JUDGMENT : BHARATI DANGRE, J. 1. ‘Rule’. By consent of the parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for final hearing. The Petitioner, Miss. Snigdha Sudhindra Uppoor, a resident of Goa and aspirant for securing admission to first year professional degree course of MBBS in Goa Medical College, Bambolim, has approached this Court being aggrieved by a stipulation in the common Prospectus for admission to the first year professional degree course Session 2025-26, restricting which has restricted the eligibility of the candidate under ‘General Category’ by providing that the candidate must have passed XII th or equivalent examination from schools/colleges in the State of Goa, in addition to the condition of being a resident of the State. 2. The Petitioner, born to the parents originally from Udupi in the State of Karnataka, on being married in the year 2004, chose State of Goa as their place of abode since November 2004. Both Doctors by profession, established themselves in the Village of Calangute, State of Goa. Born in Goa, the Petitioner completed her schooling in Sharada Mandir School, Miramar, situated at Panaji and secured 94.3% marks in the X th standard Board examination. In her better interest, her parents admitted her to Sri Chaitanya Junior College, at Vijaywada, Andhra Pradesh, which runs a residential programme in higher studies and more for the reason, that her brother had already secured admission in BITS, Hyderabad and her parents being professionals, at times were required to travel out of Goa and by admitting her in a residential school, her academic and personal interest could be best secured. As a consequence, the Petitioner appeared for the XII th standard Board examination, conducted by the Board of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh and secured 98.1% marks. Since the Petitioner and also her parents are residents of Goa, she is very much interested in securing admission in the MBBS degree course in the Goa Medical College, which is affiliated to Goa University. 3. For securing admission in the professional decree course of medicine/dentistry, the Directorate of Technical Education has issued a common Prospectus for Session 2025-26, setting out the schedule of admission activities, including the submission of Application forms, display of merit list, etc. 3. For securing admission in the professional decree course of medicine/dentistry, the Directorate of Technical Education has issued a common Prospectus for Session 2025-26, setting out the schedule of admission activities, including the submission of Application forms, display of merit list, etc. The information contained therein pertains to the Common Entrance Test (CET) and admission procedure applicable to the Government, Government aided and unaided colleges in Goa offering Bachelor’s Degree courses in various distinct streams, including Medicine (Allopathy, Homeopathy, Ayurveda), Pharmacy, Allied Health Sciences, Nursing etc. The Prospectus cover 200 seats in Goa Medical College, Bambolim for 5½ year duration course of MBBS and has set out the Rules for admission. At the outset, it is stipulated as below:- 3.01 All candidates desirous of seeking admissions to Professional Degree courses in MBBS, BDS, BHMS (Homoeopathy), BAMS (Ayurveda), Allied Health Sciences, B.V.Sc. & A.H., Nursing and BNYS in the colleges within the State of Goa during the academic session 2025-2026, must appear and have a valid score in NEET UG-2025, and should fulfil other eligibility criteria for admission as specified in this prospectus. Merit list for these courses shall be based only on NEET UG-2025 SCORES/RANK. 4. The Prospectus also set out the stages from submission of the Application form till the display of the merit list and selection of the candidates pursuant thereto till the admission of the selected student in the respective college. The Prospectus for professional degree courses in clause 4.4 prescribe the qualifying examination and the requirement of securing minimum marks by setting out as under:- 4.4. QUALIFYING EXAMINATION & MINIMUM MARKS: An applicant must have passed the Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination of the Goa Board or an examination conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi, or any other examination, which in scope and standard, is deemed to be equivalent to the H.S.S.C. examination of Goa Board, and must have obtained the minimum percentage of marks in the specific subjects, as prescribed for the admission to respective professional courses, as under. a. First Year MBBS, BDS, BHMS, BAMS, AHS, BNYS & B.Sc. in Nursing. MBBS, BDS, BHMS, BAMS AHS & BNYS Applicant should have passed the Higher Secondary Certificate (Std. a. First Year MBBS, BDS, BHMS, BAMS, AHS, BNYS & B.Sc. in Nursing. MBBS, BDS, BHMS, BAMS AHS & BNYS Applicant should have passed the Higher Secondary Certificate (Std. XIIth) examination of Goa Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education or its equivalent examination with English and secured not less than 50% marks in the aggregate of subjects of Physics, Chemistry, and Biology taken together. (40% for the applicants belonging to SC, ST and OBC, and 45% for applicants belonging to PwD category, for MBBS and BDS Course). 5. The Prospectus in part 5 provide for classification of categories and clause 5.1 thereof reads thus: 5.1 CATEGORY 1 - GENERAL An applicant belonging to General Category must have studied and passed Std. XII th or equivalent examination from schools/colleges in the State of Goa, and must have resided in Goa continuously for a minimum period of 10 years (5 years, for those whose either of the parent/ grandparent, is born in Goa), immediately preceding the last date/month of application OR Be son/daughter of Government of Goa deputationists or employees posted outside Goa and must have passed the qualifying examination from Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi or other recognised State Boards. An applicant who is found eligible according to the above criterion in a particular year shall continue to be considered as eligible for the subsequent 3 years. 6. The said clause also provided for relaxation in residential requirements for categories 1 to 6 and 8, by setting out the following : Relaxations in Residential Requirements for Category 1 to 6 & 8. a) Any period spent by the applicant outside Goa on account of posting/leave/training/deputation of either of his/her parents being the Goa State Government Employee shall be counted towards the continuous residence of 10 years (5 years for those whose either of the parent/grandparent is born in Goa). b) Any period spent by the applicant in another State, under the scheme of Exchange Programme as the student of Navodaya Vidyalaya from Goa, shall be counted towards the ten years continuous residence in Goa (5 years for those whose either of the parent/grandparent is born in Goa). c) An applicant born in Goa, who has studied and passed qualifying examination (Std. c) An applicant born in Goa, who has studied and passed qualifying examination (Std. XII th ) from schools/colleges in the State of Goa, should have minimum residence of overall 10 years (5 years for those whose either of the parent/grand parent is born in State of Goa), as on last date of submission of application for admission. 