K. SHIVASHANKAR v. UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE — 1969 DIGILAW 134 (KAR)

CHANDRASHEKHAR, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners were applicants for admission to Medical Colleges in mysore State. They were not selected for admission. The principal ground for not selecting them, was that they did not satisfy the requirement of residence in Mysore State for not less than 10 years. In these petitions, their grievance is about their non-selection. By its order dated 17-7-1969, the Government of Mysore framed rules for selection of candidates for admission to the MBBS. Degree course in the four Government Medical Colleges and for certain seats in the four private Medical Colleges. These Rules shall hereinafter be referred to as the Rules. ( 2 ) RULE 2 of these Rules deals with eligibility for admission. The main part of sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 reads: (3) Domicile, etc.-No person who is not a citizen of India and who is not domiciled and resident in the State of Mysore for not less than ten years at any time prior to the date of the application for a seat, shall be eligible to apply: the provisio to this sub-rule states that the above requirements shall not apply to certain categories of applicants in whose favour reservation of seats is provided under Rule 4, and in the case of children of Centra government employees serving on duty in the State at the time of making the application. ( 3 ) RULE 10 sets out the procedure lor selection of applicants for admission to Medical Colleges. Sub-rule (4) of this Rule provides that the Selection committee shall call the applicants for interview for verifying the particulars furnished by them or to obtain any clarification which the Selection Committee may need for this purpose the Selection Committee has been empowered to make such enquiry as it deems fit. The proviso to this sub-rule states that no application shall be rejected except after giving the applicant an opportunity of being heard. ( 4 ) THE petitioners have challenged the constitutionality of sub-rule (3) of Rule 2, in so far as it requires a residence of not less than 10 years, as a condition of eligibility for admission to Medical Colleges. It was contended that the reqirement of residence in addition to domicile in mysore State, as a condition of eligibility for admission to Medical colleges, is invalid. It was contended that the reqirement of residence in addition to domicile in mysore State, as a condition of eligibility for admission to Medical colleges, is invalid. It was also contended that the period of 10 years residence prescribed under sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 is unduly long, unreasonable, arbitrary and hence void. ( 5 ) THE petitioners have also assailed the decisions of the Selection Committee for admission to Medical Colleges, holding that they did not satisfy that they had resided in Mysore State for not less than 10, years. The validity of the requirement of domicile in Mysore State as a condition of eligibility for admission to Medical Colleges, was not challenged by any of the petitioners. Mr. M. Rama Jois, learned Counsel for some of the petitioners, also contended that the two requirements of domicile and residence under sub-rule (3) of Rule 2, are alternative and not cumulative. In other words, according to Mr. Rama Jois, the word, 'and', occurring in sub-rule (3) between the words, 'domicile' and 'residence', should be read as 'or,. We shall now examine these contentions. ( 6 ) FROM a plain reading of sub-rule (3) of Rule 2, it appears that the requirements of domicile in Mysore State and residence in Mysore State for not less than 10 years, are conjunctive. That is, both these requirements must be satisfied in order to be eligibile to apply. No doubt, it is one of the rules of interpretation of statutes, thai it is permissible to read 'and' as 'or' and vice-versa to avoid absurd consequences which could not have been intended by the legislature. But it is a well-settled rule of construction that 'and' does not generally mean 'or' and unless there are compelling reasons, and' must be read only as 'and' and not as 'or'. Mr. Rama Jois submitted that if the two requirements of domicile and residence are regarded as conjunctive, a student who is born and domiciled in Mysore but who had to reside outside Mysore State either for the purpose of education or on account of his parents being employed outside mysore State, will not be eligible for admission to Medical Colleges in the state. It was said by Mr. It was said by Mr. Rama Jois that the Government has an obligation to provide education to persons domiciled in Mysore State and that the Government cannot deny educational facilities to students domiciled in Mysore State merely because they did not reside in Mysore State for any particular length of time. ( 7 ) WE shall examine separately whether the requirement of residence in addition to domicile is unconstitutional. But Mr. Rama Jois has not been able to show that any absurd consequences would follow if the requirements of domicile and residence are regarded as conjunctive and not alternative. There is no compelling reason to hold that the framers of the rule did not intend that the requirements of domicile and residence should both be satisfied before an applicant is regarded as eligible; nor can we hold that the Government intended to extend the benefit of admission to government Medical Colleges to persons who are not domiciled in Mysore state but have merely resided in Mysore for not less than 10 years. Thus, we are unable to accede to the contention