Test stood changed and Government Order dated 27-1:2000 stood superseded. Government Order dated 27-1-2000 does not contain the conditions contained in Government Order dated 20-11-2001. Thus, the certificate issued on 14-6-2001 was not in conformity with the G.O. dated 20-11 -2001.
31. Therefore, the certificate was obtained by the petitioner by misrepresentation and the officer was also equally at fault who issued the certificate without verifying the conditions laid down in the [ENTITY]. The petitioner could not get admission on the basis of this certificate which was not issued as per conditions contained in G.O. dated 20-11-2001 and in [ENTITY] published for admission in Medical Colleges which was mandatory for issuing the certificate of bona fide resident. The object for upholding the reservation in admission in Medical Colleges on the basis of bona fide residents have been found reasonable by the Apex Court in [ENTITY] (AIR 1991 SC 356), [PRECEDENT], [PRECEDENT], [PRECEDENT] and Dr. [ENTITY]'s cases ([PRECEDENT] (supra).
32. In the case of [PRECEDENT], the Apex Court upheld the cancellation of admission of Km. [ENTITY] in Medical College wherein she obtained caste certificate by fraud and misrepresentation.
33. The learned Senior Advocate Sri [ENTITY] appearing for the petitioner did not challenge the conditions of the [ENTITY] and the G.O. dated 20-11-2001, contained in Annexure No. 11 to the writ petition. He submitted that since the grand-father of the petitioner was residing in [ENTITY], her father also resided in [ENTITY] since 1978 in House No. 9/17 [ENTITY], [ENTITY] Road, [ENTITY] (District-Nainital) and has purchased the house by sale deed dated 19-12-2001, the petitioner is bona fide resident of [ENTITY]. He contended that the petitioner's grand-father [ENTITY] settled at [ENTITY], District Nainital about 42 years back and he was doing business of selling ice and the petitioner's mother Smt. [ENTITY] was midwife in the Welfare Health Centre and they lived at [ENTITY] since the time grandfather shifted there. He heavily relied on the report of the Additional District Magistrate, [ENTITY] who reported on behalf of District Magistrate, [ENTITY], contained in Annexure No. 9 to the writ petition that father of the petitioner is permanent resident of [ENTITY]. The petitioner has not disclosed as to when she was admitted in the said course at Pant Nagar.
34. The learned Additional Advocate General Sri [ENTITY] explained eligibility and the conditions contained in the [ENTITY] for issue of the permanent residence certificate and submitted that this is not the father of the petitioner who is bona fide resident of [ENTITY]. This is the candidate who must be bona fide resident of Uttaranehal. Sri [ENTITY] invited our attention to the report of the A.D.M., [ENTITY], contained in Annexure No. 9 to the writ petition, in which it has been said that the father of the petitioner is bona fide resident of [ENTITY] and the petitioner is bona fide resident of [ENTITY]. He submitted that the petitioner took her entire education in District [ENTITY] except Agriculture and Veterinary courses in Pant Nagar University.
35. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that before passing of the order for cancellation of admission no opportunity was given to the petitioner. On the other hand, the Additional Advocate General submitted that the opportunity was given to the petitioner during the course of inquiry report which relate to the cancellation of admission of the petitioner as has been admitted by the petitioner that show cause notice was given to her by [ENTITY], [ENTITY] which is contained in Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition and Tehsildar, [ENTITY] which is stated in para 25 of the writ petition.
36. The cancellation order was passed on the basis of inquiry held on the complaint of [ENTITY] and after filing the writ petition, which was numbered as 885 of 2002, and issue of notice by this High Court. Inquiry was ordered by the State Government through the Collectors, Nainital and [ENTITY]. In turn the Collector, [ENTITY] and Collector, Nainital deputed the inquiry to be held by Tehsildar, [ENTITY] and [ENTITY], [ENTITY] respectively. The petitioner has annexed show cause notice issued by the [ENTITY], [ENTITY] in response to which she filed her reply and her father also appeared. The Tehsildar [ENTITY] has also issued notice to the petitioner in response to which her father appeared before the Tehsildar. After receipt of the reply of the petitioner submitted on her behalf by her father to Tehsildar, [ENTITY] and [ENTITY], [ENTITY] these two officers submitted their reports respectively to their District Magistrates. The District Magistrate, [ENTITY] has reported that the father of the petitioner is permanent resident of [ENTITY] and the petitioner is permanent resident of [ENTITY]. The District Magistrate, Nainital submitted his report along with inquiry report of the [ENTITY], [ENTITY]. The [ENTITY] in his report stated that Km. [ENTITY] (petitioner) along with her family does not reside in 9/71 [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and in the building in question Smt. [ENTITY] wife of Sri [ENTITY] (landlady) resides. It is also clear from the report of Executive Officer, Nagarpalika, [ENTITY] dated 6-3-2002 that in the building in question since 1986-87 Smt. [ENTITY] wife of [ENTITY] has been residing. It is also clear from the certificate of Class XII issued by CBSE, New Delhi that Km. [ENTITY] passed her above examination from Girish Prasad Memorial College, [ENTITY]. Km. [ENTITY] also did not file any documentary evidence which shows that she and her parents acquired any immovable property even during the inquiry and before the year 2001 in [ENTITY]. It is also clear from the caste certificate issued by the Tehsildar, [ENTITY] on 24-12-1999 to Km. [ENTITY] that she is resident of 153, Kasgaraan, [ENTITY], U.P.