7. It is clause 5.1 of part 5 of the Prospectus, which create an impediment in consideration of the candidature of the Petitioner for admission to first year MBBS in Goa Medical College in Goa as, if she has to compete in ‘General Category’, she must have studied and passed standard XII th or equivalent examination from schools/ colleges in the State of Goa and it is necessary for her to reside in Goa continuously for a minimum period of 10 years. It is on account of the criteria set out in clause 5.1, the Petitioner find herself in an arduous situation as she may not be considered eligible in the ‘General Category’ as she has not cleared XII th standard examination/the qualifying examination from State of Goa, but from a Board in Andhra Pradesh and also on the count that she did not reside in Goa for a minimum period of 10 years, immediately preceding the last date/month of her Application as she was residing in Andhra Pradesh where she prosecuted her studies for XI th and XII th standard. In anticipation that her candidature shall not be considered in the General Category for admission to the MBBS course, she has knocked the doors of this Court, seeking quashing of the said condition so that her candidature shall be considered from the General Category. 8. Mr. V.M. Thorat, ably assisted by Ms. Pooja Thorat, Advocate for the Petitioner, has urged before us that the Petitioner is domiciled in the State of Goa as since her birth, she has been residing in Goa and completed her entire primary and secondary schooling in Goa. She is also issued a Domicile Certificate and the Residential Certificate by the Deputy Collector of Bardez and the Mamlatdar of Bardez and even her Aadhar Card has shown her address to be of the State of Goa. It is submitted before us that, from her birth on 10.06.2007, till she completed her X th Board examination, she continued to reside in Goa. It is submitted before us that, from her birth on 10.06.2007, till she completed her X th Board examination, she continued to reside in Goa. However, for her welfare and safety and also for the best possible academic coaching, her parents thought it fit to put her in a residential programme, and she secured admission in Andhra Pradesh, but on 15.04.2025, obtained a Transfer Certificate, declaring that she had exited Sri Chaitanya Junior College, Punadipadu, Kankipadu Mandal, Krishna on 31.03.2025. It is urged before us that though the Petitioner cleared her XII th standard from the Board of Intermediate Education, but even during the period when she was pursuing her studies in Andhra Pradesh, she used to frequently visit Goa and never severed her ties with her own State. However, merely because she pursued her XII th standard i.e. a qualifying examination from a Board, which is situated outside the State of Goa, she finds herself to be ineligible to secure admission in the ‘General Category’ in Goa Medical College at Bambolim. 9. Mr. Thorat would submit before us that it is not in dispute that the Petitioner is domicile of the State of Goa and there are two classes which are sought to be created in the wake of clause 5.1, one class of domicile of Goa who have passed their XII th standard examination from the State of Goa and the other class of domicile who have passed the said examination from an Institution/Board outside State of Goa. He would submit that the classification of class of domicile, into these two classes is completely unreasonable and more so, has no nexus to the object sought to be achieved. This, according to him, amounts to hostile discrimination as ultimately the object in selecting the students for MBBS, course is only merit and no other criteria can be applied. It is his specific submission that the classification permitted under Article 14 has to be justified on the basis of a nexus between the classification and the object sought to be achieved, even assuming that territorial classification may be a reasonable classification. If the object sought to be achieved, according to Mr. It is his specific submission that the classification permitted under Article 14 has to be justified on the basis of a nexus between the classification and the object sought to be achieved, even assuming that territorial classification may be a reasonable classification. If the object sought to be achieved, according to Mr. Throat, is to get the best talent for admission to the professional course of MBBS, then creating an artificial discrimination between the domicile of the State, by classifying them into two separate classes; one, having passed a qualifying exam from the State and the other, outside the State, do not justify the classification. 10. He would place reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Dr. Pradeep Jain & Others Vs. Union of India , [ (1984) 3 SCC 654 ] , where the group of Petitions before the Apex Court raised a challenge to the requirement of domicile and to be specific, to the policy of the “Sons of the Soil” and it was urged that the reserving seats on the basis of the residence or place of birth, would result in discrimination while seeking admission to Professional courses like in Medical College. The principal contention advanced before the Court being that the residential requirement or institutional preference in admissions to technical and medical colleges is constitutionally impermissible and shall not stand the test of Article 14 and fall foul of the mandate and therefore needs to be struck down. Noting that for admission to MBBS course, domicile or permanent residence may be one of the stipulations as the residence for specified number of years from three to twenty in the State was one of the condition made applicable, whereas in other States, the requirement that the candidate should have studied in an educational institution in the State for a continuous period varying from four to ten years or that he should be a bonafide resident of one State, was a criteria applied. However, it was held that it may not hold good for admission to the MDS course. Relying upon the decision in the case of Jagadish Saran Vs. Union of India , [ (1980) 2 SCC 768 ] , according to Mr. Throat, it was reiterated that the primary consideration and selection of candidates for admission to medical colleges must be based on merit. 11. Mr. Relying upon the decision in the case of Jagadish Saran Vs. Union of India , [ (1980) 2 SCC 768 ] , according to Mr. Throat, it was reiterated that the primary consideration and selection of candidates for admission to medical colleges must be based on merit. 11. Mr. Thorat would also place reliance upon the decision of this Court in the case of Rajiv Purshottam Wadhwa Vs. State of Maharashtra , [ 2000 SCC OnLine Bom 359 ] , where the Division Bench was confronted with Rules 4.4 and 4.5 of the Rules framed by the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences governing admissions to courses in Health Sciences in State, which prescribed a similar condition. “4.4 The candidate must have passed the S.S.C. or equivalent examination from an institution situated in the State of Maharashtra. 4.5 A candidate must have passed Higher Secondary Certificate or equivalent examination, from an institution situated in the State of Maharashtra with English, Physics. Chemistry and Biology at the time of admission.” 