2001 JTR(SC) 1204
2001 AIR(SC) 3418 ; 2001 AIR(SCW) 3278 ; 2002 1 BBCJ(SC) 98 ; 2002 2 BomCR(SC) 708 ; 2001 7 JT 385 ; 2002 1 PLJR(SC) 211 ; 2001 4 RSJ 363 ; 2001 6 Scale 66 ; 2001 7 SCC 640 ; 2001 SCR 519 ; 2002 1 SCT 232 ; 2001 4 SLR 291 ; 2001 6 SLT 486 ; 2001 KHC 1627 ; 2001 6 Supreme 728
2001(6) Supreme 728
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(Under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India)
S. Rajendra Babu & Doraiswamy Raju, JJ.
Dr. Prachi Almeida -Petitioner
versus
The Dean, Goa Medical College & Ors. -Respondents
Writ Petition (C) No. 420 of 2000
Decided on 3-9-2001
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Petitioners : In person.
For the Respondent Nos. 1-2 : S.S. Javali, Senior Advocate and Ms. A. Subhashini, Advocates.
For the Respondent No. 4 : Maninder Singh, Advocate.
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.
Act
Referred
:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.32
GOA RULES FOR ADMISSION FOR POST-GRADUATE DEGREE COURSES OF THE GOA UNIVERSITY AT THE GOA MEDICAL COLLEGE RULES : R.3(1)(iii)
(A) The Goa Rules for Admission for Post-Graduate Degree Courses of the Goa University at the Goa Medical College, read with Article 32 of the Constitution of India, govern the eligibility and admission process for post-graduate medical courses in the state. Rule III(1)(iii) of the Rules mandates that candidates seeking admission must have resided in the State of Goa for a minimum period of ten years preceding the last date of receipt of applications. This case involves an applicant who was admitted into the 15% all-India quota for an M.B.B.S. course, completed her graduation and internship, and obtained registration and a degree from Goa University. When she applied for a post-graduate course in 2000, her application was denied on the ground of failing to satisfy the ten-year residence requirement under the Rules. The Supreme Court, relying on its earlier precedents including Dr. Parag Gupta, upheld the validity of the residence criterion, emphasizing the need to balance the interests of all-India quota students and local state students while ensuring uniformity in admission practices. The present proceeding tests whether the non-fulfilment of this residence condition can bar admission even for a candidate who has been selected under the 15% all-India quota.
(B) Key legal principles include that university-wise preference is permissible, but collegewise preference is not; 15% of seats are filled through an all-India common entrance test, with the remaining 85% filled by state-level criteria. Residence or institutional preference is allowed if it remains within reasonable limits and does not exceed the permitted quota. Students admitted under the 15% all-India quota should not be denied participation in state-level post-graduate admissions merely on grounds of residence requirements, as this would undermine the objective of uniformity and equity across the country.
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was admitted into Goa Medical College under the 15% all-India quota, passed the M.B.B.S. examination in 1998, completed a one-year compulsory rotatory internship, and obtained permanent registration and a degree from Goa University. In March 2000, she applied for admission to a post-graduate degree course but was denied on the basis of Rule III(1)(iii) of the Goa Rules, which requires a minimum residence of ten years in the State of Goa. She challenged this denial, contending that the residence criterion was unjustified in her case.
Findings of Court:
The Court reiterated that Rule III was upheld as valid and directory in character. It emphasized the need to balance the interests of all-India quota students and local students, noting that 15% of seats are filled on an all-India basis and the remaining 75% for state quota are filled according to criteria adopted by the States. The Court observed that candidates admitted under the 15% all-India quota who complete their studies in a state should be allowed to compete for post-graduate admission in that state without being excluded due to residence requirements, as this would not disturb the balance but promote uniformity. The petitioners marriage to a Goan and her settlement in Goa were also noted.
Issues:
Whether the residence requirement of ten years under Rule III(1)(iii) of the Goa Rules can be enforced against a candidate admitted under the 15% all-India quota who has completed her graduation and internship from a medical college in the state. Whether denying her admission to a post-graduate course on this ground is justified.
Ratio Decidendi:
Candidates admitted under the 15% all-India quota who have completed their medical graduation in a state should be permitted to participate in the post-graduate admission process of that state without being excluded on the basis of residence requirements, as this ensures uniformity and does not undermine the equitable framework of all-India and state-level quotas.
Result:
The petition is allowed. The respondent authorities are directed to consider the petitioners case for admission to a post-graduate course for the year for which she applied if she would have been selected based on her performance, without reference to the ten-year residence rule. She shall be admitted to the course to which she is selected for the current year, and the Rule is made absolute accordingly.
(A) The Goa Rules for Admission for Post-Graduate Degree Courses of the Goa University at the Goa Medical College, read with Article 32 of the Constitution of India, govern the eligibility and admission process for post-graduate medical courses in the state. Rule III(1)(iii) of the Rules mandates that candidates seeking admission must have resided in the State of Goa for a minimum period of ten years preceding the last date of receipt of applications. This case involves an applicant who was admitted into the 15% all-India quota for an M.B.B.S. course, completed her graduation and internship, and obtained registration and a degree from Goa University. When she applied for a post-graduate course in 2000, her application was denied on the ground of failing to satisfy the ten-year residence requirement under the Rules. The Supreme Court, relying on its earlier precedents including Dr. Parag Gupta, upheld the validity of the residence criterion, emphasizing the need to balance the interests of all-India quota students and local state students while ensuring uniformity in admission practices. The present proceeding tests whether the non-fulfilment of this residence condition can bar admission even for a candidate who has been selected under the 15% all-India quota.
