DEAN, GOA MEDICAL COLLEGE, BAMBOLIM, GOA AND ANR. versus DR. SUDHIR KUMAR SOLANKI AND ANR.

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 525 · Decided: 03-09-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

DEAN, GOA MEDICAL COLLEGE, BAMBOLIM, GOA AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
DR. SUDHIR KUMAR SOLANKI AND ANR. 
SPETEMBER 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, 19,98: Rule ll!(l)(iii). 
C 
Medical Education-Postgraduate courses in Medicine and MDS-
Admission to-Eligibility criterion-Ten years residence in the State-Validity 
of-Held: There is no infirmity in Rule III(J)(iii)-The said Rule is neither 
direct01y nor illegal but is mandatory. 
Goa, Daman and Diu Reorganisation Act, I 987: 
Section 58-Technica/ Institutions-Facilities of-Held: Residents of 
Union Territ01y of Daman and Diu are entitled to the facilities of technical 
institutions located in State of Goa-States Reorganisation Act, 1956, S.J 13. 
Words and Phrases: 
"Technical Jnstilutions"-Meaning of-Jn the context of Section 58 of 
the Goa, Daman and Diu Reorganisation Act, 1987. 
D 
E 
The first respondent applied for admission to the postgraduate course F 
in Medicine but was denied admission on the ground that he did not fulfil 
the residency requirement of ten years as contained in Rule 111(1 )(iii) of the 
Goa (Rules for Admission for Postgraduate Degree Courses of the Goa 
University at Goa Medical College) Rules, 1998. However, the High Court 
held that the said Rule Ill(l)(iii) was directory and allowed the writ petition G 
filed by the first respondent. Hence1his appeal. 
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that the word "technical 
institution" occurring in Section 58 of the Goa, Daman and Diu 
Reorganisation Act, 1987 did not comprehend within it the Medical Colleges. 
525 
H 
526 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
On behalf of the first respondent it was contended that in any case the 
first respondent was entitled to the benefit of Section 58 of the Act. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. There is no infirmity whatsoever in Rule III(l)(iii) of the 
B Goa (Rules for Admission for Postgraduate Degree Courses of the Goa 
University at Goa Medical College) Rules, 1998 and the same cannot be said 
to be merely directory or, for any reason, illegal. An eligibility criterion 
statutorily stipulated can by no means be held to be directory resulting in a 
nebulous state of affairs in the matter of selection of candidates for admission. 
There could be only two alternative courses, namely, either the rule is 
C unconstitutional or illegal for any reason and, therefore, to be struck down 
or on the other hand valid and invariably-and uniformly enforceable without 
any reservation whatsoever, as binding and mandatory is character. [529-A-BI 
D 
Dr. Parag Gupta v.University of Delhi, [2000] 5 SCC 684, relied on. 
Dr. Prachi Almeida v. Dean, Goa Medical College, [W.P.(C) No. 420 of 
2000 decided by Supreme Court on 3-9-2001. referred to. 
2. When a word has many etymological meanings attributed to it, the 
same takes its true colour, from the text and context. The dictionary meaning 
E of the word 'technical' is also 'professional' and is used in contradiction with 
pure sciences to prepare professionals in applied science. If that is the textual 
meaning, the context is to extend facilities to all persons resident in the 
erstwhile Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu even after separation of 
the State of Goa from the same. It cannot possibly or legitimately be contended 
that the medical college or studies in postgraduate course does not involve 
F applied science. That apart, Section 58 of the Goa, Daman and Diu 
Reorganisation Act, 1987 is almost akin, in its purpose and object, to Section 
113 of the State Reorganisation Act, 1956. Keeping in view, therefore, the 
purpose and object of the provisions engrafted in Section 58 and having regard 
to the nature of the same to be protective in character, liberal construction 
G could only further the legislative intent and cannot be said to be, in any 
manner, unwarranted or unjustified. [529-F-H; 530-A-B] 
Concise Oxford Dictionary, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1966 of 
H 2000. 
, 
DEAN, GOA MEDICAL COLLEGE, BAMBOLIM 1•. SUDHIR KUMAR SOLANKI [RAJU, J.] 527 
From the Judgment and Order dated 9.12.99 of the Bombay High Court A 
in W.P.No. 305 of 1999. 
Mukul Rohatgi, Additional Solicitor General, for the Appellant No. I 
Bhavani Shankar V. Gadnis and Shiv Sagar Tiwari for the Appellant 
Nos. I and 2. 
Ms. Divya Suri for th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.