12. According to Mr. Thorat, on examining the said Rules, the Division Bench formulated an issue, whether the requirement of having passed X th standard examination from within the State can operate to debar a student domiciled within the State or regarded as permanent resident of the State and it directed reading down of the same and Mr. Throat has relied upon the following observations of the law report:- “24. In our view, therefore, the Rules for admission which have been framed by the State must suitably interpreted and read down so as to ensure that while Rule 4.4. and rule 4.5 would continue to operate, it should be open to the State Government to consider for admission those students who fulfill the requirements of domicile or residence prescribed by the State Government but who may not have passed the 10 th Standard Examination from within the State. The basic object and purpose of Rules 4.4. is to implement the requirement of domicile or residence. That objective is sought to be achieved by not conferring eligibility for admission on students who have not passed the 10 th Standard Examination from Institutions within the State. The basic object and purpose of Rules 4.4. is to implement the requirement of domicile or residence. That objective is sought to be achieved by not conferring eligibility for admission on students who have not passed the 10 th Standard Examination from Institutions within the State. That objective however would be defeated by excluding from the admissions process students who are bonafide residents of the State and are domiciled therein merely on the ground that some of these students may not have passed the 10 th Standard Examinations from within the State. The object of the Rule must therefore be preserved by implementing it as it stands, subject to the proviso that it would be open to the State to consider as eligible those students who are bonafide permanent residents of the State of are domiciled there even though in a given case the student may not have passed the 10 th Standard Examination from the State. Reading down of Rule 4.4. in this manner is not only desirable in the interests of Justice but is necessary in order to preserve the constitutional validity of Rule 4.4. Otherwise, the Rule may be susceptible to a substantial constitutional challenge on the ground that the prescription of the condition of passing the 10 th Standard Examination arbitrarily excludes students who are bonafide permanent residents of or are domiciled in the State, merely by the fortuitous circumstances that the S.S.C. Examination has not been passed from an institution within the State.” 13. Mr. Throat would also place reliance upon the decision of the Telangana High Court in a bunch of Writ Petitions, in the case of Kalluri Naga Narasimha Abhiram & Others Vs. State of Telangana , [MANU/TL/1100/2024] , raising a challenge to Rule 3(a) of the Telangana Medical and Dental Colleges Admission (Admission into MBBS & BDS Courses) Rules, 2017 and would submit that the Petitioners before the Court, claimed to be the permanent residents of the State of Telangana and sought a direction to treat them as ‘local’ candidates for admissions into MBBS and BDS courses in the State of Telangana. Relying upon an exhaustive and well reasoned decision delivered by Justice Alok Aradhe, the Hon’ble the Chief Justice (as his Lordship then was), Mr. Relying upon an exhaustive and well reasoned decision delivered by Justice Alok Aradhe, the Hon’ble the Chief Justice (as his Lordship then was), Mr. Throat would submit that it was held that it is necessary to have an interpretation which advances the object and purpose of the Act and if the object of the Rule 3(a) was to provide reservations to local candidate, it need to be read down by permitting the students from the areas comprising of State of Andhra Pradesh as well, as the expression “local area” shall mean the areas comprised in the State of Andhra Pradesh also. The conditions contemplated in the said Rule, for admission under the quota meant for local candidates who have studied in the State of Telangana for a period of four years or resided in the State of Telangana for four years, in addition, they were also required to pass a qualifying examination from the State of Telangana. According to Mr. Throat, in the light of the existing precedents, the issue that fell for consideration and which was determined was whether the benefit of being a local candidate can be denied to a candidate who otherwise fulfills the requirement of residence or domicile within the State. By keeping in mind the object of the Rule, according to Mr. Throat, the said Rule was read down as in regards to the candidates, who were permanent residents of State of Telengana by keeping in mind the object of Article 371D(2)(b)(ii) of the Constitution of India i.e. of making special provision to the people of different parts of State for admission to educational institutions. 14. Mr. Thorat faces opposition from the learned Advocate General Mr. Devidas Pangam, representing the State, as he would submit that the Rule in form of clause no. 5.1 in the Prospectus to the MBBS degree course set out the criteria for ‘General Category’ is being implemented for past several decades and it is not that it is introduced as a stipulation for the first time. Devidas Pangam, representing the State, as he would submit that the Rule in form of clause no. 5.1 in the Prospectus to the MBBS degree course set out the criteria for ‘General Category’ is being implemented for past several decades and it is not that it is introduced as a stipulation for the first time. He would submit that the Petitioner has admitted in the Petition that she chose to prefer to seek admission in the XI th and XII th standard in a Junior College situated outside State of Goa and in paragraph 36 of the Petition it is stated that even in State of Andhra Pradesh, such Rule is prevalent, which require candidates to have studied in Class IX th to XII th standard in the State of Andhra Pradesh. 15. Mr. Pangam would submit that providing such an eligibility criteria, of a candidate having studied and passed the XII th standard or equivalent examination prescribed (qualifying examination) from schools/colleges in the State of Goa, is permissible in law and it has been so held in numerous judgments passed by this Court as well as the Apex Court. He would further submit that striking off the said Rule in order to accommodate the Petitioner, would tantamount to including a new eligibility criteria in the common Prospectus, which exercise is impermissible as it is the exclusive domain of the State Government to provide such criteria as it has been introduced to protect the future of the candidates who have pursued their education till XII th standard in the State of Goa and work hard to secure seat in the said quota. Apart from this, he would submit that imposition of such criteria is to protect the candidates within the State who may lack social and material resources and may be in a disadvantageous position than compared to the candidates who can afford to have better facilities in other States to train and sharpen their skills and who can very well compete in the 15% All India quota. Submitting that even though the Petitioner is domiciled in the State of Goa, she would be entitled to apply in the General category but the fact that she had passed her qualifying examination from an Institute/Board outside the State of Goa, she may not be entitled to compete in General Category. Submitting that even though the Petitioner is domiciled in the State of Goa, she would be entitled to apply in the General category but the fact that she had passed her qualifying examination from an Institute/Board outside the State of Goa, she may not be entitled to compete in General Category. In any case, it is submitted by him that the Petitioner had voluntarily chosen to pursue her studies in standard XI th and XII th in a college which had residential programme and has non-suited herself to secure a seat in Goa Medical College from ‘General Category’, though it is open for her to compete in the All India quota as 15% seats are reserved and are open for such candidates. 