Judgment :- 1. Briefly stated the facts leading to this writ petition are:— The petitioner is a minor. She is represented herein by her father and natural guardian. The writ petition is filed seeking for issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to produce records relating to selection made for the first year B. Tech. course in the Pondicherry Engineering College for the academic year 1994-1995 under the category of seats reserved for freedom fighters, and further to direct the respondents to admit the petitioner in the first year B. Tech. course. 2. The petitioner secured 93.5% marks in the Higher Secondary Course examination and passed it with distinction, qualifying for admission to the First Year B. Tech. course. The petitioners grandfather Kanakala Tataiya was a Freedom Fighter and is drawing Freedom Fighters pension in recognition of his active participation in the freedom movement. Seven seats were reserved for the children and grand-children of freedom fighters for admission to the first year B. Tech. course in the Pondicherry Engineering College at Pondicherry. He is a permanent resident of Yanam within the Union Territory of Pondicherry. The petitioner and her parents are also natives of Yanam and permanent residents of that place which is their hometown. 3. The petitioner applied for admission, to the first year B. Tech course in the said college in the category reserved for ‘Children and Grand children of Freedom Fighters’ on 18.6.1994 annexing all the certificates. She also produced the Nativity Certificate of her father to show that her parents are the permanent residents and native of Yanam. Her application was registered as No. 1406 dated 28.6.94 and the same was duly intimated to the petitioner. She was waiting for the admission card having secured 93.5% marks in the qualifying examination and being entitled to a seat under the freedom fighters category. When she did not get admission card even though admissions were likely to be closed, she approached the first respondent on 24.8.1994 and gave a letter. She was informed that the petitioners application was taken up for consideration in the freedom fighters category but since the petitioner and her father did not reside continuously atleast for a period of five years immediately before 4.7.1994 within the area of Pondicherry she was not selected. 4. She was informed that the petitioners application was taken up for consideration in the freedom fighters category but since the petitioner and her father did not reside continuously atleast for a period of five years immediately before 4.7.1994 within the area of Pondicherry she was not selected. 4. The father of the petitioner is employed as Lecturer at Machilipattinam, although a native of Yanam, born and brought up there. Yanam is the home town of the petitioner and her parents which is within the Union Territory of Pondicherry. The certificate produced in proof of the same was ignored by the first respondent. The stay of the father of the petitioner at Machilipattinam working as a lecturer is only temporary. 5. The information brochure issued for the year 1994-1995 shows that Government Servants and those employed in Public undertakings who are natives need not show continuous residence for a period of five years but it is enough if they get declaration from the Head of the Department that they have a place in the Union Territory as home town. This aspect has been lost sight of by the first respondent and the application of the petitioner was erroneously rejected by wrongly interpreting the ‘criteria of domicile’. The father of the petitioner has a residence of his own bearing No. 4/8, Vishnu Street, Yanam which is the permanent place of residence. As the parents and grand parents of the petitioner and the petitioner are natives and permanent residents of Yanam the petitioner is fully qualified and eligible to be selected for the seats reserved in the freedom fighters category. 6. It is further submitted that out of seven seats reserved for the freedom fighters category, six seats have been filled up and those who were selected have scored less marks than the petitioner. In the said category the petitioner should have been given first place on merit out of seven. Under the circumstances, aggrieved by the non-selection of the petitioner to the said course of First year B. Tech., the writ petition is filed praying for the reliefs as stated above. 7. Counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents, resisting the claim of the petitioner. It is submitted that out of the total number of 200 seats for the year 1994-1995 in B. Tech. 7. Counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents, resisting the claim of the petitioner. It is submitted that out of the total number of 200 seats for the year 1994-1995 in B. Tech. course, 85% i.e., 170 seats are allotted for candidates from the Union Territory of Pondicherry and the remaining 15% i.e., 30 seats are allotted for candidates from other States. Out of the seats ear marked for candidates from the Union Territory of Pondicherry reservations are made for various categories, such as S .C./S.T., B.C., Freedom Fighters, Physically handicapped, Ex-Servicemen, Sports, etc. These seats are exclusively for residents of the Union Territory of Pondicherry who will have to submit ‘residence certificate’ from the competent authority. 7-A. It is stated that in the information brochure for 1994-1995, at page 16, it is stated as follows:— 4. The completed application should reach the Office of the Principal, Pondicherry Engineering College, Pondicherry on or before 4.30 PM of 4.7.1994. 5. Applications which are incomplete, defective or received after the due date shall be rejected straightaway and no correspondence will be entertained in this regard.” The petitioner submitted her application No. 3722 which was registered as Serial No. 1406 on 29.6.1994. The said application was scrutinised after the last date for receipt of the applications i.e., 4.7.1994. It was noticed that the petitioner had not submitted the ‘residence certificate’. Therefore she had no claim on the quota for the residents of the Union Territory of Pondicherry under the freedom fighters category. 