Judgment : The petitioner in this writ petition has prayed for issuing a writ in the nature of writ of declaration that the selection of the third respondent in the Pondicherry General quota for the first year M.B.B.S. course session 1994-95 in the Jawaharlal Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research, (for short, JIPMER), and direct the first and second respondents to cancel the seat allotted to the third respondent and to allot the same to the petitioner. 2. Briefly stated, the case of the petitioner is that he applied for admission to the M.B.B.S. course in JIPMER, Pondicherry for the academic year 1994-95 having fulfilled the prescribed eligibility criteria to one of the 15 seats reserved for admission to Pondicherry general category candidates. The admission to the M.B.B.S. course in JIPMER is made on the basis of marks secured by the candidates in the entrance examination conducted by the Institute strictly on merit. According to the prospectus, for admission to the M.B.B.S. course for the academic year 1994-95, issued by the respondents 1 and 2, the applicant should be an Indian national, except for those admitted against the seats reserved for foreign students who are nominees of the Government of India and French Nationals of Indian Origin. 3. Based on the performance in the entrance examination, the petitioner was placed second in the waiting list of Pondicherry general category. One candidate with Roll No.3395 selected for admission in the said category did not join the course. Therefore the first candidate with Roll No.8837 in the waiting list was offered the seat, and was admitted to the course. Thus the petitioner stood at No.1 in the waiting list. The third respondent who is not an Indian national has gained admission to one of the 15 seats under the said Pondicherry general category. Therefore his admission was irregular. Because of his admission, although he is not an Indian national, the petitioner is deprived of admission to the said course. 4. The third respondent has not produced the Nationality certificate from the competent authorities i.e., the Revenue authorities of Pondicherry Union Territory. He made a false declaration in his application for admission. The certificate of residence was not supported by the competent authority, and he has only submitted at a later date a nationality certificate for his father that too from the employer of his father. He made a false declaration in his application for admission. The certificate of residence was not supported by the competent authority, and he has only submitted at a later date a nationality certificate for his father that too from the employer of his father. Based on the complaint made to the authorities the Government of Pondicherry conducted a fullfledged enquiry regarding the nationality of the third respondent. The enquiry report submitted by the Special Branch Police to the Government of Pondicherry in No.224/IGP/ PA/94, dated 11. 1994 categorically concluded that the third respondent is a citizen of United States of America only, and not a citizen of India. However the respondents 1 and 2 have not chosen to take any action in the matter. Hence the writ petition is filed. 5. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit contending that as per the merit list in the entrance examination the third respondent obtained 161 marks and was placed at serial No.2 in the select list, and the petitioner obtained 144 marks and v/as placed at serial No.2 in the waiting list under Pondicherry General Category. In the selected list it is clearly mentioned that the selection is based on the merit in the entrance examination, and provisional subject to fulfilment of required qualifications. The interview for the Pondicherry General candidates was held on 27. 1994. Out of 15 candidates called for interview, 14 candidates including respondent No.3 underwent the medical examination, and they were admitted to the first year M.B.B .S. course on that day itself. Since one candidate did not attend the interview his selection was cancelled, and the first candidate in the waiting list was admitted on 27. 1994. No seat under Pondicherry General category is lying vacant. 6. The third respondent, at the time of attending the interview submitted the following certificates in original. .(i) Age Certificate. .(ii) Educational Qualification certificate. (iii) Transfer Certificate. .(iv) Nationality Certificate issued by present employer of his father (as he was minor), and such procedure is followed by other Institutions also, and .(v) Conduct certificate. The third respondent in his application form for admission has stated in column 4 as “Indian” and also declared at page 3 of the application that he is an Indian National and not having any other Nationality. This statement was also endorsed by the Revenue authority while issuing residence certificate. The third respondent in his application form for admission has stated in column 4 as “Indian” and also declared at page 3 of the application that he is an Indian National and not having any other Nationality. This statement was also endorsed by the Revenue authority while issuing residence certificate. Further both the candidate and his father have signed the declaration stating that the information given in the application are true and no relevant factor is suppressed. He was provisionally select to the first year M.B.B.S. course on 27. 1994. 7. It is further stated that the respondents 1 and 2 did not receive copy of the report of the enquiry said to have been conducted by the police. Only on 211. 1994 the Joint Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, forwarded a copy of the police report for their information. An extract of the police report reads thus: “There was no evidence to disprove that whether Vijayan renewed his Son’ s passport after 1987. Unless it is disproved on the part of E.Vijayan, it can be presumed that Dileep Vijay Menon was born at Dallas, U.S.A. and obtained a valid passport up to 1987, is a citizen of U.S. A. only and not an Indian Citizen.” Only from the police report, the respondents 1 and 2 came to know that the third respondent is a citizen of U.S.A. and that they were actively considering the matter seeking legal opinion for the purpose of cancelling the admission already given to the third respondent. They received copy of the writ petition at that time. Unless the admission of the third respondent is cancelled, vacancy under the Pondicherry General Category will not be available. Thus the second respondent has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. The father of the third respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that he is strongly denying the allegations made in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. It is submitted that the residence certificate duly signed by the competent authority was submitted to the Director, JIPMER by the third respondent. The petitioner has tried to mislead the court by stating that the third respondent submitted nationality certificate of his father which was not the requirement. The statement of the petitioner is contrary to the facts and the rules followed by JIPMER. The petitioner has tried to mislead the court by stating that the third respondent submitted nationality certificate of his father which was not the requirement. The statement of the petitioner is contrary to the facts and the rules followed by JIPMER. According to the practice of JIPMER, nationality certificate of the candidate had to be submitted at the time of interview. Further according to the format prescribed, if the candidate is a minor, then the nationality certificate of his father duly signed by the competent authority has to be submitted. 9. The particulars of birth of the third respondent was duly intimated to the Counsul General, the Indian Consulate, San Francisco, C.A. by the letter of his father dated 5. 1977 with a copy of the birth certificate dated 24. 1977 issued by the Registrar, Dallas Health Department. In the same letter intimation was given that “We will be returning to India on expiry of my study leave in December this year.” When the JIPMER hospital required necessary documentary evidence, the third respondent sent reply on 1. 1995 and submitted the required nationality certificate duly signed by the competent authority. It is also stated that the averment made in paragraph 9 of the affidavit of the petitioner that the report made by the Special Branch Police to the Government of Pondicherry on 11. 1994 concluding that, “it is clearly shown that the third respondent Dileep Vijayan is a citizen of U.S.A. only and not a citizen of India.” is not only false but also highly biased. The alleged conclusion of the Special Branch Police was done by distorting the facts. The said Report was highly biased because the petitioner is a close relative of one of the Ministers in the Pondicherry Cabinet. Thus the third respondent also prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 10. The second respondent has filed an additional counter affidavit stating that in paragraph 10 of his counter affidavit filed earlier, the submissions were made purely on the basis of the police report and not based on any enquiry done by him. However, this respondent, vide his letter dated 1. 1995 addressed to the third respondent made enquiries to which the third respondent sent a reply on 1. 1995. Subsequently on 11. 1995 a letter was received from the father of the third respondent enclosing a Nationality Certificate dated 1. 1995. Thus on 11. However, this respondent, vide his letter dated 1. 1995 addressed to the third respondent made enquiries to which the third respondent sent a reply on 1. 1995. Subsequently on 11. 1995 a letter was received from the father of the third respondent enclosing a Nationality Certificate dated 1. 1995. Thus on 11. 1995 itself, on the basis of the Nationality Certificate produced by the third respondent, this respondent was satisfied that the third respondent is an Indian National and therefore the question of cancelling his admission did not arise. 11. The only ground on which the admission of the third respondent to M.B.B.S. course for the academic year 1994-95’is sought to be cancelled and claim for admission of the petitioner in his place, is that the third respondent is not an Indian National, and as such his admission was invalid and illegal. 12. Shri R.Krishnamurthy, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the third respondent was born in U.S.A. He had passport of that country and there is no material to establish that he is an Indian National. Under the circumstances his admission to the M.B.B.S. course in the Pondicherry General category quota cannot be sustained. 13. The learned counsel for the respondents argued in support and justification of the selection of the third respondent. 14. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the third respondent satisfied the requirements that he is an Indian National. The stand of the respondent is that the third respondent is an Indian National. The second respondent states that the third respondent satisfied the requirements of eligibility for admission including that he is an Indian National. The letter dated 5. 1977 of the father of the third respondent addressed to the Counsel General, The Indian Consulate, San Francisco, C.A. shows that the third respondent was born on 14. 1977, He was on study leave doing Postdoctoral research in the Department of Physicology, UTHSC at Dallas; and they will be returning to India on the expiry of his study leave in December that year. 15. The second respondent by his letter dated 11. 1995 addressed to the third respondent, directed him to confirm whether he is an Indian National or an American National. In reply the third respondent by his letter dated 1. 1995 confirmed that he is an Indian National. 15. The second respondent by his letter dated 11. 1995 addressed to the third respondent, directed him to confirm whether he is an Indian National or an American National. In reply the third respondent by his letter dated 1. 1995 confirmed that he is an Indian National. He also drew the attention to Sec.4( 1) of the Citizenship Act, 1955. In the said letter, Sec.4( 1) of the said Act is extracted as follows: “A person born outside India on or after 26th January, 1950, shall be a citizen of India by descent of his father is a citizen of India at the time of his birth.” The father of the third respondent was a citizen of India by birth. Added to this, the Nationality certificate is also produced which is signed by the Competent Revenue Authority. Since the third respondent was a minor, his father could give the declaration. 16. The second respondent, based on the enquiry and the documents, on facts found that the third respondent was an Indian National and confirmed the admission’. There is no contrary evidence to disprove the claim of the third respondent that he is an Indian National. Merely because the Special Branch Police made a report behind the back of the third respondent and without conducing any enquiry, it cannot be accepted that the third respondent was not an Indian National. 17. Under the circumstances, the writ petition, in my view, has no merit. It is to be dismissed. Accordingly it is dismissed.