Raju, J. - (1.) The above appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 9-12-1999 of the High Court of Bombay at Goa, where under the claim of the first respondent came to be allowed with a direction that the case of the first respondent and other similarly situated students, who applied for the post-graduate course in the Goa Medical Colleges in terms of the 1998 Rules, shall be considered keeping in view that the residency requirement as contained in R.III(1) (iii) is directory. The effect of the said directions is to, in substance, dispense with or doing away with the eligibility requirement envisaging ten years residency in the State of Goa in the matter of selection of the candidates for admission to the post graduate course in Medicine and MDS for the academic year 1999-2000. The relevant portion of the Goa (Rules for Admission for Post-Graduate Degree Courses of the Goa University at the Goa Medical College) Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as "the Goa Rules, 1998") reads as follows :-"III. Eligibility, Preference and Order of Merit :- (1) Eligibility : Candidates applying for admission to the post-graduate degree courses 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 Rotator 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 application."
(2.) The learned Judges of the High Court were of the view that merit being the only criterion for admission to post-graduate courses such as M.D., M.S. and the like, the residency requirement cannot be insisted upon in such cases where they want to pursue post-graduate studies in the institutions where they studied and obtained their M.B.B.S. degrees.
(3.) Heard Mr.Mukul Rohatgi, learned ASG, for the appellants. The first respondent was represented by Mr. M Veerappa, Advocate. Apparently, conscious of the difficulties in sustaining the ratio of the judgment of the High Court, the learned counsel for the respondent placed strong reliance upon S.58 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Reorganisation Act, 1987 to justify the relief already granted in favour of the first respondent. This claim is based on the fact that the first respondent was born in the year 1976 in the State of Goa, Daman and Diu and was governed by all laws then existing in the Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu till May, 1987 when Goa became a State, Daman and Diu remained a Union Territory. The first respondent belonged to the erstwhile Union Territory comprising of Goa, Daman and Diu and even after separation of Goa, continued to be a resident of the Union Territory of Daman and Diu.;