8. It is further submitted that the petitioner submitted ‘nativity Certificate’ on 18.8.1994. Since the nativity certificate was produced after the due date and after finalisation of all admissions, the same could not be considered. However, the petitioner was considered under other State Quota” and was not selected as the cut off mark was more than that of the petitioner. Further the nativity certificate produced by the petitioner was not in conformity with the ‘residence Certificate’ prescribed in the a pplication form itself. Such a certificate should be to the effect that the applicant or her parents have been residing continuously in the Union Territory for atleast five years immediately before 4.7.1994 and that there is no evidence till date to that effect. The petitioners father owning a house in Yanam is not relevant. Since the admissions are already over the writ petition has become infructuous. The petitioners father owning a house in Yanam is not relevant. Since the admissions are already over the writ petition has become infructuous. The writ petition would not lie against the Pondicherry Engineering College which is run by a registered society under the Societies Registration Act. The petition is also bad for non-joinder of the six selected candidates in the same category of freedom fighters. On the basis of these averments made in the counter affidavit the respondents have prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 9. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit reiterating the case pleaded in the writ petition. It is further pointed out that although the father of the petitioner is working at Machilipattinam his wife and the petitioner are residing at Yanam permanently. The requirements of continuous residence for atleast five years immediately before 4.7.1994 will apply in cases of those who are domicile by choice and not to people like the parents of the petitioner who are domicile by origin i.e., by birth and they must be deemed to have continuous residence within the Union Territory for all purposes. The domicile of origin will not change unless other place is chosen as the domicile of choice. 10. It is stated that when the first respondent was contacted he wanted the petitioner to produce a certificate from the competent authority to show the nativity and residence of the father of the petitioner which certificate was produced on 18.8.1994. The first respondent had promised to consider the petitioners claim for admission. It is further stated that out of seven seats ear marked for admission under the freedom fighters category only six seats are filled up and one seat is yet to be filled up. Hence it cannot be said that the nativity certificate was produced only after finalisation of all admissions. Under the circumstances the petitioner is fully qualified and entitled for admission. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the grand father of the petitioner was a freedom fighter and is getting freedom fighters pension, and he is a permanent resident of Yanam within the Union Territory of Pondicherry. The petitioners father owns property at Yanam. The petitioner and her parents are permanent residents of Yanam. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the grand father of the petitioner was a freedom fighter and is getting freedom fighters pension, and he is a permanent resident of Yanam within the Union Territory of Pondicherry. The petitioners father owns property at Yanam. The petitioner and her parents are permanent residents of Yanam. The father of the petitioner is working at Machlipatnam as a Lecturer; The petitioner and her father are permanent residents of Yanam; Yanam is their place of domicile or origin; they have not chosen any other place of domicile; it is settled law that domicile of origin does not change unless one opts for another place of domicile by choice. He also contended that the case of the petitioner has to be considered regarding criteria for domicile under Cl. (D) on page 13 contained in the information brochure, 1994-1995 issued by the Pondicherry Engineering College. The respondents have erroneously applied Cl. (A) relating to domicile in the case of the petitioner. 12. The learned counsel further contended that out of seven seats meant for freedom fighters category, only six seats have been filled up and one seat is still available and the petitioner having scored 93.5% marks in the qualifying examination, stands first for selection in that category, inasmuch as the other six candidates selected have scored lesser marks than the petitioner. He also contended that the first respondent permitted the petitioner to produce the nativity certificate On 18.8.1994 and that certificate ought to have been taken into consideration for selecting the petitioner. 13. The learned Government Pleader, Pondicherry, representing the respondents, submitted that the petitioner failed to produce the certificate of residence to show that the petitioner or her parents was continuously residing for a period of at least five years immediately before 4.7.1994; the application made by the petitioner was incomplete and defective as the required certificate of residence was not produced; as per Cl. (5) on page 16 of the information brochure; the application was liable to be rejected straighaway; and that when all the admissions were finalised before 18.8.94 the writ petition has become infructuous. It was further contended that because of the Mandal Commission recommendations seven seats in the Freedom Fighters category was reduced to six and all the six seats have been already filled up, and as such no relief can be granted to the petitioner. It was further contended that because of the Mandal Commission recommendations seven seats in the Freedom Fighters category was reduced to six and all the six seats have been already filled up, and as such no relief can be granted to the petitioner. The learned Government Pleader rightly did not press the grounds raised in the counter affidavit regarding maintainability of the writ petition against the said Engineering College and for non-joinder of the six selected candidates. 14. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it is useful to extract the portions in the information brochure to the extent they are relevant. On page 12 of the said brochure, ‘Criteria for domicile’ reads:— “An applicant is considered to be a Pondicherry resident provided that he/she is an Indian National and satisfies atleast one of the following criteria: (A) Those candidates or whose parents residing continuously in the Union Territory for at least five years immediately before 4.7.1994. (B) .. (C) .. (D) Children of Central Government Servants/Defence Personnel/Central Paramilitary Forces/Employees of Public Sector undertakings wholly or substantially run either by the Central Government or by the Pondicherry Administration posted in Pondicherry at the time of application or natives of Union Territory of Pondicherry who have declared any place in Union Territory of Pondicherry as their home town and so certified by their respective heads of office.” Cl. (5) on page 16 of the said brochure reads:— “5. Applications which are incomplete, defective or received after the due date shall be rejected straightaway and no correspondence will be entertained in this regard” 15. