Holding

Rule III(1)(iii) is a valid, mandatory eligibility requirement, and "technical institutions" under Section 58 includes medical colleges, so the residency provision remains enforceable.

Summary

The Dean of Goa Medical College appealed against a Bombay High Court order that had held the ten‑year residency requirement in Rule III(1)(iii) of the Goa Rules 1998 to be merely directory, thereby allowing Dr. Sudhir Kumar Solanki to be considered for admission to a postgraduate medical course. The Supreme Court examined whether the residency clause is a mandatory eligibility condition and whether Section 58 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Reorganisation Act, 1987, which speaks of "technical institutions", includes medical colleges. The Court held that the rule is a valid, binding eligibility criterion and not merely directory. It also interpreted "technical institutions" to encompass medical colleges, giving effect to Section 58. Consequently, the appeal was allowed to the extent of declaring the rule valid, and the respondent was ordered to be considered for admission for the September 2001 session.

Issues considered

Whether Rule III(1)(iii) of the Goa (Rules for Admission for Post‑Graduate Degree Courses) 1998, requiring ten years of residence in Goa, is a mandatory eligibility condition or a directory provision.
Whether Section 58 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Reorganisation Act, 1987, which provides facilities to "technical institutions", applies to medical colleges.

Legislation cited

States Reorganisation Act, 1956s. 113

Subjects

residency requirementeligibility criteriatechnical institutionsinterpretation of statutemandatory vs directory rulemedical educationpost‑graduate admissionGoa Reorganisation Actdomicile

Judgment

DEAN, GOA MEDICAL COLLEGE, BAMBOLIM, GOA AND ANR. A
v.
DR. SUDHIR KUMAR SOLANKI AND ANR.

SPETEMBER 3, 2001

[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.] B

Education:

Goa (Rules for Admission for Postgraduate Degree Courses of the Goa
University at Goa Medical College) Rules, 19,98: Rule ll!(l)(iii). C
Medical Education-Postgraduate courses in Medicine and MDS-
Admission to-Eligibility criterion-Ten years residence in the State-Validity
of-Held: There is no infirmity in Rule III(J)(iii)-The said Rule is neither
direct01y nor illegal but is mandatory.
D
Goa, Daman and Diu Reorganisation Act, I 987:

Section 58-Technica/ Institutions-Facilities of-Held: Residents of
Union Territ01y of Daman and Diu are entitled to the facilities of technical
institutions located in State of Goa-States Reorganisation Act, 1956, S.J 13.
E
Words and Phrases:

"Technical Jnstilutions"-Meaning of-Jn the context of Section 58 of
the Goa, Daman and Diu Reorganisation Act, 1987.

The first respondent applied for admission to the postgraduate course F
in Medicine but was denied admission on the ground that he did not fulfil
the residency requirement of ten years as contained in Rule 111(1 )(iii) of the
Goa (Rules for Admission for Postgraduate Degree Courses of the Goa
University at Goa Medical College) Rules, 1998. However, the High Court
held that the said Rule Ill(l)(iii) was directory and allowed the writ petition G
filed by the first respondent. Hence1his appeal.

On behalf of the appellant it was contended that the word "technical
institution" occurring in Section 58 of the Goa, Daman and Diu
Reorganisation Act, 1987 did not comprehend within it the Medical Colleges.
H
525
526 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A On behalf of the first respondent it was contended that in any case the
first respondent was entitled to the benefit of Section 58 of the Act.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD : 1. There is no infirmity whatsoever in Rule III(l)(iii) of the
B Goa (Rules for Admission for Postgraduate Degree Courses of the Goa
University at Goa Medical College) Rules, 1998 and the same cannot be said
to be merely directory or, for any reason, illegal. An eligibility criterion
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
C 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 is character. [529-A-BI

Dr. Parag Gupta v.University of Delhi, [2000] 5 SCC 684, relied on.
D Dr. Prachi Almeida v. Dean, Goa Medical College, [W.P.(C) No. 420 of
2000 decided by Supreme Court on 3-9-2001. referred to.

2. When a word has many etymological meanings attributed to it, the
same takes its true colour, from the text and context. The dictionary meaning
E of the word 'technical' is also 'professional' and is used in contradiction with
pure sciences to prepare professionals in applied science. 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. It cannot possibly or legitimately be contended
that the medical college or studies in postgraduate course does not involve
F applied science. That apart, Section 58 of the Goa, Daman and Diu
Reorganisation Act, 1987 is almost akin, in its purpose and object, to Section
113 of the State Reorganisation Act, 1956. 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, liberal construction
G could only further the legislative intent and cannot be said to be, in any
manner, unwarranted or unjustified. [529-F-H; 530-A-B]

Concise Oxford Dictionary, referred to.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1966 of
H 2000.
DEAN, GOA MEDICAL COLLEGE, BAMBOLIM 1•. SUDHIR KUMAR SOLANKI [RAJU, J.] 527
From the Judgment and Order dated 9.12.99 of the Bombay High Court A
in W.P.No. 305 of 1999.
Mukul Rohatgi, Additional Solicitor General, for the Appellant No. I
Bhavani Shankar V. Gadnis and Shiv Sagar Tiwari for the Appellant
Nos. I and 2.
B
Ms. Divya Suri for the Appellant No.2.

M. Veerappa, A. Mariarputham, Maninder Singh, Ms. Pratibha M Singh,
Ms. Aruna Mathur and Ms. Kavita Wadia for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by c
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, D
shall be considered keeping in view that the residency requirement as contained
in Rule III (I )(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 E
, MOS 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 : p
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 G
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." H
528 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A 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.

B 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
C 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
D 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
E 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 Dr. Parag Gupta v. University of Delhi and Ors., [2000]
5 SCC 684, to which one of us (Rajendra Babu, J.) was a party, after a
p carefu I 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
G 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
H number of seats reserved for local students with the application of the Rule
DEAN, GOA MEDICAL COLLEGE, BAMBOLIM 1•. SUDHIR KUMAR SOLANKI [RAJU, J.] 529

of 10 years residence. Consequently, we see no infirmity whatsoever in Rule A
IJI(l)(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 B
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.
c
So far as the alternate plea advanc~d 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 D
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 E
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 F
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 G
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
H
530 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2001) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A 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 iri Section 58 and having regard to the nature of the same to be
B 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
-
C Union Territory during the earlier period is taken into account, he would
satisfy the requirement of ten years residence.

D
The appeal is allowed only to the extent of declaring the correct position
of Jaw on the validity and enforceability of Rule lll(l)(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, 200 I. There will be no order as to costs.

v.s.s. Appeal allowed.