of Mr. Rama Jois that the requirements of domicile and residence are alternative and that an applicant who is domiciled in Mysore need not satisfy the requirement of residence in Mysore State. ( 8 ) NONE of learned Counsel for the petitioners challenged the validity of the requirement of domicile simplicitor as one of the conditions of eligibility for admission. It is only the additional requirement of residence over and above the requirement of domicile that has been assailed. Mr. S. K. Venkataranga Iyengar, learned Counsel for some of the petitioners, contended that the requrement of residence over and above the requirement of domicile, is unconstitutional and hence invalid. We shall now examine whether there is any prohibition in the Constitution against residence being one of the conditions of eligibility for admission to educational institutions. Clause (1) of Art. 15 reads: "the State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them. Clause (2) of Art. 29 of the Constitution reads: "no citizen shall be denied admission into any educational institution maintained by the State or receiving aid out of State funds on grounds only of religion, race, caste, language or any of them. Clause (2) of Art. 29 of the Constitution reads: "no citizen shall be denied admission into any educational institution maintained by the State or receiving aid out of State funds on grounds only of religion, race, caste, language or any of them. '" ( 9 ) IT is seen that neither Clause (1) of Art. 15, nor Clause (2) of Art. 29, prohibits any discrimination on the ground of residence. No doubt, Cl. (1) of Art. 15 prohibits discrimination on the ground of place of birth. But, as pointed out by the Supreme Court in D. P. Joshi v. State of Madhya bharath, AIR. 1965 SC. 334 the place of birth is not the same thing as residence. This is what Venkatarama Ayyar, J. , who spoke for the majority of the Bench, said at page 336:"the ground for exemption from payment of capitation fee as laid down therein is 'bonafi. de' residence in the State of Madhya Bharath. Residence and place of birth are two distinct conceptions with different connotations both in law and in fact, and when Art. 15 (1) prohibits discrimination based on the place of birth, it cannot be read as prohibiting discrimination based on residence. " ( 10 ) HOWEVER, learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that the requirement ' of residence for any particular period, in addition to the requirement of domicile, as a condition of eligibility for admission, is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. Elaborating this contention, it was said that Rule 2 (3) divides applicants who fulfil the requirement of domicile into two classes, namely, those domiciled in Mysore (who will hereinafter be referred to, for the sake of convenience as domiciled Mysoreans) who have resided in Mysore State for any particular period, and those domiciled Mysoreans who have not so resided in Mysore State. It was argued that such classification is not a valid one, as it has no rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the Rules and hence such classification is offensive to Art. 14 of the Constitution. It was also said that the duty of the Government is to treat all domiciled Mysoreans alike irrespective cf their residing or not residing in Mysore State for any particular length of time. It was also said that the duty of the Government is to treat all domiciled Mysoreans alike irrespective cf their residing or not residing in Mysore State for any particular length of time. ( 11 ) WHAT sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 has done is to classify domiciled Mysoreans into two categories namely, those who have and those who have not, resided in Mysore State for not less than 10 years, and to make only the former category of domiciled Mysoreans eligible for admission. Thus, the classification is based on residence. In D. P. Joshi v. State of M. B. , the rules regulating admission to the Medical College at Indore, provided that for all students who were 'bona fide' resdients of Madhya Bharath, no capitation fee should be charged, but for other non-Madhya Bharath students certain capitation fee should be charged. It was contended there that the Imposition of capitation fee on some of the students and not on others, was discriminatory and in contravention of Art. 14 of the Constitution. Repelling that contention this is what Venkatarama Avvar, J. . who spoke for the majority view, said at page 340:"the impugned rule divides, as already stated, self-nominees into two groups, those who are 'bona fide' residents of Madhya Bharath and those who are not and while it imposes a capitation fee on the latter, It exempts the former from the payment thereof. It thus proceeds on a classification based on residence within the State, and the only point for decision is whether the ground of classification has a fair and substantial relation to the purpose of the law, or whether it is purely arbitrary and fanciful. " ( 12 ) THE object of the classification underliving the impugned rule was clearly to help to some extent students who are residents of Madhya bharat in the prosecution of their studies, and it cannot be disputed that it is quite a legitimate and laudable objective for a State to encourage education within its borders. Education is a State subject, and one of the directive principles declared in Part -IV of the Constitution is that the State shduld make effective provisions for education within the limits of its economy (vide Art. 41 ). The State has to contribute for the upkeep and the running of its educational