ANIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was a candidate in the written examination to the post of Patwari in the State of Uttarakhand. The petitioner, after duly filling up the form for the entrance examination, was called for the written examination, which he successfully qualified. Thereafter, he was sent for training in the month of July, 2003. While he was undergoing training for Patwari ( Patwari is a Class III revenue official in the State of Uttarakhand), which is of one year, he was told by the Authorities that since he is not a domicile of Uttarakhand, his appointment to the post of Patwari cannot be made in the State of Uttarakhand. Consequently, the earlier domicile certificates submitted by the petitioner, which were earlier issued by the competent authorities were cancelled vide order dated 5th March, 2003 by Additional Secretary, State of Uttarakhand (which is an order, inter alia, challenged in the present writ petition).

(2.) This Court had an occasion to see the rules, by which recruitment is made in the State of Uttarakhand to the post of Patwari . These rules are known as U.P. Patwari

(3.) In other words, to be a citizen of India one has to be a domicile in the territory of India and has to be born in the territory of the India or either of whose parents was born in the territory of India or who has been ordinarily resident in the territory of India for not less than five years immediately preceding of the Constitution of India. In other words, the Constitution of India prescribes five years period of residing in the country for being a citizen of India and it does not speak of being domicile in a province or union territory but it speaks of domicile in the territory of India .