The
Dean, Goa Medical College, Bambolim, Goa Vs. V [2001] Insc 450 (3 September 2001)
S.R.Babu,
Doraiswamy Raju 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 Post-graduate course in the 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 doing 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 Post-graduate courses in Medicine and MDS for the academic year
1999-2000. The relevant portion of the Goa (Rules for Admission for
Post-Graduate Degree Courses of the 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 Post- graduate Degree courses shall :
(i) possess
the M.B.B.S. degree of the Goa University or any other University recognized
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
application."
The
learned Judges of the High Court were of the view that merit being the only
criterion for admission to Post-graduate courses such as M.D., M.S. and the
like, the residency requirement cannot be insisted upon in such cases where
they want to pursue post-graduate studies in the institutions where they
studied and obtained their M.B.B.S. degrees.
Heard
Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, learned ASG, 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.
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 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
Post-graduate 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% allocated
to them in W.P.(C) No. 420 of 2000 (Dr. Prachi Almeida vs.Dean, Goa Medical
College) 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.
So far
as the alternate 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 "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 of 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 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 Post-graduate 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.
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.
.............................J.
Back