16. The learned Advocate General has placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rajdeep Ghosh Vs. State of Assam & Others , [ (2018) 17 SCC 524 ] , where a condition contained in Rule 3(1)(c) of Medical Colleges and Dental Colleges of Assam (Regulations of Admission into 1 st year MBBS/BDS Courses) Rules, 2017, prescribing the eligibility, that a candidate must study in all classes from Class VII to XII in the State of Assam and must pass the qualifying examination or its equivalent examination from any Institute situated in the State of Assam has been upheld, with an observation that with respect to the State quota seat, it is open for the State Government to lay down the educational as well as domicile requirement and the incumbents intending to compete from this quota must fulfill the criteria and the condition prescribed in Rule 3(1)(c) of 2017 Rules cannot be said to be ultra vires of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Pangam would also rely upon the decision of this Court in the case of Yellamalli Venkatapriyanka Vs. Mr. Pangam would also rely upon the decision of this Court in the case of Yellamalli Venkatapriyanka Vs. State of Maharashtra , [ 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 10293 ] , where the Division Bench at the Principal Seat, has upheld the validity of identical Rule 4.5 and 4.6 requiring a candidate to pass Secondary School Certificate or equivalent examination as well as the qualifying examination i.e. Higher Secondary Certificate (HSC/XII th Standard) or equivalent examination from an Institution situated in the State of Maharashtra, in addition to the condition of domicile of Maharashtra as prescribed in clause 4.2 of the Information Brochure of Preference System for admission to Health Sciences Course in State Government/Corporation/Private and Minority Colleges for MBBS/BDS/BAMS/BHMS/BUMS/ BPTH and other courses. 17. According to Mr. Pangam, somehow similar argument was advanced by Mr. Thorat before the Division Bench, when he had urged that the requirement of passing X th and XII th examination from within the State of Maharashtra coupled with the requirement of domicile has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved, as it amounted to artificial discrimination drawn in the students of State of Maharashtra as it received rejection. The Division Bench held that each one of the clauses determining the eligibility of the candidate would have to be read together and harmoniously and merely because a condition by which a candidate is required to be a domicile of Maharashtra is set out separately and other requirements and the other two conditions with regard to passing of SSC or equivalent and HSC/qualifying examination or equivalent with the subjects set out therein have been distinctly inserted, it cannot be said that they have absolutely no nexus or relation with the object sought to be achieved. The learned Advocate General would rely on the following observations from the law report :- “65. … Eventually, the object sought to be achieved is that a candidate, domiciled in the State of Maharashtra and fulfilling the requirement of educational qualifications required for admission to the degree course, obtained within the State of Maharashtra, alone is eligible. This condition can be prescribed either together with the domicile or separately. Once it is so prescribed to hold that there is no nexus at all or it has no relation with the object sought to be achieved would not be proper. This condition can be prescribed either together with the domicile or separately. Once it is so prescribed to hold that there is no nexus at all or it has no relation with the object sought to be achieved would not be proper. If there is a departure from the rule of merit permissible in terms of the Hon'ble Supreme Court verdict itself on two grounds, one of which is the interest of the State, then, to safeguard and protect it, such condition has been inserted. It cannot be termed as superfluous or ignored totally for mere domicile may not justify earmarking of eighty five per cent seats for the State of Maharashtra. If the State of Maharashtra is held to be entitled to fill in these eighty five per cent seats by students residing within its limits and for protecting its interest and achieving the larger cause of obtaining doctors for public health facilities and caring, then, all the more, the argument of the counsel appearing for the petitioners on the point of nexus cannot be accepted.” 18. In rejoinder, Mr. Thorat, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, would submit that in Maharashtra, there exist a statute governing the admission, being the Maharashtra Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions and Fees) Act, 2015, but no such statute is enacted in the State of Goa. He would reiterate by stating that the Petitioner, is all the while domiciled in Goa, but only on account of some fortuitous circumstances, she happened to pass her XI th and XII th standard from an Institute outside the State but for this very reason the benefit of being a resident of State of Goa shall not be denied to her. 19. We have considered the rival contentions advanced before us. The Petition has called in question the validity of Rule 5.1 of the Prospectus relating to admission to the professional course 2025-2026 issued by the Directorate of Technical Education covering MBBS and other courses. As per the said Rules, the eligibility of candidate is prescribed by providing clause of Nationality, Age, Valid score at Entrance Test JEE, NEET/2025, for admission to Medicine, Dentistry, Allied Health Sciences, etc., as it is necessary that the applicant must have availed valid score/written at UG-NEET-2025 conducted by the National Testing Agency (NTA). As per the said Rules, the eligibility of candidate is prescribed by providing clause of Nationality, Age, Valid score at Entrance Test JEE, NEET/2025, for admission to Medicine, Dentistry, Allied Health Sciences, etc., as it is necessary that the applicant must have availed valid score/written at UG-NEET-2025 conducted by the National Testing Agency (NTA). The eligibility criteria also prescribe a qualifying examination and the minimum marks to be secured in the Higher Secondary Certificate Examination of the Goa Board or an examination by Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi or any other examination which in scope and standard is deemed to be equivalent to Higher Secondary Certificate examination of Board of Goa, prescribed as qualifying examination for admission to the professional courses covered by the Prospectus. For MBBS Course, it is imperative for the Applicant to have passed the Higher Secondary Certificate Examination (XII th standard) examination of Goa Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education or its equivalent examination and secured not less than 50% marks of subjects of Physics, Chemistry, and Biology taken together with some reservations being offered to certain categories. To be eligible for securing admission in the professional courses 2025-26, a candidate must fulfill the eligibility criteria prescribed in Rule 4 and this includes passing of the examination of Higher Secondary Certificate (standard XII th ) examination of Goa Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education or its equivalent examination. 