institutions. Education is a State subject, and one of the directive principles declared in Part -IV of the Constitution is that the State shduld make effective provisions for education within the limits of its economy (vide Art. 41 ). The State has to contribute for the upkeep and the running of its educational institutions. We are in this petition concerned with a Medical College, and it is well-known that it requires considerable finance to maintain such an institution. If the State has to spend money on it, is it unreasonable that it should so order the educational system that the advantage of it would to some extent at least enure for the benefit of the state ? A concession given to the residents of the State in the matter of fees is obviously calculated to serve that end, as presumably some of them might, after passing out of the College, settle down as doctors and serve the needs of the locality. The classification is thus based on a ground which has a reasonable relation to the subject-matter of the legislation, and is in consequence not open to attack. ( 13 ) WE think the above reasoning of the Supreme Court is equally applicable to classification of applicants domiciled in Mysore on the basis of their residence in Mysore State for not less than 10 years. The object of the classification is to give preference to those domiciled applicants who are residents in Mysore State for a long time, in prosecuting studies in the medical education and to encourage medical education within its borders. Establishment and maintenance of Medical Colleges require large funds Compared to the number of students seeking admission to medical Colleges the number of seats available in Government medical Colleges and the seats in private Medical Colleges set apart for allotment by the Government are very limited. Establishment and maintenance of Medical Colleges require large funds Compared to the number of students seeking admission to medical Colleges the number of seats available in Government medical Colleges and the seats in private Medical Colleges set apart for allotment by the Government are very limited. The obligation of the State government to provide medical education is more towards domiciled mysoreans who have, for a long time, resided within its borders and who must necessarily depend upon this State to provide such education, rather than towards Mysoreans, who though domiciled, are residing or who have resided mostly, outside the State Domiciled Mysorean candidates who have resided m Mysore State for a long time are more likely to settle down as doctors in Mysore State after completing medical education, than domiciled mysorean candidates who have not resided at all in Mysore State or who have resided there only for a comparatively short period. ( 14 ) AMONG domiciled Mvsoreans, giving preference to those who have been residing within Mysore State for a long time, cannot be said to be unreasonable Tf domicile, bv Itself, is a valid basis of classification of applicants for admission to Medicial Colleges in the State and if residence, bv itself, is also a valid basis of classification of such applicants, there is no reason why domicile and residence conjunctively cannot be a valid basis of classification. Thus, the classification of domiciled Mysoreans on the basis of length of residence, has a responable relation to the object of the Rules which regulate admission to Medical Colleges. ( 15 ) HOWEVER, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that this court has held in G Anil Kumar v. State of Mysore, 17 LR. 110 that the obligation of the State is for domiciled Mysoreans that the State cannot divide domiciled Mysoreans into two classes in such a way as to deprive one of those classes the benefit of facilities for medical education, and that it is not permissible for the State to make any discrimination among domiciled mysoreans on the basis of residence In particular, reliance was placed on the following observations in paras 34 and 35 (at pages 129 and 130) of the order in that case:"the further statement that the State is responsible to provide facilities to its residents is incomplete and inaccurate. The correct position is that its responsibility is towards domiciled Mysoreans. The correct position is that its responsibility is towards domiciled Mysoreans. Rule 4 itself proceeds on that basis and prescribes domicile in Mysore as one of the conditions for securing educational facilities provided by the State. . . . . . . . . . . . . Once it is apparent that Rule 4, in the light of Art. 41 of the Constitution, is intended to be in discharge of the State's obligation to provide educational facilities to domiciled mysoreans, to divide them into two classes in such a way as to deprive one class of the benefit of such facilities is clearly to bring about a classification which is not only unrelated to the mam object of the rule but also destructive of its object in certain cases. " ( 16 ) THOUGH some of the above observations may, at first sight, seem to lend support to the contention of the petitioners, we think they have to be understood in the context in which they were made. In that case, the validity of rule 4 of the Rules for admission to Medical Colleges for the academic year 1968-69, came up for consideration. That Rule read:"4. Domicile etc.