Holding

Students admitted under the 15% all‑India quota are entitled to compete for postgraduate seats in the state where they studied, and the residence requirement cannot be invoked to deny them admission.

Summary

Dr. Prachi Almeida, who earned her MBBS at Goa Medical College under the 15% all‑India quota, applied for a postgraduate medical seat in Goa but was denied because she had not resided in Goa for ten years as required by Rule III(iii) of the Goa University admission rules. She contended that the residence requirement should not apply to candidates admitted under the all‑India quota. The Supreme Court examined the purpose of the quota system, prior precedents on university versus institutional preference, and the need to balance equities between all‑India and local candidates. It held that the residence condition cannot be used to exclude a student who entered the undergraduate program through the all‑India quota, as allowing such candidates to compete does not disturb the balance of seats. Consequently, the Court directed the respondents to consider her for admission without reference to the ten‑year residence rule. The petition was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the ten‑year residence requirement under Goa University Rules for postgraduate admission applies to candidates who obtained their MBBS under the 15% all‑India quota.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 32

Subjects

All‑India quotaPostgraduate medical admissionResidence requirementEquityState quotaMedical educationConstitutional writArticle 32Goa University Rules

Judgment

DR. PRACHI ALMEIDA A
v.
DEAN, GOA MEDICAL COLLEGE AND ORS.

SEPTEMBER 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, I 998; Rule llJ(J)(iiO- C
Medical Education-Postgraduate courses in Medicine and MDS-
Admission to-Eligibility criterion-Ten years residence in the State-I 5%
all-India quota-Candidate obtained MBBS degree under I 5% all-India
quota-Eligibility for admission to postgraduate course in Medicine-Held: If D
such candidates are allowed to participate in the entrance test for admission
to postgraduate medical courses it will not disturb the balance to any extent-
Hence, such candidates should be considered for admission irrespective of the
rule of residence.

The petitioner was admitted into the Medical College in the State under E
the 15% all-India quota and was awarded the degree of MB.B.S. by the
University. The petitioner applied for admission to the postgraduate Medical
course but was denied admission on the ground that she did not fulfil the
condition relating to residence in the State for a period of IO years in terms
of the Goa (Rules for Admission for Postgraduate Degree Courses of the Goa
University at Goa College) Rules. 1998. Hence this petition. F
Allowing the petition, the Court

HELD: I. The petitioner having been selected in the 15% all-India
quota, allowed to study in the State, obtained graduation, her case should not
be ignored on the basis of non-fulfilment of residential requireoent. The G
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 ofresidence.
The argument of unfair advantage is not acceptable 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 the H
519
520 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A 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 the necessary grade to compete with the local students. If they are
also allowed to participate in the entrance test for admission to postgraduate
medical courses, it will not disturb the balance to any extent but, on the other
B hand, achieve uniformity to an extent. This principle is 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. (524-F]

C Dr. Parag Gupta v. University of Delhi, (2000] 5 SCC 684; Dr. Pradeep
Jain v. Union ofIndia, [1984] 3 SCC 654; Dr. Dinesh Kumar !Iv. Motilal Nehru
Medical College, [1986] 3 SCC 727; State of Rajasthan v. Dr. Ashok Kumar
Gupta, (1989[ l SCC 93; Anant Madan v. State ofHaryana (1995[ 2 SCC 135;
D.P. Joshi v. State of MP.. (1995] l SCR 1215; Sanjay Ahlawat v. Maharishi
Dayanand University, [1995] 2 SCC 762 and Dean, Goa Medical College v. Dr.
D Sudhir Kumar Solanki CA.No., 1966 of 2000 decided by Supreme Court on 3-
9-2001, referred to.

2. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner
for admission to postgraduate course for the year for which she had applied
if she could have been on the basis of her performance, selected to an
E appropriate course chosen by her in that year without reference to Rule
III(l)(iii) of the Goa (Rules for Admission for Postgraduate Degree Courses
of the Goa University at Goa Medical College) Rule, 1998 relating to the
requirement of 10 years residence. [524-F-G]

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (c) No. 420 of
F
2000.

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)

In-person for the petitioner.

G S.S. Javali and Ms. A. Subhashini for the Respondent Nos. 1-2.

Maninder Singh for the Respondent No.4

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

H RAJENDRA BABU, J. The petitioner before us was admitted into
PRACHI ALMEIDA v. DEAN, GOA MEDICAL COLLEGE [RAJENDRA BABU, J.] 521

Goa Medical College under the 15% all-India quota. She passed out of the A
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 B
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 IO 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 : C
"Rule III : Eligibility, Preference and Order of Merit.

(I) Eligibility :

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

(i) possess the M.B.B.S. degree of the Goa University or any other
University recognised as equivalent thereto by tlie Goa University
and the Medical Council of India.
(ii) complete Compulsory Rotatory Internship of one year on or before E
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 :-
F
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 G
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 nof available, then
(c) Candidates who have graduated from colleges other than the H
522 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A 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."
B 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 and Anr.,
we have upheld the validity of this Rule.

C This Court in Dr. Parag Gupta v. University of Delhi and Ors., [2000]
5 sec 684, considered the effect of decisions in Dr. Pradeep Jain V. Union
of India, [1984] 3 SCC 654; Dr. Dinesh Kumar II v. Motilal Nehru Medical
College, (1986] 3 SCC 727; State of Rajasthan v. Dr. Ashok Kumar Gupta,
[1989] l SCC 93; Anant Madan v. State of Haryana, (1995] 2 SCC 135; D.P.
Joshi v. State of M.P., (1955] I SCR 1215; Sanjay Ahlawat v. Maharishi
D Dayanand University, (1995] 2 sec 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
E 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
F 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
G 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
H process of admission and their desire to provide for their own students
PRACHI ALMEIDA v. DEAN, GOA MEDICAL COLLEGE [RAJENDRA BABU, J.] 523

should also be accorded due deference." [pp. 689, 690] A
- 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 B
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 C
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 D
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 E
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 F
can certainly compete for the all .. Jndia 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 G
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 and 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
~of~ H
524 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A 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
B 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
C 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
D 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-
E 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.
F
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 I 0 years residence. The petitioner shall,
G however, be admitted in such course to which she is selected for the current
year. Rule is made absolute accordingly.

V.S.S. Petitions allowed.