An ordinary-resident certificate alone cannot establish permanent residence in another State without inquiry.

The appellant challenged the final select list for Assistant Teacher posts in Pithoragarh, alleging that he had 81.50 quality-point marks but was excluded while candidates with lower marks were selected.

The respondents stated that he was ineligible because he held a Permanent Resident Certificate from Uttar Pradesh, in addition to one from Uttarakhand.

The appellant maintained that the Uttar Pradesh document was only an Ordinary Resident Certificate and produced a Uttarakhand permanent-residence certificate.

The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the respondents’ stated eligibility position.

In appeal, the Division Bench noted that the adverse stand had been introduced through instructions during the hearing, without giving the appellant an opportunity to rebut it.

1. Whether the writ petition could be dismissed on the basis of the respondents’ adverse factual stand without giving the appellant an opportunity to rebut it.

2. Whether an Ordinary Resident Certificate from Uttar Pradesh, without further inquiry, established that the appellant was a permanent resident of that State and therefore ineligible.

The Court applied the principle of procedural fairness that a party must be given a proper opportunity to respond to an adverse stand relied upon in deciding the matter.

It also accepted that an Ordinary Resident Certificate does not, by itself, establish permanent residence in another State; that question requires inquiry, particularly where the candidate also holds a permanent-residence certificate issued by Uttarakhand.

The respondents’ claim that the appellant held a Uttar Pradesh Permanent Resident Certificate was not supported by the document in question, which recorded him only as an ordinary resident of Tehsil Dhampur.

The State conceded that the document did not certify permanent residence and that the issue required inquiry.

Because the Single Judge had relied on the respondents’ stand without allowing the appellant to answer it, the Division Bench held that the dismissal could not be sustained.

It did not determine the appellant’s eligibility on the merits; that question was left for reconsideration by the writ court after hearing the parties.

The matter was remitted to the writ court to decide the petition afresh after giving the appellant a proper opportunity to rebut the respondents’ position.