HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 2047 of 2008 (M/S) Archit Prashar … Petitioner .. Versus State of Uttarakhand & others … Respondents Mr. A.V. Pundir, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent nos. 1, 3 and 4. Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, Advocate for respondent no. 2. 16th December, 2009 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Heard Sri Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate for the petitioner, Sri K.P. Upadhyay, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent nos. 1, 3 and 4 as well as Sri Rajendra Dobhal, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri D.C.S. Rawat, Advocate for respondent no. 2. This writ petition was filed by the petitioner whose admission was cancelled by the respondents, as the petitioner in order to gain admission in the medical college i.e. Uttarakhand Forest Hospital Trust Medical College, Haldwani, Nainital has filed a false domicile certificate saying that he is actually a domicile of Uttarakhand though he was not a domicile of the State of Uttarakhand. This Court vide order dated 16.2.2009 had directed that a high level committee be constituted to examine these matters and consequent to the order of this Court a committee was constituted consisting of Principal Secretary/Secretary Medical Education, Government of Uttarakhand, Dehradun, Principal Secretary/Secretary Forest, Uttarakhand and the District Magistrate of Dehradun, Haridwar and Udham Singh Nagar respectively as well as the Principal, Uttarakhand 2 Forest Hospital Trust Medical College, Rampur Road, Haldwani, District Nainital. The committee examined each individual case on its merit and as far as the case of the petitioner is concerned, they came to the conclusion that the District Magistrate, Haridwar has informed that he has not issued any certificate namely certificate no. 6380 which deposited by the petitioner before the medical college authorities. In effect, there is an interpolation in the register, as well as a consequence of which the concerned clerk Mr. Dinesh Kumar has been suspended. It has also been come out in the report that certificate no. 6380 has actually been issued in the name of some other person and not in the name of present petitioner i.e. Archit Prashar. The petitioner was also examined in person and the record submitted by him was also examined by this committee and the committee came to the conclusion that he was not a permanent resident of Uttarakhand. The certificate no. 6380 is entirely forged, etc. Though this Court has held in its judgment in Neha Saini v. State of Uttarakhand in W.P. No. 146 of 2009 (M/S) that there is nothing like a domicile of Uttarakhand and, therefore, if a medical college grants admission to any student purely on the basis that he or she is a domicile of Uttarakhand or denies admission to someone purely on the basis that he or she is not a domicile of Uttarakhand then such an action would be totally illegal and in fact unconstitutional. All the same, this is not an issue in the present writ petition. The petitioner has not challenged the demand of the respondents regarding domicile certificate. In fact, on the other hand, in order to meet the ‘”requirement of domicile” he has filed a forged and fabricated certificate to the concerned authorities, purely in order to deceive the medical authorities and to gain admission in the college. 3 Sri Rajendra Dobhal, Senior Advocate for the Uttarakhand Forest Hospital Trust, Medical College, Haldwani and Sri K.P. Upadhyay, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand have apprised this Court that similar matters have already been dismissed by this Court. This Court finds no ground for any interference in the matter. This writ petition has absolutely no merit and is liable to be dismissed as such. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Ajay Veer Pundir at this stage has urged that since the petitioner has already completed his first year and this year will be wasted and he is prepared to take re-admission, he may be allowed to move a representation to the medical college. Regarding the merit of the case, this Court has already expressed its view in the preceding paragraph and has dismissed the writ petition. The petitioner, however, is free to make any representation regarding his re-admission before the concerned authority. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 16.12.2009 Avneet