2-) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR D.B. HON'BLE SHRI DHIRENDRA MISHRA, & HON'BLE SHRI R.N. CHANDRAKAR, JJ WRIT PETITION fCl N0. 5844^QF^Q08 PETITIONER Dr. Amar Nath Shukla, Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & others ORDER FOR CONSIDERATION HON'BLE SHRX R.N. CHANDRAKAR, J ^O) 0(^n^e_ Judge SA'- R.N. Chandrakar Judge ,~^. POST ON l^f APRIL, 2009 Sd/- J U DG E /4'4.2009 s<fT-:-^i w *s s' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR D.B. HON'BLE SHRI DHIRENDRA MISHRA. & HON'BLE SHRI R.N. CHANDRAKAR. JJ WRIT PETITION (C) N0. 5844 OF 2008 PETITIQNER RESPQNDENTS Dr. Amar Nath Shukla, Aged about 27 years, S/o Shri Rang Nath Shukla, Professor Coldhy, Kawardha, Distt. Kabirdham (CG) Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Secretariat, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG) 2. Sub Divisional Officer, Kawardha, Distt. Kabirdham (CG) 3. Principal, Govt. of Ayurvedic College, Raipur (CG) Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India Present: Mr. VG Tamaskar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, learned Addl. Advocate General for the State/respondents. O RDE R (Passedon |^April, 2009) Per Dhirendra Mishra, J The petitioner has filed the instant petition for quashment of the order dated 22.9.2008 (Annexure P/5) passed by - respondent No.3, whereby his admission to Ayurved Vachspati (MD-Ayurved) Kaychikitsa Course has been cancelled with immediate effect, as also the order dated 1.12.2007 (Annexure P/6) passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Kawardha, by which it has been held that the (^ ) ^s^^s^^^^ ^ir,t-y-^'i''w'"""' petitioner obtained domicile certificate of Annexure P/4 from Tehsil-Kawardha by suppression of fact on the basis of fake information and he does not have any legal right to obtain the domicile certificate of State of Chhattisgarh. 02. Case of the petitioner, in brief, is that his father is in the Indian Army, he received his education under the guardianship of his uncle Dr. Premnath Shukla, who is working as Assistant Veterinary Surgeon in the State of Chhattisgarh. He passed his Class-VII in the year 1993 from Government Higher Secondary School, Somni vide Annexure P/l. Thereafter, he also passed Class-VIII in the academic year 1993-94 from Sarswati Shishu Mandir, Kawardha (Annexure P/2) and Class-IX in the year 1994- 95 from the same school. He was issued domicile certificate of Chhattisgarh by Tehsildar, Kawardha vide Annexure P/4. He appeared in the Chhattisgarh Ayurvedic Snakottar Pathyakram (Ayurved Vachspati-MD) Entrance Examination. After passing the examination, he was admitted in the MD-Ayurved Course (Kaya Chikitsa Department) of Govt. Ayurvedic College, Raipur. He had submitted his domicile certificate for appearing in the Entrance Examination. However, his admission was cancelled by respondent No.3 by the impugned order of Annexure P/5 on the ground that he obtained admission on the basis of fake domicile certificate as he does not have any legal right to obtain domicile certificate of Chhattisgarh. The above order was passed on the basis of report of Sub Divisional Officer, Kabirdham of Annexure P/6. 03. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted . that admission of the petitioner to MD-Ayurved Course was cancelled without any show-cause notice or pre-decisional hearing. The Sub Divisional Officer gave his report of Annexure P/6 against the petitioner without affording any opportunity of hearing to him. There is no enquiry with respect to the certificates of Class-VII, VIII & IX issued to % the petitioner by the schools situated in the State of Chhattisgarh. 04. On the other hand, Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, learned Addl. Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State/respondents contended that at the time of admission to MD-Ayurved Course, the petitioner submitted certificate of domicile showing himself to be the resident of State of Chhattisgarh. On the basis of complaint of one Mr. Anil Kumar Tripathi, respondent No.3 requested the District Collectors of Bilaspur and Kabirdham to conduct an enquiry regarding genuineness and veracity of the domicile certificate issued to the petitioner. The domicile certificate of the petitioner was forwarded to the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Kawardha to conduct an enquiry and report, who, in turn, directed the Tehsildar, Kawardha, to conduct an enquiry and report. On the basis of report of the Tehsildar dated 1.12.2007, the Sub Divisional Officer submitted his report of Annexure P/6. Since the petitioner's domicile certificate was not found genuine on enquiry and he had obtained admission to the MD-Ayurved Course on the basis of fake certificate, his admission has been cancelled. Mr. Bhaduri fairly submits that the Tehsildar or the Sub Divisional Officer while conducting enquiry for the purposes of verification of domicite certificate of the petitioner, did not issue any notice to the petitioner and he was not given any opportunity of hearing. 05. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of Naib Tehsildar, wherein domicile certificate was issued to the petitioner, as also record of the enquiry proceedings. 06. Indisputably, the petitioner pursued his studies in the schools situated in the State of Chhattisgarh and passed Class-VII, VIII and IX. His uncle Dr. P.N. Shukla is a government officer in the State of Chhattisgarh. Before WW"*" f^ ..^•sf" ..^ssS^K issuing domicile certificate to the petitioner, a certificate had been obtained from his uncle on 11.3.2005 to the effect that the petitioner is residing with him since he was student of Class-V. Contention of the petitioner is that his father is an army man and therefore, he is staying with his uncle Dr. P.N. Shukla for the purposes of his education. 07. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that respondent No.3 was not justified in canceling admission of the petitioner to MD-Ayurved Course only on the basis of report of Annexure P/6 of the Sub Divisional Officer, particularly when the said report was submitted on the basis of enquiry, which was conducted behind the back of the petitioner without any notice to him. Similarly, the enquiry report of Annexure P/6 also deserves to be quashed as the same was prepared on the basis of enquiry conducted without notice to the petitioner in his absence. 08. For the aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is allowed. The report of Annexure P/6 dated 1.12.2007 of the Sub Divisional Officer, Kawardha, is hereby quashed. Consequently, impugned order dated 22.9.2008 (Annexure P/5) passed by respondent No.3 canceling petitioner's admission to the MD-Ayurved Course, is also quashed. 09. It shall be open to the respondents to conduct fresh enquiry for the purposes of verification of the domicile certificate of Annexure P/4 issued to the petitioner by Tehsildar, after due notice to him in accordance with law. Sd.'- R.N. ChaRC Judge e