Rakesh Tiwari, J. - (1.) THE petitioner was applicant in C.P.M.T., 2005 for Uttaranchal seat. The results were declared in June, 2005 and she was placed at Sl. No. 36 in Uttaranchal quota; being resident of Uttaranchal, she claims that she is entitled to get Uttaranchal seat. Total seats for Uttaranchal is 33. Counselling was held on 11.7.2005 and petitioner appeared in the said counselling. However, one Niraj Singh also a candidate for Uttaranchal quota was given a seat, by mistake, in U.P. quota. When this mistake was detected, it was rectified and he was absorbed in Uttaranchal quota.
(2.) THE petitioner was ranked at Sl. No. 36 whereas total seats in Uttaranchal quota is 33. It appears is paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit that from rank 1 to 29 was allotted for MBBS course and rank No. 31 was allotted for BDS course last MBBS seat was allotted to rank 29 and 1 BDS seat was allotted to rank 31. Sri Niraj Singh, who was aspirant for Uttaranchal seat was ranked third, much higher than the petitioner. The petitioner has disputed the fact that Niraj Singh was a domicile of Uttaranchal. In reply to paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit, it has been averred in paragraph 5 of the rejoinder affidavit' that Sri Niraj Singh disclosed his domicile from U.P. Original domicile certificate was called for which has been produced in Court. From a perusal of the original domicile certificate of Sri Niraj Singh, it is crystal clear that he is resident to Tahsil and District Haridwar which falls in Uttaranchal. It has been issued after verification on 16.7.2005. Hence averments made in paragraph 5 of the rejoinder affidavit is not in accordance with the original domicile certificate which has been produced by Counsel for the respondents in Court.
(3.) IN these circumstances, no case for interference is made out. The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.;