SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(MP) 19

SUJOY PAUL, ARUN KUMAR SHARMA
Madhav Sharma – Appellant
Versus
State of M. P. – Respondent


Advocates:
Suyash Mohan Guru for petitioner; Pradeep Singh, Government Advocate for respondents/State.

JUDGMENT

Paul, J:- 1. The singular question involved in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is whether petitioner after filling up the form of counselling and inserting 'No' before the entry Whether he is domicile of State of M.P. can ask for a change in the entry relating to domicile and take benefit arising thereto.

2. Indisputably, petitioner preferred his candidature for MBBS and BDS Courses and appeared in the NEET U.G. Examination, 2021. By placing reliance on the educational qualification, certificates of Class-X and ClassXII of petitioner (Annexure P-1 and P-2 respectively), Shri S. M. Guru learned counsel submits that petitioner cleared both the examinations from State of M.P. Annexure P-3 is a domicile certificate of petitioner's father wherein the name of petitioner is also mentioned. Annexure P-4 is the form through which petitioner submitted his candidature for NEET Exam wherein his permanent address of Gohad, Bhind (M.P.) is mentioned. Shri S. M. Guru, learned counsel further submits that after getting the score card of NEET Test (Annexures P-5) when petitioner was required to fill up the counselling form, he committed an inadvertent mistake and in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top