DR. YOGESH BHARDWAJ versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [1990] 2 S.C.R. 666 · Decided: 24-04-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L.M. SHARMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
DR. YOGESH BHARDWAJ 
V. 
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
APRIL 24, 1990 • 
B 
[LALIT MOHAN SHARMA AND T. KOCHU THOMMEN, JJ.] 
Professional Colleges-Admission to. 
U.P. State Universities Act, 1974-Section 28(5) and Notification 
dated August 19, 1983-Clauses 2 and 4-Medical College-Admission 
I 
C to M.D.S. course-Residence qualificatitm-Residence of five years in 
State of U.P. solely for purpose of pursuing B.D.S. course-Held 
amounts to bona fide residence in the State and eligible for admission to 
M. D.S. course-'Domicile' --Concept of in private international law-
Inapposite and inapplicable in the context. 
D 
Private International Law: Domicial-Concept of-Where single 
unified system of law prevails-Domicile is of the whole country-Not 
Statewise domicile-Mere residence in a State does not comprehend 
volition or intention to settle therein permanently-Residence should be 
voluntary and lawful, not fleeting or transitory. 
ll 
The appellant who was nominated by the State of Himachal 
Pradesh to undergo the B.D.S. course in the State of Uttar Pradesh, 
successfully completed his course and secured the B.D.S. degree. For 
this purpose he had stayed in that State for over a period of five years. 
Later, he applied for admission to the M.D.S. course at King George 
Medical College, Lucknow· and the subject of his choice was Oral 
F 
Surgery. He secured admission but the subject that was offered to him 
was Periodontics. 
The reason for denying the appellant the subjectof his choice, viz. 
Oral Surgery; was that he had to step down in favour of others who had 
come within the rule of preference pro~ided for in the Notification 
O 
dated August 19, 1983. issued under Section 28(5) of the U.P. State 
Lniversities Act, 1974, providing for reservation of seats, and prescrib-
ing a residence qualification for selection to the M.D.S. course. 
The High Court in its judgment in Writ Petition No. 5400 of 1989 
following an earlier decision of the Court held that those candidates 
H 
who joined B.D.S. course on the basis of nominations made by the 
666 
.. 
-- . 
-
Y. BHARDWAJ v. STATE OF U.P. 
667 
Central Government or their own State will not be treated to be bona 
fide residents of Uttar Pradesh merely because they have stayed in the 
State for five years for completion of the course. 
The appellant who was not a party to the proceedings in the writ 
petition applied for clarification and modification on the said judgment 
as it had adversely affected him. The High Court rejected the applica-
tion, holding that clause 2 of Notification stipulates two conditions viz: 
(i) institutional and (ii) residential: and that the appellant satisfies the 
first requirement, namely, institutional but does not fnltil the second 
requirement, viz 'bona fide resident'; that a 'bona fide resident' is one 
who comes within the meaning of that expression in clause 4 of this 
Notification, and that residence merely for the purpose of studies would 
not satisfy the requirement of clause 4. 
In the appeal to this Court on the question: Whether the appellant 
was a 'bona fide resident of Uttar Pradesh' within the meaning of 
clause (b) of the Notification dated August 19, 1983. 
Allowing the appeal, and setting aside the order of the High 
Court, this Court, 
HELD: 1. A person is treated as a 'bona fide resident of Uttar 
Pradesh' in terms of sub-clauses (a) and (b) of Clause 4 hy reason of 
either his 'domicile' or 'residence' in that State. While sub-clause (a) 
speaks of the domicile of the candidate and his father, sub-clause (b) 
speaks of a person, whose father was not domiciled in the State and who 
himself has resided for not less than five years in the State. The concept 
of domicile is irrelevant to the construction nf sub-clause (b) in respect 
of the residence qualification of the candidate. All that it requires is his 
requisite residence. [673A-BJ 
2. Clauses 2 and 4 indicate that a person should have resided in 
Uttar Pradesh for the requisite period lawfully and bona fide. The 
convers of bonafide being mala fide, meaning lack of good faith, in the 
absence of any allegation that the appellant's residence in that State was 
in any manner opposed to the law of the land, or tainted hy lack of good 
faith, and in the light of the undisputed fact that his residence was 
neither casual nor fleeting, but in excess of the minimum period of five 
years, and for the definite purpose of education, he satisfies the defini-
tion of a 'bona fid

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.