http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4

CASE NO.:

Writ Petition (civil) 420 of 2000

PETITIONER:

DR. PRACHI ALMEIDA

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

THE DEAN, GOA MEDICAL COLLEGE & ORS....RESPONDENTS

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/09/2001

BENCH:

S.R.Babu, Doraiswamy Raju

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E T

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 :-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4

(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."

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 vs. Dr. Sudhir Kumar

Solanki & Anr.), we have upheld the validity of this Rule.

This Court in Dr. Parag Gupta vs. University of Delhi & Ors.,

2000 (5) SCC 684, considered the effect of decisions in Dr. Pradeep Jain

vs. Union of India, 1984 (3) SCC 654; Dr. Dinesh Kumar II vs.

Motilal Nehru Medical College, 1986 (3) SCC 727; State of Rajasthan

vs. Dr. Ashok Kumar Gupta, 1989 (1) SCC 93; Anant Madan vs.

State of Haryana, 1995 (2) SCC 135; D.P. Joshi vs. State of M.B.,

1955 (1) SCR 1215; Sanjay Ahlawat vs. Maharishi Dayanand

University, 1995 (2) SCC 762, 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]

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.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4

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.

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.

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 vs. 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.

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.

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.

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4

residence. The petitioner shall, however, be admitted in such course to

which she is selected for the current year. Rule is made absolute

accordingly.