20. Rule 5 of the Prospectus has prescribed classification of the Categories, being General Category, category of SC(2%), category of ST (12%) category of OBC (27%), category of PwD/FFs (1%), CSP (3%), as an exception to those Applicants who do not meet the residential and other requirements of General Category, ESM (1%), No reservation, NRI/OCI, etc. On specifying the eligibility criteria which is applicable to all, there is further classification as the candidates may compete for the seat from different classes, the foremost category being ‘General Category’. Clause 5.1 allow a candidate to compete in General Category if he/she has studied and passed XII th standard or equivalent examination from school or college in the State of Goa and has resided in Goa continuously for minimum period of 10 years. This period is, however, reduced to five years for those whose either of the parent/grandparent is born in Goa. This period is, however, reduced to five years for those whose either of the parent/grandparent is born in Goa. The requirement of residence for 10 years or 5 years, as the case may be, is immediately preceding the last date/month of application. A son/ daughter of a Government of Goa deputationist or employee posted outside Goa is also entitled to compete from General Category provided he/she passed the qualifying examination from CBSE, New Delhi or other recognized State Board. In counting the minimum period of 10 years as a condition of residence in State of Goa, certain relaxations are provided in the Prospectus itself and this include the following three clauses:- a) The period spent by an applicant outside Goa on account of posting/leave/training/deputation of either of his or her parents, who is a State Government employee, shall be counted towards continuous residence of 10 years; b) Any period spent by the applicant under the equivalent examination under the scheme of Exchange Programme as a student of Navodaya Vidyalaya from Goa, shall be counted towards the ten years continuous residence in Goa. c) Applicant born in Goa, studied and passed qualifying examination (12th Standard) from the school/college in Goa who have minimum residence of over 10 years as on last date of submission of application for admission. 21. Admittedly, the Petitioner falls in none of the above categories. The Petitioner fails to make up the eligibility criteria as she failed to pass the qualifying examination i.e. of standard XII th from the institute in the State of Goa. Apart from this, though she is born in Goa and upto standard X th , she was resident of Goa, for the two years preceding the date on which she has applied, she was not residing in Goa. In any case, we find that since her birth she was residing in Goa except the period of two years when she was in Andhra Pradesh, therefore the Petitioner meet the criteria of continuously residing in Goa for minimum period of 10 years. 22. The claim of the Petitioner is that apart from prescribed condition of residence, for securing admission in the ‘General Category’ in a seat in a medical college in Goa, it is unjust to even include the criteria of having to pass standard XII th examination from an Institution in Goa. 22. The claim of the Petitioner is that apart from prescribed condition of residence, for securing admission in the ‘General Category’ in a seat in a medical college in Goa, it is unjust to even include the criteria of having to pass standard XII th examination from an Institution in Goa. At this juncture, it is necessary to note that passing of qualifying examination, i.e., Higher Secondary Certificate Examination of the Goa Board, is prescribed in Rule 4.4 as it is imperative for a candidate to have passed other examination which in scope and standard, qualify the Higher Secondary Certificate Examination of Goa Board, as the eligibility condition as per Clause 4.4 for admission to First Year MBBS/BDS Course, is passing of Higher Secondary Certificate Examination of Goa Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education or its equivalent examination with English having secured not less than 40% marks in the prescribed subject. There is no challenge by the Petitioner to the eligibility criteria so prescribed in Clause 4.4 but the Petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that to compete for a seat in first year MBBS from General Category, Rule 5.1 prescribe, that to an Applicant must have passed standard XII th or equivalent examination only from the school/college in the State of Goa, in addition that she must have been residing in Goa for minimum period of 10 years preceding the date when the Application is preferred for securing an admission. 23. Article 14 of the Constitution of India, provide for equality before law and equal protection of laws within the territory of India. Article 15 prohibits the State from discriminating against any citizen on the ground of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth, or any of them. The general and abstract principle of equality laid down in Article 14 is spelt out for specific situations in Article 15 as well as Article 16, which ensure equality of opportunity in matters related to employment or appointment to any office under the State. Though Article 14 prohibits the State from denying to any person equality before law, Article 15(1) and Article 16(2) protect the citizens against any discrimination. There is clear prohibition on discriminating them on the grounds of ‘place of birth’. However, sub-clause (2) of Article 16 refer to “residence” apart from place of birth. Though Article 14 prohibits the State from denying to any person equality before law, Article 15(1) and Article 16(2) protect the citizens against any discrimination. There is clear prohibition on discriminating them on the grounds of ‘place of birth’. However, sub-clause (2) of Article 16 refer to “residence” apart from place of birth. The concept of domicile, for the purposes of Article 15 and 16 is distinct from the expression of ‘place of birth’. Sub-clause (3) of Article 16 is an enabling power for making any law prescribing, in regard to a class or classes of employment or appointment to an office, any residential requirement within that State or Union Territory prior to such employment. 