-No person who is not a citizen of India and who is not domiciled and resident in the State of Mysore for not less than five years at any time during a period of ten years immediately prior to the date of the application for a seat shall be eligible to apply. "the ground on which the above Rule was challenged was that the requirement of residence in Mysore State for a total period of five years, should be within a period of 10 years immediately prior to the date of the application, was invalid. On this question, the decision of their Lordships, to put it in their own words, was"we therefore hold that, to the extent Rule 4 requires that five years' residence must be within a period of ten years immediately preceding the date of application, the said rule is invalid and unenforceable. For the rule to be valid, the words " during a period of ten years immediately " should stand deleted. For the rule to be valid, the words " during a period of ten years immediately " should stand deleted. " ( 17 ) THUS, it is clear that what was in issue before their Lordships, was whether the requirement that the residence of 5 years should be within a perod of 10 years immediately preceding the date of application, was a valid provision. It was not contended before their Lordships that the requirement of residence of five years over and above the requirement of domicile, was not a valid provision. Nor was it contended there that there should be no requirement of residence for any period once the requirement of domicile in Mysore State was satisfied by an applicant. ( 18 ) HENCE, the observations of their Lordships cannot be understood as laying down a proposition that the State Government cannot validly prescribe the requirement of residence as an additional condition to be fulfilled by domiciled Mysoreans. In fact their Lordships held as valid Rule 4 without the words "during the period of 10 years immediately". Without those words, that Rule would read: "no person who is not a citizen of India and who is not domiciled and resident in the State of Mysore for not less than 5 years prior to the date of the application shall be eligible to apply. " in our opinion, the decision of this Court in Anil Kumar's case (2) does not lend any support to the contention of the petitioners that the requirement of residence in addition to the requirement of domicile, is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. ( 19 ) MR. Rama Jois submitted that the petitioner in W. P. No. 5869 of 1969 is a domiciled Mysorean coming from Jaigoan village in Bhalki Taluk in bidar District which was in the former State of Hyderabad, that his parents are residing there, that as there are no educational facilities in his village, he stayed with his close relatives and studied in Udgir which was also in the former State of Hyderabad, and which is now in the State of Maharashtra, and that he is now considered ineligible for admission, because he did not reside in Mysore State for not less than 10 years. Mr. Mr. Rama Jois argued that this case clearly illustrates the unreasonableness of Rule 2 (3) and the injustice that would result from requiring residence for any particular period, even in the cases of domiciled Mysoreans. ( 20 ) IF sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 is, by and large, not an unreasonable one, the mere fact that in some unusual circumstances, hardship may be caused to some persons by the application of this sub-rule, will not be a ground for holding the rule as unreasonable. A very large majority of persons who are domiciled in Mysore State, also reside generally within the State, To give preferential treatment to applicants who are both domiciled in mysore State and have resided in Mysore State for a long period, over applicants who are only domiciled in Mysore State but have not resided for a long period in Mysore State, cannot, in our opinion, be said to be unreasonable. ( 21 ) IT was next contended that the period of ten years residence prescribed as a condition of eligibility for admission, is unduly long, arbitrary and unreasonable. It was said that in previous years the period of residence prescribed as a condition of eligibility for admission, was only five years and that the State has arbitrarily increased the period of residence to 10 years. That a shorter period of residence had been prescribed in the rules in force in the previous years, does not necessarily mean that a longer period prescribed in the present Rules, is unreasonable or arbitrary. ( 22 ) MR. Datar argued that any period of residence arbitrarily fixed cannot be a valid basis for classification. In support of his contention, Mr. Datar invited our attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in D. R. Nim v. Union of India,. 14 LR. 165, SC. There, the seniority of the appellant had to be determined under the Indian Police Service (Regulation of Seniority) rules, 1954. The second proviso to Rule 3 (3) of those Rules stated that an officer appointed to the service after commencement of those rules, shall be deemed to have officiated continuously in a senior post prior to the date of the inclusion of his name, if the period of such officiation prior to that date was approved by the Central Government in consultation with the Union public Service Commission. In consultation with the said Commission, the Central Government decided that in the case of Police Officers appointed to the service after 19-5-1951, their officiation prior to that date could not count for the purpose of seniority and the year of allotment. The Supreme Court held that the date, 19-5-1951, was an artificial and arbitrary date and that the fixation of such date and ignoring the period of officiation prior to that date, were contrary to rule 3. The Supreme Court quashed the order of the Central Government fixing that date. Mr. Datar next referred to the following observations of the Full bench of the Bombay High Court in Balabhau Manaji v. Bapuji Satwaji,60 