- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Dean, Goa Medical College, Bambolim, Goa And Another v. Dr. Sudhir Kumar Solanki And Another
Factual and Procedural Background
The first respondent and other similarly placed students applied for admission to post-graduate medical and dental courses for the academic year 1999-2000 at Goa Medical College, a constituent college of Goa University. Rule III(1)(iii) of the Goa (Rules for Admission for Post-Graduate Degree Courses of Goa University at the Goa Medical College) Rules, 1998 (“Goa Rules, 1998”) requires applicants to have resided in the State of Goa for at least ten years immediately preceding the last date for receipt of applications.
The High Court of Bombay at Goa, by judgment dated 9-12-1999, declared the ten-year residency requirement “directory” and directed that the applications of the first respondent and similarly situated students be considered without enforcing the residency rule. The State authorities appealed to the Supreme Court of India, challenging that decision.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether Rule III(1)(iii) of the Goa Rules, 1998—mandating ten years’ residence in Goa as an eligibility condition for post-graduate medical admissions—is merely directory or is a valid, mandatory requirement.
- Whether Section 58 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Reorganisation Act, 1987 entitles residents of the Union Territory of Daman and Diu to continue receiving admission facilities in technical (including medical) institutions located in the State of Goa, notwithstanding the ten-year residency rule.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants’ Arguments
- The High Court erred in treating the ten-year residency requirement as directory; an eligibility criterion must be applied uniformly unless declared unconstitutional.
- The residency preference is within permissible limits because 25% of the seats are already earmarked for an all-India quota filled purely on merit.
- The expression “technical institutions” in Section 58 does not extend to medical colleges, and therefore the first respondent cannot claim benefit under that provision.
First Respondent’s Arguments
- Relied primarily on Section 58 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Reorganisation Act, 1987, contending that facilities formerly available in the undivided Union Territory must continue and that “technical institutions” encompass medical colleges.
- Supported the High Court’s view that merit should be the sole criterion for post-graduate medical admissions in institutions where candidates obtained their MBBS degrees.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Dr Parag Gupta v. University of Delhi (2000) 5 SCC 684 | Domicile/residence preference is constitutionally permissible if it does not exceed 70–80% of available seats and merit still plays a dominant role. | Used to uphold the validity of Goa’s residency rule because only 75% of seats are subject to the ten-year residence requirement while 25% are allotted on an all-India merit basis. |
| Dr Prachi Almeida v. Dean, Goa Medical College (2001) 7 SCC 640 | Students admitted under the all-India quota may also compete for locally reserved seats, thereby tightening competition for residents. | Cited to illustrate that additional competition further justifies retaining the residency preference for the remaining seats. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had misconstrued earlier decisions which disapproved wholesale reservation of seats based on domicile without regard to merit. Citing Parag Gupta, the Court clarified that a reasonable domicile preference is permissible so long as it does not effectively monopolise available seats. Because Goa reserves only 75% of post-graduate medical seats for local candidates and leaves the remaining 25% to an all-India merit pool—plus additional competition from students in the all-India quota who may vie for local seats—the ten-year residency rule is within constitutional bounds.
An eligibility criterion fixed by statute or statutory rules cannot be treated as directory; it must either be struck down as unconstitutional or enforced uniformly. Accordingly, Rule III(1)(iii) is valid and mandatory.
Turning to the first respondent’s alternative claim, the Court examined Section 58 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Reorganisation Act, 1987. Giving the provision a liberal interpretation consistent with its protective purpose, the Court concluded that “technical institutions” include medical colleges. Therefore, facilities—such as admission opportunities—available before statehood must continue for residents of the Union Territory of Daman and Diu. Because the first respondent satisfied the ten-year residence requirement when residence in Daman and Diu is counted, he is entitled to be considered for admission.
Holding and Implications
HELD: Rule III(1)(iii) of the Goa Rules, 1998, requiring ten years’ residence in Goa for eligibility to post-graduate medical courses, is valid and mandatory; the contrary view of the High Court is set aside. Nonetheless, the first respondent shall be considered for admission in the September 2001 session by virtue of Section 58 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Reorganisation Act, 1987. No order as to costs.
Implications: The decision reaffirms the constitutional validity of reasonable domicile-based preferences in medical education while simultaneously safeguarding statutory protections for residents of newly reorganised territories. Although the judgment clarifies the binding nature of eligibility criteria, it creates no new limitation on such criteria beyond the established 70–80% ceiling and preserves special protections under reorganisation statutes.
Doraiswamy Raju, J.— The above appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 9-12-1999 of the High Court of Bombay at Goa, whereunder the claim of the first respondent came to be allowed with a direction that the case of the first respondent and other similarly situated students, who applied for the postgraduate course in Goa Medical Colleges in terms of the 1998 Rules, shall be considered keeping in view that the residency requirement as contained in Rule III(1)(iii) is directory. The effect of the said direction is to, in substance, dispense with or do away with the eligibility requirement envisaging ten years' residency in the State of Goa in the matter of selection of the candidates for admission to the postgraduate courses in Medicine and MDS for academic year 1999-2000. The relevant portion of the Goa (Rules for Admission for Postgraduate Degree Courses of Goa University at the Goa Medical College) Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as “the Goa Rules, 1998”) reads as follows:
“III. Eligibility, Preference and Order of Merit
(1) Eligibility.—Candidates applying for admission to the postgraduate degree courses shall:
(i) possess the MBBS degree of Goa University or any other university recognized as equivalent thereto by Goa University and the Medical Council of India,
(ii) complete compulsory rotatory internship of one year on or before the last date of receipt of application,
(iii) have resided in the State of Goa for a minimum period of ten years preceding the last date of receipt of application.”