(B) Key legal principles include that university-wise preference is permissible, but collegewise preference is not; 15% of seats are filled through an all-India common entrance test, with the remaining 85% filled by state-level criteria. Residence or institutional preference is allowed if it remains within reasonable limits and does not exceed the permitted quota. Students admitted under the 15% all-India quota should not be denied participation in state-level post-graduate admissions merely on grounds of residence requirements, as this would undermine the objective of uniformity and equity across the country.
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was admitted into Goa Medical College under the 15% all-India quota, passed the M.B.B.S. examination in 1998, completed a one-year compulsory rotatory internship, and obtained permanent registration and a degree from Goa University. In March 2000, she applied for admission to a post-graduate degree course but was denied on the basis of Rule III(1)(iii) of the Goa Rules, which requires a minimum residence of ten years in the State of Goa. She challenged this denial, contending that the residence criterion was unjustified in her case.
Findings of Court:
The Court reiterated that Rule III was upheld as valid and directory in character. It emphasized the need to balance the interests of all-India quota students and local students, noting that 15% of seats are filled on an all-India basis and the remaining 75% for state quota are filled according to criteria adopted by the States. The Court observed that candidates admitted under the 15% all-India quota who complete their studies in a state should be allowed to compete for post-graduate admission in that state without being excluded due to residence requirements, as this would not disturb the balance but promote uniformity. The petitioners marriage to a Goan and her settlement in Goa were also noted.
Issues:
Whether the residence requirement of ten years under Rule III(1)(iii) of the Goa Rules can be enforced against a candidate admitted under the 15% all-India quota who has completed her graduation and internship from a medical college in the state. Whether denying her admission to a post-graduate course on this ground is justified.
Ratio Decidendi:
Candidates admitted under the 15% all-India quota who have completed their medical graduation in a state should be permitted to participate in the post-graduate admission process of that state without being excluded on the basis of residence requirements, as this ensures uniformity and does not undermine the equitable framework of all-India and state-level quotas.
Result:
The petition is allowed. The respondent authorities are directed to consider the petitioners case for admission to a post-graduate course for the year for which she applied if she would have been selected based on her performance, without reference to the ten-year residence rule. She shall be admitted to the course to which she is selected for the current year, and the Rule is made absolute accordingly.
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. Where the students from different universities appear at a common entrance test the rule of universitywise preference loses its relevance. The explanations of difference in evaluation, standards of education and syllabus lose much of their significance when admission is based upon a common entrance test. At the same time, the right of the State Government to regulate the process of admission and their desire to provide for their own students should also be accorded due deference." [pp. 689, 690]
4. We have to balance the interests of the students who had secured admission into the under-graduate medical course on an all. India competition and local students. In such cases, there is reservation at the graduate level and 15% of seats are to be filled by the common entrance examination on all-India basis, rest of the 85% seats to be filled by holding entrance examination at the State level. In 15% seats filled on all-India basis students from one State have to migrate dehors their own choice to other States allotted to them for pursuing M.B.B.S. course on account of compulsions arising out of the enforcement of the said scheme. 18 States and Union Territories, apart from Jammu & Kashmir and Andhra Pradesh, provide post-graduate medical courses on pooling 25% seats to be filled on all-India basis by a common entrance examination conducted by All India Institute of Medical Sciences. All M.B.B.S. qualified students can compete for admission without any restriction in this 25% quota and for filling the remaining 75% seats in post-graduate courses the States or Union Territories have adopted different criteria for admission. Some of the States have adopted institutional preference, while some others residential preference.
5. 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.
6. It is brought to our notice that the petitioner has married a Goan and has now settled down in Goa. Therefore, Delhi is no longer her home State. The contention advanced on behalf of the respondents is that the petitioner can certainly compete for the all-India 25% of seats earmarked to be filled up on all-India basis from the candidates selected and sponsored by the Director General of Health Services and the remaining 75% seats having been earmarked for the students of the State of Goa and the petitioner is not entitled to claim admission on that quota at all. It is submitted that the petitioner would have an unfair advantage since she had secured admission under 15% all-India quota, she would become eligible for admission in Delhi in view of the decision of this Court in Dr. Parag Gupta v. University of Delhi & Ors. (supra), that she is also eligible in 25% all-India quota in all institutions all over the country; and that she also becomes eligible for admission for 75% seats in the State of Delhi and as well as 75% seats in the State of Goa.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
(N.K.R.) Petition allowed. Rule made absolute accordingly.
**************
Parallel Citations of other Journals : .
Prachi Almeida v. Dean, Goa Medical College & Ors., 2001(6) Supreme 728 : 2001 (7) JT 385 : 2001 (2) SCSLJ 368 : (2001) 7 SCC 640 : 2001 (4) SLR 291
00058