Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

17. It is further stated that by respondent No. 1 and 2 that the Goa Medical College is managed and administered by the State of Goa through State funds and that the State Government has every right to make provisions in order to safeguard the interest of the local institutional candidates. It is further submitted that as per the Rules, preference has been given to the students/candidates from the State Institutional candidates, that is the candidates residing in Goa for 10 years, passing their degree in Goa Medical College and completing internship through Goa Medical College. It is further submitted that in case no preference is stipulated, then the students/candidates from any part of the country would be entitled to apply for admission and the candidates from the institution of this State would suffer. It is stated that 25% seats are already available for All India Quota. Therefore, the preference in the Rules cannot be termed as "Reservation".

28. Rest of the respondents who have been joined by the petitioner, are the students whose names have been displayed in the merit list. The contents of their affidavits are almost identical and can be narrated as follows :

The petitioner had applied for admission to the Postgraduate Degree Courses of Goa University at the Goa Medical College as far back as in September, 1999 and was refused admission 2 years back on the very same ground, namely that the petitioner had not completed fully internship of one year at the Goa Medical College and consequently, he was treated as falling under Rule III(2)(b). It is submitted therein that inspite of this, the petitioner did not challenge the Rules and refusal of his Admission to Postgraduate Degree Course in 1998. The petitioner is, therefore, guilty of laches and is not entitled to challenge the Rules and the refusal two years after he had obvious knowledge of the said Rules. It is also contended that the petitioner did not get admission to the First M.B.B.S. Course at Goa Medical College, since he did not secure necessary marks. Consequently, the petitioner got himself admitted to a private Medical College on payment of capitation fee. It is further contended that Goa Medical College is the only Medical College in State of Goa and the said Rule of preference is intended to ensure the medical facilities in the State of Goa and to ensure that services of those undergoing internship are available to the people of Goa. It is denied by them that Rule III(2) is Rule of Reservation. It is submitted that regulating selection procedure is within the competent of the State Government. It is submitted that the Rules do not contemplate completion of internship partly in Goa Medical College and partly in colleges outside Goa Medical College. It is therefore, prayed by them that the petition be dismissed. It is also submitted that if the petition is allowed, it will cause undue hardship to the students who have already joined the course and are undergoing their studies.

37. Relying upon the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and others v. Thukral Anjali Deokumar and others, , Mr. Kakodkar pointed out that there is no intelligible differentia for the classification by way of collegewise institutional preference as provided by the impugned Rules distinguishing the preferred candidates in respect of each college. In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the Bombay High Court who had struck down Rule 4(A) framed by the Bombay Municipal Corporation and part of Rule 5 framed under the Government Resolution, that is to say, only in respect of application to the Grant Medical College in the city of Bombay relating to Admission to Postgraduate MD Course. Mr. Kakodkar argued that in this case, the Supreme Court agreed with the Bombay High Court when it stated that though Bombay Municipal Corporation had to spend a lot of money for the colleges run by it, but that would be no ground for making discrimination between the students of the Municipal Colleges and those of the Government Colleges affiliated to the same University for the purpose of admission in the Postgraduates Degree Course and that such discrimination would not serve any object which could be justified on any rational basis. Mr. Kakodkar argued that the petitioner had passed his M.B.B.S. Degree from Goa Medical College only and that he had done only three months internship in that college, the college authority had given him certificate about completion of internship, though he had done internship of 9 months in Lokmanya Tilak Municipal Medical College, at Bombay. He argued that in view of this, the petitioner cannot be discriminated against the students who had also passed M.B.B.S. Examination from Goa Medical College, and who had also completed 12 months' internship from Goa Medical College only. He submitted that there is no distinction between the petitioner and the other group of students and hence, the rule of preference of which the petitioner has become the victim, has to be struck down.

54. Mrs. Agni, appearing for the Goa University, had nothing much to say. She only submitted that the certificate issued by the Dean, Goa Medical College dated 14-8-1998 was with respect to the satisfactory completion of three months' internship in the Preventive & Social Medicine of the College and it only mentioned completion of 9 months' internship at Lokmanya Tilak Municipal Medical College, Bombay. She submitted that this certificate was issued at the request of the petitioner himself and was only for a limited purpose, whereby the petitioner was held to be qualifying for the award of M.B.B.S. Degree of Goa University. As completion of one year internship was part of the M.B.B.S. Degree, no degree could be awarded unless the internship was complete. She, however, submitted that she was adopting the arguments of learned Advocate General as far as the Rules of Eligibility and Preference were concerned.