2. The learned Judges of the High Court were of the view that merit being the only criterion for admission to postgraduate courses such as MD, MS and the like, the residency requirement cannot be insisted upon in such cases where they want to pursue postgraduate studies in the institutions where they studied and obtained their MBBS degrees.
3. Heard Mr Mukul Rohatgi, learned Additional Solicitor-General, for the appellants. The first respondent was represented by Mr M. Veerappa, Advocate. Apparently, conscious of the difficulties in sustaining the ratio of the judgment of the High Court, the learned counsel for the respondent placed strong reliance upon Section 58 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Reorganisation Act, 1987 to justify the relief already granted in favour of the first respondent. This claim is based on the fact that the first respondent was born in the year 1976 in the State of Goa, Daman and Diu and was governed by all laws then existing in the Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu till May 1987 when Goa became a State, Daman and Diu remained a Union Territory. The first respondent belonged to the erstwhile Union Territory comprising of Goa, Daman and Diu and even after separation of Goa, continued to be a resident of the Union Territory of Daman and Diu.
4. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on either side. The learned Judges of the High Court have wholly misconstrued the ratio of the earlier decisions of this Court wherein what was really deprecated was the wholesale reservation of seats made by some of the State Governments on the basis of domicile or residence requirement within the States or on the basis of institution preference, regardless of merit. In the decision reported in Parag Gupta (Dr) v. University of Delhi (2000) 5 SCC 684 to which one of us (Rajendra Babu, J.) was a party, after a careful analysis of the earlier decisions in their proper perspective, has declared the correct position of law to be that the rule of preference on the basis of domicile or requirement of residence is not bad provided it is within reasonable limits and does not result in reserving more than 70% to 80% of the seats available. Indisputably, in this case 25% of the seats in the postgraduate courses have been earmarked and allotted for being filled up on all-India basis on merit basis. In addition, we have directed that students who had obtained admission on the seats earmarked for all-India quota in medical colleges in the State also can compete with the local students in 75% seats allocated to them in Prachi Almeida (Dr) v. Dean, Goa Medical College (2001) 7 SCC 640 disposed of today, thus, making further demands on the number of seats reserved for local students with the application of the rule of 10 years' residence. Consequently, we see no infirmity whatsoever in Rule III(1)(iii) of the Goa Rules, 1998 and the same cannot be said to be merely directory or, for any reason, illegal. An eligibility criteria statutorily stipulated can by no means be held to be directory resulting in a nebulous state of affairs in the matter of selection of candidates for admission. There could be only two alternative courses, namely, either the rule is unconstitutional or illegal for any reason and, therefore, to be struck down or on the other hand valid and invariably and uniformly enforceable without any reservation whatsoever, as binding and mandatory in character. The reasoning of the High Court, therefore, does not deserve to be approved and the same is unsustainable.
5. So far as the alternative plea advanced on behalf of the first respondent to justify the ultimate relief granted in favour of the first respondent is concerned, the same has merit of acceptance in our hands. Section 58 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Reorganisation Act, 1987 provides that:
“58. On and from the appointed day, the Government of Goa shall, in respect of the technical institutions located in the State of Goa continue to provide facilities to the persons resident in the territories comprising the Union Territory of Daman and Diu which shall not in any respect be less favourable than those which were being provided to them immediately before that day….”
Though an attempt has been made by the learned counsel for the appellants to urge that the words “technical institutions” may not be appropriate to comprehend within it the medical colleges, the said plea does not appeal to us or commend for our acceptance. The word “technical” is described in the Concise Oxford Dictionary to mean a particular art, science or applied science or vocational training dealing with applied science. It is trite to say that when a word has many etymological meanings attributed to it, the same takes its true colour from the text and context. The dictionary meaning of the word “technical” is also “professional” and is used in contradiction with pure sciences to prepare professionals in applied sciences. If that is the textual meaning, the context is to extend facilities to all persons resident in the erstwhile Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu even after separation of the State of Goa from the same. While that be the position, it cannot possibly or legitimately be contended that the medical college or studies in postgraduate course does not involve applied science. That apart, we find that Section 58 is almost akin in its purpose and object to Section 113 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. Though the said Act had a Schedule of its own enumerating the details of such matters, the Statement of Objects and Reasons pertaining to Section 113 makes it clear that those provisions were enacted with the object of continuing the facilities in certain classes of State institutions such as engineering colleges, medical colleges, government hospitals, research institutions etc. Keeping in view, therefore, the purpose and object of the provisions engrafted in Section 58 and having regard to the nature of the same to be protective in character, a liberal construction such as the one placed by us could only further the legislative intent and cannot be said to be, in any manner, unwarranted or unjustified. Except clarifying the correct position of law as indicated above, we do not consider it necessary on the facts of the case to deny the ultimate relief granted in the case in favour of the first respondent since it is not in dispute or controversy that if the domicile in the Union Territory during the earlier period is taken into account, he would satisfy the requirement of ten years' residence.
6. The appeal is allowed only to the extent of declaring the correct position of law on the validity and enforceability of Rule III(1)(iii) of the Goa Rules, 1998 as indicated above. The first respondent, since had already made his application, shall be considered for admission for the course said to be commencing in September 2001. There will be no order as to costs.
Alert