37. Relying on the aforesaid material which was sent by the Additional Secretary, Government of [ENTITY] to the Director General, Medical Education and Training, U.P., the Director General above cancelled the admission of the petitioner by the impugned order. Therefore, in our opinion the opportunity was given to the petitioner prior to the cancellation of admission of the petitioner.
38. Accordingly, we hold that there was full compliance of principles of natural justice in the proceedings on the'basis of which the cancellation order was passed.
39. We have examined the facts in the light of the aforesaid submissions and we find that the petitioner has not stated anywhere in the writ petition that she has been residing from last 15 years in [ENTITY]. Contrary to it the evidence on record shows that the petitioner has completed her education upto Intermediate in [ENTITY] from House No. 153, Kasgaraan, [ENTITY] of which the father of the petitioner is owner. Therefore, in terms of the condition of the eligibility and the condition for grant of certificate of permanent residence and in terms of Government Order the petitioner has not acquired the status of bona fide resident in the State of [ENTITY]. The statement made in the writ petition and the evidence filed in support of those statements are in respect of the father of the petitioner and there is no evidence on record to show that the petitioner has been residing from last 15 years in the State of [ENTITY]. Therefore, we hold that the certificate issued to the petitioner was not a genuine certificate and was obtained by misrepresentation.
40. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment in [ENTITY] v. State of U.P., reported in (1990) 3 SCC 355 : (AIR 1991 SC 356), wherein the Supreme Court was considering Sub-clause (b) of Clause 4 of the Notification dated August 19, 1983 issued under [SECTION] of the [ACT] for the purposes of bona fide residence issued by the State of U.P. for the purposes of admission in the M.B.B.S. and B.D.S. courses. Clause 4 of the said notification reads as under :
"4. For the purposes of this order the expression 'bona fide resident of Uttar Pradesh' shall mean
(a) a citizen of India, the domicile of whose father is in Uttar Pradesh and who himself is domiciled in Uttar Pradesh; or
b) a citizen of India, the domicile of whose father was not in Uttar Pradesh but who himself has resided in Uttar Pradesh for not less than five years at the time of making the application."
41. The Supreme Court in the said judgment in Para 22 held as under :
"Clause 2, which we have set out above, refers to a 'bona fide resident' and such a person is defined under Clause 4 to include a person who has resided in Uttar Pradesh for not less than five years at the time of making his application. These two clauses indicate that a person should have resided in Uttar Pradesh for the requisite period lawfully and bona fide. The converse of bona fide being mala fide, meaning lack of good faith, in the absence of any allegation that the appellant's residence in that State was in any manner opposed to the law of the land, or tainted by lack of good faith, and in the light of the undisputed fact that his residence was neither casual nor fleeting, but in excess of the minimum period of five years, and for the definite purpose of education, he satisfies the definition of a 'bona fide resident'. Any other construction of the clauses would, in our view, be unreasonably restrictive and thus conflict with the appellant's constitutional rights."
42. The facts in the case in hand are distinct from the facts of the case of [ENTITY] case. In that case the petitioner resided for five years, therefore, the Court held that requirement of Sub-clause (b) of Clause 4 of the notification was fulfilled.
43. In the case in hand, there is no evidence on record to show that petitioner has resided in State of [ENTITY] for 15 years as required by the condition No. (a) given in the pro forma for Permanent residence certificate, contained in Annexure No. 4, page No. 39 of the Paper-book of the writ petition and Government Order dated 20-11-2001, contained in Annexure No. 11 to the writ petition. Therefore, the petitioner even applying ratio of aforesaid judgment cannot be held to be bona fide resident of [ENTITY].
44. For the reasons recorded above, the petition is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed.
45. However, it is made clear that the cancellation of admission of the petitioner on the ground of misrepresentation will not be a hurdle or will not be taken to be a stigma on her future career.