JUDGMENT Heard Mr. Manoj Tiwari, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Alok Mehra, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Subhash Upadhyaya, the learned Brief Holder for the State. 2. The Principal, District Institute of Education and Training (DIET), Didihat, District Pithoragarh issued an advertisement in the month of August, 2004 inviting applications from eligible candidates for admission in Special B.T.C. course. The petitioner, who possessed the requisite qualification, applied for the said course. The advertisement contemplated that the application should be accompanied by a certificate issued by the competent authority indicating that he/she is the original or a permanent resident of that area. The petitioner submitted her application alongwith a certificate issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate indicating that she is a permanent resident of Champawat District. A copy of the certificate has been annexed as Anneuxre-2 to the writ petition, which indicates that the certificate has been issued as per Government Order No. 2588/F-4/Sa.Pra./2001 dated 20.11.2001. A copy of the said G.O. has been annexed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition. The Principal, by the impugned order dated 14.06.2005, has rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is not an original resident of Champawat District in as much as the petitioner’s husband domicile resident is District Mathura, even though, the petitioner’s husband is working as L.T. Grade Teacher in Khetikhan in District Champawat in a permanent capacity. 3. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order has filed the present writ petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been issued a certificate of permanent residency by the competent authority, namely, the Sub Divisional Magistrate. This certificate has not been questioned as being a forged document. Consequently, the Principal cannot overlook this document and hold that since the petitioner’s husband is the resident of Mathura, the petitioner is, consequently, not a permanent resident of District Champawat. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even otherwise the petitioner’s husband being a permanent L.T. Grade Teacher in Government Inter College in District Champawat, the petitioner becomes a permanent resident as per clause 4 of the Government Order dated 20.11.2001. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the court is of the opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the court is of the opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained. The Principal, DIET cannot go beyond the certificate issued by the competent authority, namely the Sub Divisional Magistrate or the Revenue Magistrate. Once a certificate is issued by the competent authority, it has to be treated as genuine and the respondent no. 1 cannot embark into an investigation on its own to find out as to whether the petitioner is an original resident or a permanent resident of that area. The certificate issued by the competent authority is proof of that fact and which is sufficient for the respondent no. 1. However, the respondent no. 1 can only enquire from the office of the competent authority as to whether the said certificate has been issued by that office or not and once an information is given from the competent authority that the certificate has, in fact, been validly issued, in that event, the respondent no. 1 cannot proceed any further or embark upon an investigation on their own about the permanent residentship of the petitioner. In the present case, the petitioner has filed a permanent resident certificate issued form the competent authority and the said certificate has not been disbelieved nor has it been considered. The Principal, DIET committed an error in embarking upon an investigation on its own in order to find out about the permanent resident of the petitioner. In my view, such investigation could not be done by the Principal. The limited enquiry, which the Principal can do, is to ask the competent authority about the genuineness of the certificate, but beyond that, the Principal was not required to investigate. 6. Even otherwise, from a perusal of the certificate issued by the competent authority, this Court finds that the same has been issued under clause 4 of the Government Order dated 20.11.2001. Clause 4 of the Government Order dated 20.11.2001 provides that a permanent resident would include such person, who has been given a permanent appointment on a permanent post in government or in semi-government institution. In the present case, admittedly the petitioner’s husband is working as an L.T. Grade Teacher in Government Inter College, District Champawat and consequently, the petitioner is a permanent resident of District Champawat as per clause 4 of the said Government Order. 7. In the present case, admittedly the petitioner’s husband is working as an L.T. Grade Teacher in Government Inter College, District Champawat and consequently, the petitioner is a permanent resident of District Champawat as per clause 4 of the said Government Order. 7. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed. The writ petition is allowed. 8. This Court by an interim order dated 24th June, 2005 directed the respondents to provide provisional admission to the petitioner subject to the condition that in the event, the writ petition fails, her admission would be cancelled. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that inspite of the interim direction of this Court, the petitioner was not granted admission. Consequently, a writ of mandamus is issued directing the Principal, DIET, District Pithoragarh to grant admission to the petitioner, and permit her to complete the course, within four weeks from the date of production of a certificate copy of this order.