YOGESH BHARDWAJ Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
LAWS(SC)-1990-4-36
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ALLAHABAD)
Decided on April 24,1990

YOGESH BHARDWAJ Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

DALIT VERG JAN KALAYAN SAMITI VS. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD [LAWS(P&H)-1996-9-1] [REFERRED TO]
KOCHIKAR KETAN MANOHAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-1993-10-61] [REFERRED TO]
AMON RANA VS. STATE OF MEGHALAYA [LAWS(MEGH)-2018-12-2] [REFERRED TO]
NEETIKA GUPTA VS. DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION LUCKNOW [LAWS(UTN)-2003-5-1] [REFERRED TO]
J. K. VS. N. S. [LAWS(DLH)-2019-7-24] [REFERRED TO]
PARBAT ALIAS NAMDEO NAIKWADI VS. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED [LAWS(BOM)-2010-4-148] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK KUMAR SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2002-7-108] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ASSAM VS. SITALAKSHMI SRINIVASAN [LAWS(GAU)-2013-9-31] [REFERRED TO]
DR. ARVIND KISHORE VS. SMT. NEHA MATHUR [LAWS(RAJ)-2020-1-67] [REFERRED TO]
ABHISHEK RISHI VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2013-4-90] [REFERRED TO]
ADESH GUPTA VS. SADHNA GUPTA [LAWS(MPH)-2012-1-10] [REFERRED TO]
Prashant Vidyarthy And Suman Kr.... VS. State Of Jharkhand [LAWS(JHAR)-2002-11-20] [REFERRED TO]
RASHMI PANDEY VS. CHAIRMAN MANAGING DIRECTOR HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD [LAWS(ALL)-2006-12-29] [REFERRED TO]
NITESH AGRAWAL VS. SMT. ARTI AGRAWAAL [LAWS(MPH)-2018-7-401] [REFERRED TO]
V. PRAKASH @ G.N.V. PRAKASH VS. P.S. GOVINDASWAMY NAIDU AND SONS CHARITIES [LAWS(SC)-2022-5-33] [REFERRED TO]
BRIJESH KUMAR VS. MOHAN LAL SUKHADIA UNIVERSITY [LAWS(RAJ)-1995-7-58] [REFERRED TO]
RESHMA C B VS. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION [LAWS(KER)-2008-5-5] [REFERRED TO]
TANVI BEHL VS. SHREY GOEL [LAWS(SC)-2019-12-27] [REFERRED TO]
SONDUR RAJINI VS. SONDUR GOPAL [LAWS(BOM)-2005-4-103] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This appeal by special leave is against the Order of' the Allahabad High Court , Lucknow Bench, in C.M. Application No. 17984(W) of 1989 in Writ Petition No. 5400 of 1989. The application for clarification and modification of the judgment in the writ petition was filed in the High Court by the appellant, though not a party to that proceeding, on the ground that he was adversely affected by it.
(2.)The appellant was nominated by the State of Himachal Pradesh to undergo the B.D.S. course in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The appellant successfully completed his course of studies in Uttar Pradesh and secured the B.D.S. degree. For that purpose he had stayed in that State for over a period of five years. He later applied for admission to the M.D.S. course at King George Medical College, Lucknow. He secured admission to the course, but in a subject other than that of his choice. The subject of his choice was Oral Surgery, but what was offered to him was Periodontics. The reason for denying the appellant the subject of his choice was that he had to step down in favour of others who had come within the rule of preference as per the Notification dated August 19, 1983 issued under S. 36(5) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1974 (U.P.Act, No. 29 of 1974) providing for residence qualification for selection to the M.D.S. course.
(3.)By the impugned order the, High Court rejected the appellant's prayer for clarification and modification of its judgment in Writ Petition No. 5400 of 1988 and held that that judgment was rendered in accordance what the principle laid down in its earlier decision residence qualification prescribed by the Notification was so construed as to be applicable only to a person who was a resident in the State of Utter Pradesh for reasons other that that of merely completing a course of studies. In other words, the High Court refused to accept the appellant's contention that the residence qualification should be so construed as to entitle to admission a person, like the appellant, who had come from outside the State strictly and solely for the purpose of undergoing a course of studies and returning to his own State upon completion of the course. The High Court held that residence strictly for studies without more did not bring a person within the ambit of the Notification. This is what the High Court stated in its judgment in Writ Petition No. 5400 of 1989, clarification of which was sought by the appellant :
"In other words those candidates who joined B. D.S. Course on the basis of nominations made by the Central Government or their own State and were riot bona fide residents of the State of' Uttar Pradesh prior to joining the B.D.S. course will not be treated to be bona fide residents of Uttar Pradesh merely because they have stayed in the State of Uttar Pradesh for five years or more for completion of the B.D.S. course or housemanship."

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.