24. In Dr. Pradeep Jain (supra), the Apex Court was confronted with an issue whether residential requirement or institutional preference in admissions to technical and medical colleges can be constitutionally permissible in light of Article 15(1) and 15(4) and Justice Bhagwati, speaking for the Court, expressed thus:- “We may point out at this stage that though Article 15 clauses (1) and (2) bars discrimination on grounds not only of religion, race, caste or sex but also a place of birth, Article 16(2) goes further and provides that no citizen shall on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them be ineligible for or discriminated against in State employment. So far as employment under the State or any local or other authority is concerned, no citizen can be given preference nor can any discrimination be practised against him on the ground only of residence. It would thus appear that residential requirement would be unconstitutional as a condition of eligibility for employment or appointment to an office under the State and having regard to the expansive meaning given to the word “State” in Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vs. International Airport Authority of India, (1979) 3 SCC 489 , it is obvious that this constitutional prohibition would also cover an office under any local or other authority within the State or any corporation, such as, a public sector corporation which is an instrumentality or agency of the State. International Airport Authority of India, (1979) 3 SCC 489 , it is obvious that this constitutional prohibition would also cover an office under any local or other authority within the State or any corporation, such as, a public sector corporation which is an instrumentality or agency of the State. But Article 16(3) provides an exception to this rule by laying down that Parliament may make a law “prescribing, in regard to a class or classes of employment or appointment to an office under the Government of, or any local or other authority within, a State or Union Territory, any requirement as to residence within that State or Union Territory prior to such employment or appointment”. Parliament alone is given the right to enact an exception to the ban on discrimination based on residence and that too only with respect to positions within the employment of a State Government. But even so, without any parliamentary enactment permitting them to do so, many of the State Governments have been pursuing policies of localism since long and these policies are now quite widespread. Parliament has in fact exercised little control over these policies formulated by the States.” 25. However, the aforesaid observations were restricted to the residential requirement in the field of public employment which are not applicable to the educational institutions and therefore the only provision in the Constitution on the touch-stone of which such residence requirement for admission to a medical college in a State, can tested being Article 14, His Lordships observed thus: “It will be noticed from the above discussion that though intra-State discrimination between persons resident in different districts or regions of a State has by and large been frowned upon by the Court and struck down as invalid as in Minor P. Rajendran case [ AIR 1968 SC 1012 : (1968) 2 SCR 786 : (1968) 2 SCJ 801 ] and Peeria- karuppan case [ (1971) 1 SCC 38 : AIR 1971 SC 2303 : (1971) 2 SCR 430 ] the Court has in D.N. Chanchala case [ (1971) 2 SCC 293 : AIR 1971 SC 1762 : 1971 Supp SCR 608 ] and other similar cases upheld institutional reservation effected through university wise distribution of seats for admission to medical colleges. The Court has also by its decisions in D.P. Joshi case [ AIR 1955 SC 334 : (1955) 1 SCR 1215 : 1955 SCJ 298 ] and N. Vasundara case [ (1971) 2 SCC 22 : AIR 1971 SC 1439 : 1971 Supp SCR 381 ] sustained the constitutional validity of reservation based on residence requirement within a State for the purpose of admission to medical colleges. These decisions which all relate to admission to MBBS course are binding upon us and it is therefore not possible for us to hold, in the face of these decisions, that residence requirement in a State for admission to MBBS course is irrational and irrelevant and cannot be introduced as a condition for admission without violating the mandate of equality of opportunity contained in Article 14. We must proceed on the basis that at least so far as admission to MBBS course is concerned, residence requirement in a State can be introduced as a condition for admission to the MBBS course.” 26. The conclusion arrived in Dr. Pradeep Jain (supra) was expressed in the following words:- “We are therefore of the view that a certain percentage of reservation on the basis of residence requirement may legitimately be made in order to equalise opportunities for medical admission on a broader basis and to bring about real and not formal, actual and not merely legal, equality. The percentage of reservation made on this count may also include institutional reservation for students passing the PUC or pre- medical examination of the same university or clearing the qualifying examination from the school system of the educational hinterland of the medical colleges in the State.” Thus, the requirements of residence and education with the University area for a location of seats in medical college affiliated to that University was up held on special considerations reflected in the said Judgment. Though it was ruled that no preference/reservation should be given based on residence in post graduate course however, institutional preference was permitted. 27. In Nidamarti Maheshkkumar Vs. Statff of Maharashtra & Others , 1986 (2) SCC 534 , when region wise classification for admission to medical colleges was sought to be defended on the ground that Vidharbha and Marathwada regions are backward as compared to Bombay and Pune regions, the Apex Court declined to accept the contention. 27. In Nidamarti Maheshkkumar Vs. Statff of Maharashtra & Others , 1986 (2) SCC 534 , when region wise classification for admission to medical colleges was sought to be defended on the ground that Vidharbha and Marathwada regions are backward as compared to Bombay and Pune regions, the Apex Court declined to accept the contention. Since in the first place, there was no material to show that the entire region within the jurisdiction of the University in Vidharbha is backward or that the entire region within the jurisdiction of Pune University is advanced and there are quite possibly even in the region within the jurisdiction of Pune University predominantly rural areas which are backward and equally there may be a region within the jurisdiction of the university in Vidharbha, areas of which are not backward. In the absence of any material, it was held that it cannot be taken for granted that the premise on which the argument is sought to be built up is correct. Reliance was placed upon the observations in case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Pradip Tandon & Others , 1975(1) SCC 267 , when the question arose whether certain percentage of seats available in Medical Colleges could be reserved in favour of candidates from rural areas, hilly areas and Uttarakhand and this reservation was sought to be justified on the stand point of Article 15(4). The Three-Judges Bench rejected the contention by holding that Constitution does not enable the State to bring socially and educationally backward areas within the protection of Article 15(4) as it contemplate “classes of citizens” indicating a homogeneous section of the people who are grouped together because of certain likeness and common traits and who are identifiable by some common attributes and it is the homogeneity of the class of citizens as social and educational backwardness and neither caste nor religion nor place of birth will be the uniform element of common attributes to make them a class of citizens. However, the reservation for rural areas could not be sustained on the ground that as the rural area represent socially and educationally backward classes of citizens and there can be no reservation made on the basis of the place of birth as that would offend Article 15. 