Bom. L. R. 18, F. B. "it is perfectly true that it is open to the Legislature to have a classification on the basis of time just as much as it can have a basis on geographical or territorial considerations. But if the Legislature brings about a classification on the basis of time, the point of time selected must be for some rational and intelligible consideration. A purely arbitrary or capricious selection of time could not possibly form the basis of a rational classification. " ( 23 ) THE above observations were made while considering the validity of sub-sec. (3) of S. 242 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code which provided that suits to enforce a right of preemption under a particular act after a particular date, shall stand dismissed. Both the above two decisions refer to selection of a particular date and making a distinction between acts done or things that took place prior to that date and those after that date. But in Rule 2 (3) no such date has been fixed. What is taken as the basis for classification in Rule 2 (3) is a specific period, namely, 10 years, in regard to residence. Hence, the above two decisions have no application to the present cases. Mr. Datar also referred to Cl. (c) of Art. 5 of the Constitution which provides that a person who has his domicile in the territory of India and who has been ordinarily resident in the territory of India for not less than five years immediately preceding the commencement of the Constitution, shall be a citizen of India. Mr. Mr. Datar also referred to Cl. (c) of Art. 5 of the Constitution which provides that a person who has his domicile in the territory of India and who has been ordinarily resident in the territory of India for not less than five years immediately preceding the commencement of the Constitution, shall be a citizen of India. Mr. Datar argued that when the Constitution itself has considered 5 years residence in the territory of India as sufficient for the purpose of conferring citizenship of India to a person domiciled in India, the requirement of 10 years residence in Mysore State even for a domiciled Mysorean as a condition of eligibility under Rule 2 (3) is unreasonably long and arbitrary. ( 24 ) THAT a period of 5 years residence was prescribed under Art. 5 of the constitution, for acquiring citizenship of India in the case of a domiciled person at the commencement of the Constitution, does not mean/that for an altogether different purpose, namely, eligibility for admission to medical Colleges, prescription of residence as 10 years would necessarily be unreasonable. What would be a reasonable period of residence as a condition of eligibility, would depend upon the object for which such residence is prescribed. Students seek admission to Medical Colleges generally between the ages of 16 and 20 years. The effect of the requirement of residence for not less than 10 years on the part of the students, is that only those domiciled students who have resided in Mysore State during a major portion of their lives, will satisfy the requirements of eligibility. ( 25 ) IN the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State in W. P. No. 6268 of 1969 (which was heard along with these petitions), the rationale of fixing 10 years as the period of residence for eligibility, is stated as the probability that persons who have spent a greater part of their lives in mysore State before seeking admission to Medical Colleges, will settle down as doctors in Mysore State and serve the needs of persons residing in the State. The mere fact that Rule 2 (3) requires a longer period of residence (than the previous rule), does not make that Rule unreasonable. Hence, the period of 10 years prescribed as the minimum period for satisfying the requirement of residence cannot be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable or unduly long. The mere fact that Rule 2 (3) requires a longer period of residence (than the previous rule), does not make that Rule unreasonable. Hence, the period of 10 years prescribed as the minimum period for satisfying the requirement of residence cannot be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable or unduly long. ( 26 ) THE petitioners' attack on the constitutionality of sub-rule (3) of rule 2, must fail. We shall now examine the decisions of the Selection Commitee in individual cases of these petitioners. W. P. No. 5780 of 1969: the petitioner, M. K. Deviprasad, stated in his application that he was born in Mangalore and was domiciled in Mysore, that between 1964 and 1969 he studied in Madras. The petitioner's father made a declaration in the application form that the petitioner has domicile in Mysore State and has resided in South Kanara District for not less than 10 years. At the time of the interview, the petitioner was asked questions about his place of residence and he wrote on a sheet of paper stating that he studied privately in his native place, later joined St. Bede's High School at Madras wnere he had his Middle and High Schools education, tnat he stayed in Madras for a period oi 8 years, and that he had no certificate to prove about his private studies before he went to Madras. ( 27 ) AFTER the interview, the petitioner addressed a letter to the Selection committee enclosing the certificate issued by a retired teacher to the effect that he gave private tuition to the petitioner from January 1954 to the end of March 1957. The petitioner also enclosed a certificate of the patel of Amblamogaru village, Mangalore Taluk, to the effect that the petitioner was staying in his ancestral home at Mangalore for a period of two months every year between 