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 16. On page 6 of the brochure, under the heading ‘Admission Procedure’ the basic requirements for admission are given under which requirements as regards qualifying examination, age limit, pattern of admission, etc. are stated. Under the heading ‘Pattern of Admission’ it is clearly stated that, “Of the total number of 200 seats for the year, 85% will be allotted to the candidates from the Union Territory of Pondicherry and the remaining 15% will be allotted to the candidates from other States in India.” From the averments made in the writ petition it is clear that as regards criteria for domicile, the petitioner does not come in Cl. (A) because neither the petitioner nor her parents were residing continuously in the Union Territory for atleast five years immediately before 4.7.1994. Cls. (B), (C), (E) and (F) are not relevant to consider the case of the petitioner. In my opinion the case of the petitioner falls within the second part of Cl (D). 17. From the materials placed on record, it is clear that the grand-father of the petitioner who is getting Freedom-fighters pension is a native of Yanam within the Union Territory of Pondicherry. The petitioners and her parents also are natives of Yanam which is their home town. The petitioner or her parents were residing at Masuli-pattinam immediately before 4.7.1994. The respondents have erroneously considered the case of the petitioner under Cl. (A) having not noticed second part of Cl. (D) Looking to the basic requirements for admission under C. (C) at page 6 of the brochure it is clear that 85% of the seats were to be allotted to the candidates from the Union Territory of Pondicherry. 18. Having regard to the various other clauses under the heading ‘Criteria for domicile’ it cannot be said that the persons who were born and brought up within the Union Territory of Pondicherry were sought to be excluded on the ground that they did not reside continuously for a period of five years before 4.7.1994. Such an understanding or construction of the ‘criteria for domicile’ defeats the very purpose of allotting 85% seats to the candidates ‘from the Union Territory of Pondicherry. The domicile of origin of the petitioner and her parents has not ceased or disappeared merely because the petitioners father is serving at Masulipattinam in Andhra Pradesh pursuing his avocation. 19. In my opinion, the petitioners case comes within the second part of Cl. (D), extracted above. In the case of candidates coming under the second part of Cl. (D), as can be seen from the application form itself, there is no specific form prescribed unlike in the case of candidates coming under the other categories satisfying the requirements of domicile. Further as can be seen from the counter affidavit, nowhere it is stated that the application form filed for admission by the petitioner was incomplete or defective and as such it was rejected acting under Cl. (5) on page 16 of the brochure. 20. Further as can be seen from the counter affidavit, nowhere it is stated that the application form filed for admission by the petitioner was incomplete or defective and as such it was rejected acting under Cl. (5) on page 16 of the brochure. 20. In the counter affidavit nowhere it is stated that the seven seats reserved for the freedom fighters category was reduced to six as per the recommendations of the Mandal Commission. It is only for the first time during the course of arguments the submission was made that in this category seats were reduced from 7 to 6. It is clear from the brochure on page 14 relating to reservation for different categories, serial number 3 relates to category of Children Grand Children of Freedom Fighters for which 7 seats were reserved to the first year B. Tech. course. When the respondents want to rely on the same brochure in respect of certain clauses in support of their case, without placing any other material on record, their submission that seven seats were reduced to six does not merit acceptance. 21. The nativity certificate produced by the petitioner clearly shows that the father of the petitioner is a native of Vishnu Street, Yanam within the Union Territory of Pondicherry by virtue of birth. Further the affidavit filed by the grand father of the petitioner Tataiah, the freedom fighter, filed along with the application form, shows that he is residing at Vishnu Street, Yanam, and is getting Freedom Fighters pension. Thus it is clear that the petitioner in substance satisfies the requirement of th e second part of Cl. (D) relating to ‘criteria for domicile’. Under the circumstances the petitioner having scored 93.5% marks in the qualifying examination, more than the six candidates who were selected under the said category of freedom fighters, ought to have been selected. Cl. (A) is meant for candidates and their parents residing in the Union Territory of Pondicherry continuously for a period of atleast five years prior to 4.7.94. The second part of Cl. (D) deals with the candidates and their parents on the basis of their nativity. Distinction is made in the heading ‘criteria for domicile’ in the brochure, one based on continuous residence for a period of five years, and the other based on nativity. The second part of Cl. (D) deals with the candidates and their parents on the basis of their nativity. Distinction is made in the heading ‘criteria for domicile’ in the brochure, one based on continuous residence for a period of five years, and the other based on nativity. The respondents have failed to notice this distinction, and erroneously placed the case of the petitioner in Cl. (A). Thus her non selection for admission to the first year B. Tech. course on erroneous understanding of ‘criteria for domicile’ considering her case under Cl. (A) as stated above, was cl early incorrect. 22. In the result, for the reasons stated above, I pass the following order:— i. The writ petition is allowed; ii. The respondents are directed to select and admit the petitioner under the ‘freedom fighters’ category to the first year B. Tech. course for the academic year 1994-1995 in the Pondicherry Engineering College, Pillaichavadi, Pondicherry; and iii. There shall be no order as to costs.