R.K. Manisana, J. — This appeal arises from a judgment of a learned Single Judge made on 10.9.93 in Civil Rule No. 299 of 1993 of Agartala Bench In the writ petition, Sri Sumit Saha (respondent 1 herein) challenged the nomination of the appellant Sri Tanmay Ratnapradeep Barman Roy made by the Government of Tripura for admission to the first year MBBS course on the ground that Sri TR Barman Roy is not eligible candidate for nomination as his father is not a permanent resident of Tripura in terms of Regulation 4 of the Tripura Board of Joint Entrance Examination (TBJEE) ; Regulations, 1989 for short, the 'Regulations'. The learned Single Judge held that appellant was not eligible to be a nominee of the Government of Tripura and allowed the petition. Hence this appeal. 2. The undisputed facts are as follows: Sri Tapas Kanti Barman Roy, father of the appellant, is a permanent resident of Tripura. He has been serving in the Indian Force (Administrative Wing) as an officer from the year 1966 in different places in India except Tripura. His wife is also a Commissi­oned Officer in the rank of Wing Commander Air Force, in Medical Branch. However, he used to go to Tripura on leave every year and stay in his house at Tripura. His son, the appellant, was born in Bangalore when he was posted there and prosecuted studies in different schools at those places where his father was posted. A certificate was issued by the SDO West Tripura to the effect Sri TK Barman Roy, father of the appellant, is a permanent resident of Tripura. 3. Relevant portion of Regulation 4 of the Regulations may be extracted thus: "Eligibility for admission to Examination: The applicant must be an Indian citizen and a permanent resident of Tripura in terms of Memoran­dum No F. 28 (31)-REV/87 dated 12.12.1988 of the Revenue Department, Government of Tripura which stipulates that the applicant or his/her parents must have stayed in Tripura for a continuous period of 10 (ten) years or more till the date of issue of the certificate by the DM/ADM/ SDO." Memorandum mentioned in regulation 4 is in the following terms: "The permanent residence certificate for sponsoring candidates against quota of the State Govt. in various educational institutions in and outside this State shall be issued to a person if he/she or his/her parents have stayed in Tripura for a continuous period of 10(ten) years or more till the date of issue of the certificate. The DM and Collectors/Addl. DM and Collectors/Sub-Divisional Officers of the concerned areas shall issue such permanent residence certificate on being satisfied about the genuineness of the case. " 4. A combined reading of Regulation 4 and the memorandum quoted above makes it clear that an applicant or his/her parent must stay in Tripura continuously for a period of not less than 10 years upto the date of issue of permanent residence certificate. But, to constitute 'residence' it is not necessary that one must have his own house, or to constitute 'residence' the stay need not be permanent so long as there is anumus manendi. It may also be stated here that a casual stay in, or flying visit to, a particular place for temporary purpose may not be covered by the word 'residence'. In the present case, the learned Single Judge assumed continuous physical stay in Tripura and has held that Sri Tapas Kanti Barman Roy did not stay continuously for a period of 10 (ten) years preceding the date of issue of permanent residence certificate on 12.1.89 and, therefore, he is not a permanent resident in terms of Regulation 4. For the purpose of present case, we shall assume that Regulation 4 intends continuous physical stay in Tripura for a period of not less than 10 years. 5. The question which, therefore, arises for consideration is whether Regulation 4 should be applied or should be relaxed in the case of a candidate like one in question The Regulations are neither statutory in character not have statutory flavour. Rules are intended to be reasonable and should take into account the variety of circumstances in which those whom rules seek to govern find themselves. The condition that the candidate or his/her parent should have stayed in Tripura for a period not less than 10(ten) years is unreasonable when applied in the case of a candidate like the one in question and, therefore, that condition should be construed as not applicable to the present case. This view taken by us finds support from a decision of the Supreme Court reported as Meenakshi vs. Delhi University, AIR 1989 SC 1568 . This view taken by us finds support from a decision of the Supreme Court reported as Meenakshi vs. Delhi University, AIR 1989 SC 1568 . In that case, the Court has held that the condition that a candidate appearing for Entrance Examination for admission to Medical College in Delhi should have received the last two years of education in a school in Delhi is unreason­able when applied in the case of those candidates who were compelled to leave India for a foreign country by reason of the posting of the parent by the Government to such foreign country, and that the condition that the last two years of education should be in a school in Delhi should be construed as not applicable to the students who had to leave India with their parents on the parent being pasted to a foreign country by the Government. In that view of the matter, the judgment of the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained. 6. Before parting with the case, it is stated at the Bar that no candidate has been nominated for one seat allocated to the Government of Tripura in Assam Medical College, Dibrugarh. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it will meet the ends of justice, if that seat is released in favour of the appellant. We do so accordingly. 7. In the result the judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside and the appeal is allowed with a direction that the seat in the Assam Medical College shall be released in favour of the appellant by the Government of Tripura. No costs.