1961 and 1969. As the age of the petitioner was stated as 17 years and 10 months, the selection Committee took the view that his residence in Mysore State was only for 9 years, and that he did not fulfil the requirement of residence for not less than 10 years. As the age of the petitioner was stated as 17 years and 10 months, the selection Committee took the view that his residence in Mysore State was only for 9 years, and that he did not fulfil the requirement of residence for not less than 10 years. ( 28 ) IN the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Selection Committee, it is stated that the said Committee did not believe the certificate issued by one Srinivasa Rao, a retired teacher, to the effect that he gave private coaching to the petitioner in the Nursery Standard from January 1954 up-to the end of March 1957. It is also stated in the counter-affidavit that the certificate of the Patel of Amblamogaru village did not bear any date and that the Selection Committee did not accept that certificate, It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that as the petitioner's father was employed as Supervisor in Madras, the Committee felt that the petitioner must have stayed all along with his father to prosecute studies at Madras. ( 29 ) MR. H. B. Datar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that the Selection Committee did not consider the petitioner's averment supported by the certificate of the Patel produced along with the application, to the effect that between 1961 and 1969 he (the petitioner) was staying for a period of 2 months in his ancestral home in South Kanara during each summer vacation. Mr. Datar submitted that if this aggregate period of 16 months should be added, to the period of his residence in South kanara before he went to Madras to join St. Bede's School, the total period of his residence in Mysore State, would be over 10 years. Even according to the petitioner's own statement at the time-of-interview, he resided in Madras for 8 years. His plea that he used to stay in his native village for two months during each summer vacation, even if true, does not amount to residence, because a casual or temporary stay for one or two months at a place (during the school holidays), cannot amount to residence, for the purpose of this Rule. Excluding the periods of stay during summer vacations, the petitioner's own statements show that his residence in Mysore State was for less than 10 years. Hence, the selection Committee was justified in rejecting his applicaton. Excluding the periods of stay during summer vacations, the petitioner's own statements show that his residence in Mysore State was for less than 10 years. Hence, the selection Committee was justified in rejecting his applicaton. ( 30 ) THE petitioner, K. V. Narasamma, has stated in her application for admission, that she was born in Handihal, Bellary Taluk, that her father has settled in Bellary District and has properties there, and that She studied in Kurnool District between 1965 and 1969. She has stated her age as 17 years and 3 months. In the affidavit in support of the petition, the petitioner's father has alleged that she resided in Handihal village upto the age of 11 years when she passed the 5th class examination. ( 31 ) WHEN we heard the arguments of learned Counsel for the parties on the first occasion, we were under the impression that the Selection Committee should be directed to give the petitioner an opportunity of being heard in regard to her residence in Mysore State. But on a further examination of the materials, we found that our first impression may not be correct and therefore considered it necessary to hear learned Counsel again. The petition was again posted for hearing and we heard further arguments of Mr. U. L. Narayana Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner. ( 32 ) IN the counter-affidavit presented on behalf of the Selection Committee the following among other grounds, are stated for rejecting her application: (i) The declaration of domicile and residence in her application, related to her father and not to her; (u) She did not produce along with her application the domicile certificate from a Gazetted Officer; and (iii) She did not produce at the interview the certificates of the institutions from the nursery to the highest class, in which she studied. We have perused the petitioner's application for admission, which was produced by the learned Government Pleader. In the foot-note at page 7 of the application form, there is an instruction that the declaration of domicile should be made by the applicant if he is a major, and if he is a minor, by his parent or guardian and that in either case, the declaration should relate to the domicile of the applicant. ( 33 ) IN the declaration of domicile and residence in the petitioner's application, the word, 'candidate', has been struck off. ( 33 ) IN the declaration of domicile and residence in the petitioner's application, the word, 'candidate', has been struck off. The Selection Committee is right in saying that the declaration of domcile and residence, did not relate to the petitioner but to her father. In the reply affidavit presented by the petitioner's father it is contended that the above error is immaterial because the domicile of a minor is same as that of his or her father. No doubt, it is so. But, what Rule 2 (3) requires is that an applicant must also have resided in Mysore State for not less than 10 years. The requirement of residence is that of the applicant and not that of his father. The declaration relating to the petitioner's father's residence, cannot be treated as a declaration