Residence-based admission preference upheld as a mandatory eligibility rule, while a reorganisation safeguard preserved consideration for applicants.

The Supreme Court clarified that a residence-based preference for postgraduate medical admission is valid when kept within reasonable limits and is enforceable as a mandatory eligibility condition, not a directory guideline. It held that the ten years' residence requirement under the Goa admission rules was valid and binding. The Court also construed Section 58 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Reorganisation Act, 1987 as a protective provision for residents of the former Union Territory, reading "technical institutions" to include medical colleges and postgraduate medical studies. On that footing, the provision supported consideration of the first respondent despite non-fulfilment of the residence rule.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Rule III(1)(iii) of the Goa (Rules for Admission for Post-Graduate Degree Courses of the Goa University at the Goa Medical College) Rules, 1998, requiring ten years' residence in Goa, was only directory or was a valid and mandatory eligibility condition; (ii) Whether Section 58 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Reorganisation Act, 1987 justified consideration of the first respondent despite non-fulfilment of the residence requirement.

Issue (i): Whether Rule III(1)(iii) of the Goa (Rules for Admission for Post-Graduate Degree Courses of the Goa University at the Goa Medical College) Rules, 1998, requiring ten years' residence in Goa, was only directory or was a valid and mandatory eligibility condition.

Analysis: The residence requirement was examined against the settled position that preference based on domicile or residence is not impermissible if kept within reasonable limits and does not amount to wholesale reservation of seats. The rule had to be treated as an eligibility norm governing admission, not as a merely directory guideline. A statutory eligibility condition cannot be diluted into a nebulous and discretionary standard; it is either invalid or, if valid, enforceable according to its terms. On the facts, the rule operated within permissible limits and did not offend the law.

Conclusion: The ten years' residence requirement in Rule III(1)(iii) was valid and mandatory, and the High Court was in treating it as merely directory.

Issue (ii): Whether Section 58 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Reorganisation Act, 1987 justified consideration of the first respondent despite non-fulfilment of the residence requirement.

Analysis: Section 58 was construed as a protective provision intended to continue facilities for residents of the territories comprising the former Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu in technical institutions located in Goa. The expression 'technical institutions' was read in context to include medical colleges and postgraduate medical studies, which are institutions of applied science. The provision was treated as analogous in purpose to the corresponding reorganisation provision in the States Re-organization Act, 1956, warranting a liberal construction to preserve pre-existing facilities for the relevant resident class.

Conclusion: Section 58 supported the first respondent's claim to consideration, and the ultimate relief in his favour was not disturbed.

Final Conclusion: The legal position on the residence rule was clarified in favour of enforceability, but the first respondent was still entitled to consideration for admission under the protective statutory scheme.

Ratio Decidendi: A residence-based preference in admission is valid if kept within reasonable limits, and a statutory eligibility criterion must be treated as mandatory when valid; a protective reorganisation provision may be liberally construed to preserve access to technical institutions for the intended resident class.

---