HIGH COURT OP CHHATnSGARH AT BILMtPUR Writ Petition No. 4703 of 2006 Petitioner Kn. Shwcte Vaidya D/o-Shri Santosh Kuniar Vaidya, Agcd about 20 years, R/o-Gr-62, Shanti Nagar, Raipur, CIihattisgarh. Versus Respondents 2. 3. 4. State of Chhattisgarh, Through-Secretaiy, DepartmcntofHealth, D.K.S. Bhawan, Maatralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Chliattisgarh Professional Exammation Board, TliToiigli - Continller, C{ 168, Taigore Nagar, Raipur, Chbattisgarh. Director, Directorate ofMedical Rdiication, Old Nurses Hostel, D.K.S. Bhawau Carupus, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Jawahar Lal Nehru Medical College, Raipur Through - Deau, Raipur, Chhatfegarh. DB: Hort'b!e Shri Justice 5. R. Noyak, C.J. & Hon'ble Shri Justice SatiA K. Agnihotri, J. Shri Paakaj Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri PTashant Mishra, Additional Advocate Geiieral with Shri Dtkarsl') Verma, Pancl lawyer for the rRspondents No. 1 to 3. ORI>E R (/''/^•ptember, 2006) The foUowiag order of the Court is passed by Sattsh K. A^iiSsotyi, <.?» 1, The petitioner, baving ohtained Higher SeRondary School Certificate, applied for Pre Medical Test to be held oa 24th and 25th May, 2006 for admission to M.B.B.S. Coiirse in tlie State Medical Colleges. Thc petitioner was declarRd as successful and was 85 \:-- directed to appear iu counseling held on 26th August, 2006, vide order dated 29.7.2006 (Anne'x-iire P/4). The petitioner was denied adtnission on the gronnd that the petitioner is not a doinicile ofthe State of CtahattisgaA. 2. Reing aggrieved the petitioner has filcd this pctition nnder Articlc 226 of the Constitiition of Tndia seKking a writ in the nature of inandaimis, dirRCting thc rp.spoTKlents to graTit arimission to the petitioner in appropriate inedical coiirsc as pcr her raTife. 3. Thc 01'il'iattisgarh Mcdical and ncntal Colleges Adinission to GKidiiation Exainination, Riiles 2000 preacribes eligihility criteria, tliat a caTidiriate shouM be a citizen of India anrt he should be a doinicile of tTie State of CTthattisgarh. Explanation -l to clause - 3 (2) of the Rutes, 2006 provides that thc doinirile of a candidate woiild he govemed by varions ineinos/circulars issued hy tbe State of Cl'iliattisgarh, tiine to tiinc. The cducational qualification for a(lTnission to gradiiate courses in medical coUeges was Higber Secondaiy School Certificate with thc subjects of Pbysics, Chemistiy, Biology, with 50<%> inartcs. The petitioner has rRqiiisife edlicafional qualification. 4. With regard to the dotnicile, the ciwnlar datcd 17.6.2003 Annexiire R-1/1 issued by the Statc Govemmcnt prescribes that a domictte of the Stete of CTiliatKsgarh woiild ineao a candidatc who fiilfflls onc criterion of the several criteria. One of tbc criteria is tliat fhe candidate should have. obtained ediication for mtoiiniiin three years in the Statc nf Chliattisgnrh or in any of tlie distoricts of fhe undwided Statc. ofMadhya Pradesli, wTlicli form part ofthe present. State of Chhattisgarli. The State/iffipondents in fheir retiim 1has catRgoricaIly statcd tliat the petitioner's domicite of the State of Clihattisgarh is riot in displite, in the foUowing terms "fi is no( dispiil.ed thn.t fshe »s a domicile of the State of CMvittisgarh. And, thercfftTf!, the cxratlar tssued! to hfr-hy thf Naih TahsSilnr is also corrRft. 5. In the coiirsc of aT^iinient Shri PTashant Mishra, leamed Additional Advocate Genersl appeiaring for thc State/rcspondeiits fairfy coiiceded and subinitted t1iat the doTnicile of the petitioner is not disputRd and tlie petitioner is a doinjcfle of thc State of Clihattisgarli. The pRtitioneris eiitiflec) to adinissioTi in the medical co11eges of fhe State, as per her rank in the list. 6. For the aforesairl reasons and c'ategorical siihmission of the leamed Additional Advocate ncneial, ttiis petitinn is allowed and thc respondents No. 1 and 3 are directf-d to adinit fhc petitioner in an appTopriatG coursc in any oftTic medical collegcs ofthe Stat, as per her rank. No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Tbakur