JUDGMENT

THOMMEN.J :— This appeal by special leave is against the Order of the Allahabad High Court , Lucknow Bench, in C.M. Application No. 17984(W) of 1989 in Writ Petition No. 5400 of 1989. The application for clarification and modification of the judgment in the writ petition was filed in the High Court by the appellant, though not a party to that proceeding, on the ground that he was adversely affected by it.

2. The appellant was nominated by the State of Himachal Pradesh to undergo the B.D.S. course in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The appellant successfully completed his course of studies in Uttar Pradesh and secured the B.D.S. degree. For that purpose he had stayed in that State for over a period of five years. He later applied for admission to the M.D.S. course at King George Medical College, Lucknow. He secured admission to the course, but in a subject other than that of his choice. The subject of his choice was Oral Surgery, but what was offered to him was Periodontics. The reason for denying the appellant the subject of his choice was that he had to step down in favour of others who had come within the rule of preference as per the Notification dated August 19, 1983 issued under S. 36(5) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1974 (U.P.Act, No. 29 of 1974) providing for residence qualification for selection to the M.D.S. course.

3. By the impugned order the, High Court rejected the appellants prayer for clarification and modification of its judgment in Writ Petition No. 5400 of 1988 and held that that judgment was rendered in accordance what the principle laid down in its earlier decision residence qualification prescribed by the Notification was so construed as to be applicable only to a person who was a resident in the State of Utter Pradesh for reasons other that that of merely completing a course of studies. In other words, the High Court refused to accept the appellants contention that the residence qualification should be so construed as to entitle to admission a person, like the appellant, who had come from outside the State strictly and solely for the purpose of undergoing a course of studies and returning to his own State upon completion of the course. The High Court held that residence strictly for studies without more did not bring a person within the ambit of the Notification. This is what the High Court stated in its judgment in Writ Petition No. 5400 of 1989, clarification of which was sought by the appellant :

"In other words those candidates who joined B. D.S. Course on the basis of nominations made by the Central Government or their own State and were riot bona fide residents of the State of Uttar Pradesh prior to joining the B.D.S. course will not be treated to be bona fide residents of Uttar Pradesh merely because they have stayed in the State of Uttar Pradesh for five years or more for completion of the B.D.S. course or housemanship."

4. The appellant does not challenge the validity of the notified provisions. The sole question which arises for consideration is as regards the construction of Cl. (4) of the said Notification. Before reading that clause, it may be noticed that Cl.(1) of the Notification provides for reservation of seats in favour of candidates belonging to the categories specified therein. Cl.(2) then provides :

" 2. The remaining seats shall be filled up on the basis of merit by the candidates who have passed the B.D.S. examination from the K.G. Medical College. Lucknow, obtaining a minimum of 55% marks in the aggregate and who are bonafide residents of Uttar Pradesh". (Emphasis supplied)

5. The High Court notices that Cl.(2) stipultes two Conditions, namely, (i) institutional : and (ii) residential. The High Court observes that the appellant satisfies the first requirement the institutional, but does not fulfil the second requirement. namely. Bonafied residence. A bonafied residence is one who comes within the meaning of that expression in Cl. (4), which reads :

"4 . For the purpose of thi