Case: Parbat S/O Namdeo Naikwadi Vs. The Indian Oil Corporation Limited,

2. By this Petition, the Petitioner prays for quashing and setting aside a communication dated 9th March, 2010 issued by Respondent No.1 Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Aurangabad Divisional Office, Aurangabad.

Court's reasoning:
13. After reading clause 2.2 of the advertisement, we are of the view that the said clause in respect of submission of Residence Certificate could have been clearly drafted and worded by the Respondent No.1 company. We had even verified from some of the disposed matters, the clauses in respect of Residence proof framed, by the Company and it is noticed that the same are not worded in identical fashion in which present clause 2.2 is worded. But at the same time, we could gather that the thrust of the clause is in respect of demand of Residence Certificate from the candidate. The Company had even mentioned that the said Residence Certificate issued by Talathi or Taluka Tahsildar is required.We had probed the matter little more because it was informed to the Court that the requirement of Residence Certificate of the present nature was part of advertisement in several cases and therefore the Respondent No.1 Company was keen to have final word on the said issue so that the Company could properly frame the clauses in future in the advertisement in respect of submission of Residence Certificate and the candidates properly and clearly understand the same.We have noticed that the Respondent No.1 in the present advertisement, had prescribed the proforma of applications to be submitted by the partners of the firm, cooperative societies etc. We noticed that time and again on rejection of application on the ground of want of Residence Certificate, Petitions have been filed in this Court. To avoid litigation on the issue and to have clarity on the issue, we find that it would be appropriate that if the Respondent No.1 Company drafts necessary clauses in more clear words if necessary by providing a proforma of the Residence Certificate which is required by theconcept of domicile has no relevance to the applicability of municipal laws, whether made by the Union of India or by the States. It would not, therefore, in our opinion be right to say that a citizen of India is domiciled in one state or another forming part of the Union of India.It is true and there we agree with the argument advanced on behalf of the State Governments, that the word domicile in the Rules of some of the State Governments prescribing domiciliary requirement for admission to medical colleges situate within their territories, is used not in its technical legal sense but in a popular sense as meaning residence and is intended to convey the idea of intention to reside permanently or indefinitely.The concept of domicile if used for a purpose other than its legitimate purpose may give rise to lethal radiations which may in the long run tend to break up the unity and integrity of the country. We would, therefore, strongly urge upon the State Governments to exercise this wrong use of the expression domicile from the rules regulating admissions to their educational institutions and particularly medical colleges and to desist from introducing and maintaining domiciliary requirement as a condition of eligibility for such admissions.While residence and intention are the two essential elements constituting the domicile of choice, residence in its own right is a connecting factor in a national legal system for purposes of taxation, jurisdiction, service of summons, voting etc. To read into residence volition as a necessary element is, as stated above, to mistake residence for domicile of choice, and that is the error which the High Court appears to have committed. Where residence is prescribed within a unified legal system as a qualifying condition, it is essential that the expression is so understood as to have the widest room for the full enjoyment of the right of equality before the law. Any construction which works to the disadvantage of the citizen lawfully seeking legitimate avenues of progress within the country will be out of harmony with the guaranteed rights under the Constitution, and such a construction must necessarily be avoided.Considering the definitions of term "domicile" and "residence" as dealt with in the dictionaries and the Judgments cited supra, it is noted that the domicile and residence are different and yet related concepts. They have to be understood in the context in which they are used having regard to the nature and purpose. The purpose for which clause 2.2 in the advertisement is framed by the Respondent No.1 Oil Company, is to obtain proof of residence of a person at which place the Company decided to offer and run the retail outlet. The retail outlet is to be sanctioned at village Khanapur, TalukaAkole,and therefore, rightfully the Respondent No.1 company demanded a Residence Certificate issued by Talathi or Tahsildar. It is true that the other candidates did file Residence Certificates issued by the respective Talathis but the Petitioner submitted a Domicile Certificate.23. In the facts of the case, we find that the Petitioners Domicile Certificate and even Residence Certificate annexed to the Petition refers to his residence at village Gardani,whereas the Respondent No.1 was to sanction retail outlet at village Khanapur, which is reflected at sr. no.183 of the advertisement. The explanation of the Petitioner on that ground does not satisfy condition of proof of residence of village Khanapur. We therefore, find that the Petitioner has failed to make out any case for getting the impugned communication quashed and set aside.