IMPORTANT POINT
Though the criteria adopted by the respondents in not allowing the petitioner to get admission to post-graduate course on the ground of 10 years residential requirement in the migrating state is valid yet she is entitled to be considered on the principle evolved on dictates of necessity and need for adjusting equities in her case.

Headnote:Goa (Rules for Admission for Post-graduate Degree Courses of the Goa University at Goa Medical College) Rules, 1998-Rule III(1)(iii)-Eligibility requirement of 10 years residence in Goa-Petitioner from Delhi admitted in 15% All India Quota for MBBS in Goa Medical College-Passed-Married in Goa-Applied for admission in post graduate course-Denied due to non-fulfilment of Rule III(1)(iii)-Writ petition u/A 32 to Supreme Court-Whether Rule III(1)(iii) is valid? (Yes)-Whether there should be uniformity in all post-graduate courses all over the country? (not examined)-Whether respondents be directed to consider the case of petitioner on special facts ? (Yes)-Rule made absolute-Case law referred.
       Held : Though, Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court had held the said Rule to be directory in character, on appeal to this Court in Civil Appeal No. 1966 of 2000 (Dean, Goa Medical College v. Dr. Sudhir Kumar Solanki & Anr.) we have upheld the validity of this Rule. (Para 2)
       The contention put forth in the present case is that the criteria adopted by the respondents in not allowing the petitioner to get admission to post graduate course on the ground of residential requirement in the migrating State is unjustified. The rule regarding this question having been upheld by us as stated earlier, that contention is no longer available. (Para 5)
       Held further : In the present case, we do not propose to examine the larger question of attaining uniformity in all post-graduate courses all over the country since we are not in a position to state on the material before us whether the institutional preference criteria adopted by a State or requirement of residence or both fully complies with the various decisions of this Court adverted to by us in Dr. Parag Gupta s case, (supra). We, therefore, think, it would be appropriate for the States concerned to achieve uniformity by adopting either institutional or residential preference in terms of the decisions of this Court. (Para 7)
       Held however : The petitioner having been selected in the 15% all-India quota, allowed to study in the State of Goa, obtained graduation, we do not think, her case should be ignored on the basis of non-fulfilment of residential requirement. The students falling under the 15% all-India quota should be allowed to participate to compete in the State where they studied irrespective of the rule of residence. The argument of unfair advantage does not appeal to us as all students have to attain a common standard with reference to the State in which they studied and the number of students of this nature will be very small. Out of students admitted in medical colleges in the State out of the 15% all-India quota, on completion of studies, many may prefer to return to their home State or take 25% all-India quota entrance examination and some others may not make necessary grade to compete with the local students. If they are also allowed to participate in the entrance test for admission to post graduate medical courses, it will not disturb the balance to any extent but, on the other hand, achieve uniformity to an extent. This principle we have evolved on dictates of necessity and the need for adjusting equities in the matter of fair and proper implementation of the scheme evolved for providing a quota of seats to be filled up on an all-India basis of merit performance in the background we have set out above. (Para 8)
       Held consequently : The petition is allowed by directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for admission to post-graduate course for the year for which she had applied if she could have been on the basis of her performance selected to an appropriate course chosen by her in that year without reference to the Rule relating to requirement of 10 years residence. The petitioner shall, however, be admitted in such course to which she is selected for the current year. Rule is made absolute accordingly. (Para 9)

JUDGMENT

Rajendra Babu, J.-The petitioner before us was admitted into Goa Medical College under the 15% all-India quota. She passed out of the College in 1998 and completed the internship successfully, namely, rural posting in Goa and the remaining nine months in a hospital in Delhi recognised by the Medical Council of India and, thereafter she was granted permanent registration under the Goa Medical Council and was also awarded a degree of having passed M.B.B.S. by the Goa University. She applied for admission to post-graduate course in March 2000. However, she was denied admission on the ground that she did not fulfil the condition relating to residence in State of Goa for a period of 10 years in terms of the Goa (Rules for Admission for Postgraduate Degree Courses of the Goa University at Goa Medical College) Rules, 1998 [hereinafter referred to as the Rules ]. Rule III of the Rules reads as under :

"Rule III : Eligibility, Preference and Order of Merit.

(1) Eligibility :

Candidates applying for the admission to the post graduate degree/diploma course shall:-

(i) possess the M.B.B.S. degree of the Goa University or any other University recognised as equivalent thereto by the 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 applications.

(2) Preference:-

While selecting the candidates for admission to the post graduate courses preference in the following order shall be observed:-

(a) Candidates who have graduated from Goa Medical College and have also satisfactorily completed full internship at the Goa Medical College. If such candidates are not available, then

(b) Candidates who have graduated from the Goa Medical College but have done the internship outside the Goa Medical College. If such candidates are again not available, then

(c) Candidates who have graduated from colleges other than the Goa Medical College, but who have completed the internship in the Goa Medical College. If such candidates are again not available, then

(d) Candidates who have graduated from and who have done their internship in Colleges other than Goa Medical College."

2. Though, Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court had held the said Rule to be directory in character, on appeal to this Court in Civil Appeal No. 1966 of 2000 (Dean, Goa Medical College v. Dr. Sudhir Kumar Solanki & Anr.1) we have upheld the validity of this Rule.

3. This Court in Dr. Parag Gupta v. University of Delhi & Ors.2 considered the effect of decisions in Dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India3; Dr. Dinesh Kumar II v. Motilal Nehru Medical College4; State of Rajasthan v. Dr. Ashok Kumar Gupta5; Anant Madan v. State of Haryana6; D.P. Joshi v. State of M.B.7; Sanjay Ahlawat v. Maharishi Dayanand University8, and stated the law on the matter to be as follows:

"These decisions lead us to the following principles: though universitywise preference is permissible, collegewise preference is not. 70% to 80% reservation has been sustained even where the students from different universities appear at a common entrance test. After the decisions in Dr. Pradeep Jain and followed by Dinesh Kumar the practice all over the country was to make 15% of the seats in MBBS course and 25% of the seats in postgraduate medical courses in all the government medical colleges in the country available on the basis of merit alone. Students from anywhere in the country can compete for these seats which are allotted on the basis of an all-India test conducted by the designated authority. 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 the aforesaid percentage

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2001 Supreme(SC) 1204

Cases Referred (7)