of her residence. ( 34 ) THE petitioner, K, R. Rajaram, stated in his application that he was born in Koni village in Coondapur Taluk, that his father has settled down in South Kanara and has properties there, that he is domiciled in Mysore state, that he has resided in Mysore State for 11 years, and that he passed the Higher Secondary Certificate Examination of Sri Venkateshwara university. He claimed to belong to socially and educationally backward classes as his father is an agriculturist with an annual income of Rs. 800. In his affidavit in support of his application, he has averred that he was born on 1-6-1951, that between 5-7-1956 and 21-5-1961 he studied in koni village in Coondapur Taluk, and that after passing the V Standard, he went to Hindupur in Ananthapura District. ( 35 ) WHEN we heard the arguments of learned Counsel for the parties on the first occasion, we were under the impression that the Selection Committee should be directed to afford the petitioner an opportunity of being heard in regard to his domicile and residence in Mysore State. But, on a further examination of the materials, we found that the first impression may not be correct and therefore considered necessary to hear learned counsel again. The petition was again posted for hearing. We heard further arguments of Mr. U. L. Narayana Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner. But, on a further examination of the materials, we found that the first impression may not be correct and therefore considered necessary to hear learned counsel again. The petition was again posted for hearing. We heard further arguments of Mr. U. L. Narayana Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner. ( 36 ) IN the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Selection Committee, the rejection of his application is supported on the following grounds:" (i) His application was not accompanied by the certificates of domicile issued by a Revenue officer or Gazetted Officer; (ii) He did not produce at the time of interview the certificates of schools in which he studied, to show that he studied at Koni village in coondapur Taluk till 1961; and (iii) In the affidavit sworn to by his father, the properties owned by him (his father) were not stated in Schedules A and B to the affidavit. "as stated earlier, Instruction No. 7 at the end of the application form, enjoins that a declaration of domicile and residence from a Revenue Officer or Gazetted Officer, must be produced with the application. The petitioner has contended that as his declaration of domicile and residence was attested by the Tahsildar, there was sufficient compliance with this instruction. ( 37 ) WHEN the declaration of domicile and residence is made by an applicant or his parent or guardian, attestation of such declaration by the tahsildar or other Gazetted Officer, merely testifies to the identity of the person who makes such declaration. Such attestation does not testify to the truth of what has been stated by the declarant. Hence, the declaration by an applicant or his parent or guardian, attested by the Tahsildar, does not amount to production of a certificate of domicile and residence from a Revenue Officer or Gazetted Officer. Thus, there was no compliance with this instruction, by the petitioner. In these circumstances, we do not see sufficient grounds to interfere with the decision of the Selection Committee. For the reasons stated above, all these petitions fail and we dismiss them. But, in the circumstances of these petitions, we make no order as to costs. Before parting with these cases, we may suggest certain modifications in the prescribed application form for admission to Medical Colleges, in order to avoid possibility of ambiguity and confusion. For the reasons stated above, all these petitions fail and we dismiss them. But, in the circumstances of these petitions, we make no order as to costs. Before parting with these cases, we may suggest certain modifications in the prescribed application form for admission to Medical Colleges, in order to avoid possibility of ambiguity and confusion. ( 38 ) INSTEAD of the present combined form of declaration of domicile and residence, by the applicant, or his or her parent or guardian, as the case may be, it is desirable that the application form should contain two separate declaration forms, one relating to the domicile of the applicant, or his or her father or guardian, as the case may be, and another relating to the residence of the applicant. The first sentence in Instruction No. 7 printed at the end of the prescribed application form for admission to Medical Colleges, reads: "students must produce declaration of domicile and residence from a Revenue Officer or Gazetted Officer. " what such Officer can give will be a certificate and not a declaration. The word, 'declaration', appears to be inappropriate in that sentence and it may be substituted by the word, 'certificate'. ( 39 ) WE noticed that the instruction to produce at the interview certificates of schools and institutions in which applicants studied, was communicated to the applicants in the post-cards sent to them intimating the date and time of interview. The interval of time between the date of receipt of such intimation and the date of interview, may not be sufficent to enable applicants to apply for and obtain certificates from various schools and institutions in which they studied many years earlier. It is desirable that this instruction to applicants is incorporated in the application form itself or in the Rules, so that they may know well in advance that they have to obtain such certificates. --- *** --- .