28. In D. P. Joshi Vs. However, the reservation for rural areas could not be sustained on the ground that as the rural area represent socially and educationally backward classes of citizens and there can be no reservation made on the basis of the place of birth as that would offend Article 15. 28. In D. P. Joshi Vs. State of Madhya Bharat , [ AIR 1955 SC 334 ] , the Apex Court held that in order to justify the departure from the principal of selection exclusively based on merit, by permitting considerations like the interest of the State and the Region’s claimed for backwardness, it was held that if such Rules are framed which require compliance of residential requirements within the State, it is with an object to impart medical education to the best talent available in the State and also with an intention that upon securing the necessary qualifications, the persons who would serve as Doctors, would serve the interest of the State. The requirements of residence in the State was therefore accepted as a justified condition for admission to a medical course though it was indicated that a certain percentage of reservation could be provided on the basis of the residence criteria. The percentage of reservation, on the basis of residence requirement was considered as an opportunity to equalise opportunities for medical admission on a broader basis and to bring about real and not formal, actual and not merely legal equality. It was therefore held that it would be constitutionally permissible to provide, as an interim measure until the stage when we can consistently with the broad mandate of Rule of Equality in the larger sense, ensure admissions to the MBBS, course on the basis of national entrance examination, an ideal which strived to reach for reservation of a certain percentage of seats in the medical colleges for students satisfying a prescribed residence requirement as also for students who have passed P.U.C. or pre- medical examination or any other qualifying examination held by the University or the State and for that purpose it should make no difference whether the qualifying examination is conducted by the State Board or by the CBSE. 29. 29. This is how, and it is in this manner, the reservation based on residence, in grant of admission to medical colleges was permitted and held to be not arbitrary or unreasonable as long as it was not a wholesale reservation on this basis. This reservation was rather permitted by citing an example as a residence of particular region may have limited opportunities for taking professional education, while the region may require such technically qualified persons. Candidates who are residents of that region are more likely to remain in the region and to serve their region if they are preferred to admission to technical institutions in the State, “particularly medical colleges”. A State which was short of medical personnel would be justified to prefer to its own medical college and these residents after qualifying as Doctors were more likely to remain in the State and give their services to their State. 30. In D. P. Joshi (supra), by relying upon the observations in Jagdish Charan (supra) and the conclusions drawn in Dr. Pradeep Jain (supra), it was held that reservation to the extent of 70% on the basis of residence was permissible and this percentage of reservation was subsequently increased to 85% and by directing an All India Test to be conducted for filling up remaining 15% of the post. 31. The question that has been posed by Mr. Thorat is if the condition of residence for a continuous period of time is prescribed with this avowed objective of encouraging the students from a particular State, then why there should also be a requirement of passing the qualifying examination from that State and in our opinion the question raised have been examined and answered more than once. 32. In Yellamalli Venkatapriyanka (supra) to which one of us (Bharati Dangre, J.) is a party, exactly the same question arose of when Rule 4.5 and Rule 4.6 was called in question as it contemplated that the candidate must have passed not only the qualifying examination i.e. Higher Secondary Certificate, but also passed the SSC or equivalent examination from an Institution in the State of Maharashtra. On a chronological analysis of the scrutiny of the Rules in the backdrop of the criteria of residence, with the emphasis of the Petitioner being that the aforesaid stipulation amounted to departure from Rule was duly considered. On a chronological analysis of the scrutiny of the Rules in the backdrop of the criteria of residence, with the emphasis of the Petitioner being that the aforesaid stipulation amounted to departure from Rule was duly considered. It was argued that if merit is the sole consideration for admission to even Under Graduate courses and that cannot be sacrificed or compromised, then, that is evidently compromised and totally sacrificed, by insisting on fulfilling requirement of passing examinations (X th and XII th ) in addition of being a Domicile and if the State Quota has a nexus or connection with the residence or domicile, then, an insistence, by providing that person should have passed a qualifying examination from the same State was violating the merit principle. This argument which is advanced before us today by Mr. Thorat, was appreciated in the light of the observations of the Apex Court in the case of Dr. Pradeep Jain (supra), as well as the decision in the case of Anant Madaan Vs. State of Haryana & Others , [ (1995) 2 SCC 135 ] , where the Supreme Court was considering a case of admission to the Medical and Dental College in the State of Haryana and the eligibility conditions required the candidate to study 10, 10+1 and 10+2 classes as a regular candidate in recognized Institution in Haryana. The Apex Court, weighed the argument that the condition was arbitrary and discriminatory because it excludes children of parents who live in the State of Haryana or may be domiciled in Haryana but who have sent their wards to schools and colleges outside Haryana for variety of reasons. The observations of the Apex Court were extensively quoted in our decision, which recorded thus:- “….8. In view of the above facts, we have to consider whether the condition requiring a candidate to have studied in 10th, 10+1 and 10+2 classes in a recognised institution in the State of Haryana, can be considered as arbitrary or unreasonable. It is by now well settled that preference in admissions on the basis of residence, as well as institutional preference is permissible so long as there is no total reservation on the basis of residential or institutional preference. It is by now well settled that preference in admissions on the basis of residence, as well as institutional preference is permissible so long as there is no total reservation on the basis of residential or institutional preference. As far back as in 1955, in the case of D.R. Joshi v. State of Madhya Bharat, this Court making a distinction between the place of birth and residence, upheld a preference on the basis of residence in educational institutions. 9. In the case of Jagdish Saran v. Union of India this Court reiterated that regional preference or preference on the ground of residence in granting admission to medical colleges was not arbitrary or unreasonable so long as it was not a wholesale reservation on this basis. This Court referred to various reasons why such preference may be required. For example, the residents of a particular region may have very limited opportunities for technical education while the region may require such technically qualified persons. Candidates who were residents of that region were more likely to remain in the region and serve their region if they were preferred for admission to technical institutions in the State, particularly medical colleges. A State which was short of medical personnel would be justified in giving preference to its own residents in medical colleges as these residents, after qualifying as doctors, were more likely to remain in the State and give their services to their State. The Court also observed that in the case of women students, regional or residential preference may be justified as their parents may not be willing to send them outside the State for medical education. We, however, need not examine the various reasons which have impelled this Court to uphold residential or institutional preference for admission to medical colleges. The question is settled by the decision of this Court in Pradeep Jain v. Union of India. This Court has observed in that judgment: ‘We are, therefore, of the view that a certain percentage of reservation on the basis of residence requirement may legitimately be made in order to equalise opportunities for medical admission on a broader basis and to bring about real and not formal, actual and not merely legal, equality. This Court has observed in that judgment: ‘We are, therefore, of the view that a certain percentage of reservation on the basis of residence requirement may legitimately be made in order to equalise opportunities for medical admission on a broader basis and to bring about real and not formal, actual and not merely legal, equality. The percentage of reservation made on this count may also include institutional reservation for students passing the PUC 1 or pre-medical examination of the same university or clearing the qualifying examination from the school system of the educational hinterland of the medical colleges in the State…..’ This Court held in that case that reservation to the extent of 70% on this basis would be permissible. This percentage of reservation was subsequently increased to 85% by this Court in the case of Dinesh Kumar v. Motilal Nehru Medical College . This Court in that case directed an entrance examination on an all-India basis for the remaining 15% of seats. 10. In the present case, the reservation which has been made on the basis of candidates having studied for the preceding three years in recognised schools/colleges in Haryana is in respect of these 85% of seats. It excludes 15% seats which have to be filled in on an all-India basis. This eligibility criterion, therefore, is in conformity with the decisions of this Court referred to above. It cannot, therefore, be considered as arbitrary or unreasonable or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.” 33. The Division Bench in Yellamalli Venkatapriyanka (supra) took note of the fact that repeatedly a provision prescribing clearing of the qualifying examination of the State, by contending that it defeated the merit was urged, adjudicated and upheld. Reference was made by the learned Advocate General to the decision of the Division Bench in Smt. Surabhi Suresh Joshi Vs. State of Maharashtra , [WP No. 6065/2013 decided on 15.07.2013] , where it was decided that the Petitioner was domiciled in the State of Maharashtra but the qualifying examination was passed in the State of Rajasthan and it was urged that the relevant Rule i.e. 9.3 did not impose any condition for claiming a seat in State that the candidate must have passed the qualifying examination of that State and therefore the notification and Rules published by State of Maharashtra after declaration of the results of the examination cannot be made applicable. While dealing with that argument, the Division Bench held that the Rules of NEET do not prescribe eligibility for 85% State quota seats and it will be governed by the State Rules which was competent to prescribe such Rules. The Bench therefore turned down the challenge. Once again the issue cropped up before a Division Bench at Aurangabad raising challenge to NEET UG-2013 and noting that there is nothing in the NEET Rules precluding the State Government in proceeding in the manner by prescribing institutional preference and which did not offer guarantee, the Petition was dismissed. 34. The bench in Yellamalli Venkatapriyanka (supra) also referred to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rajiv Purshottam Wadhwa (supra) when Rule 4.4 was a subject matter of challenge, which undoubtedly, required that a candidate must have passed SSC examination as well as HSSC examination or equivalent examination from within the State of Maharashtra. The Rule being challenged on the ground that it violated the mandate of Article 14, the Court was confronted with the fact that the father of the Petitioner served the air force till June 1979 when he retired and thereafter took an employment at the airport at Dubai. The Petitioner, Rajiv Wadhwa was born on 26.09.1982 and completed his education until X th standard in Dubai. For XI th standard he got admission in Dadar Kirti College Mumbai and he was admitted to HSC courses in XII th standard. The Division Bench in Rajiv Purshottam Wadhwa (supra) noted that but for the academic year 1995-96 and 1996-97, a candidate desirous of seeking admission to medical or dental courses had to pass the SSC as well as HSC examination from an Institution or School situated in the State of Maharashtra. An exception was, however, made in the case of students whose parents were domiciled in the State of Maharashtra. In their case, the Rules for 1995-96 provided that such students would be eligible for admission by relaxation of the conditions requiring the passing of SSC examination and HSC examination from Institutions situated in the State of Maharashtra. The exemption prescribed in Rules of 1995-96 in respect of students whose parents were domiciled in the State was continued for the years 1996-97, subject to further condition that the Institution from which the student had passed the SSC and/or HSC examination should be situated within the territory of India. The exemption prescribed in Rules of 1995-96 in respect of students whose parents were domiciled in the State was continued for the years 1996-97, subject to further condition that the Institution from which the student had passed the SSC and/or HSC examination should be situated within the territory of India. In February 2000 when Wadhwa sought to submit his Application, it was not accepted in view of Rule 4.4, but he was permitted to appear for the CET by an ad-interim order and the challenge was considered by Division Bench. The issue before the Court was whether the candidate otherwise fulfilled the requirement of residence or domicile can be excluded from admission solely on the ground that he or she has not passed standard X th from within the State. It is in these circumstances and because of absence of other Rule, that the Division Bench read down Rule 4.4 and held that unless so read, it would not be possible to save it from the vice of arbitrariness and unconstitutionality. However, in Yellamalli Venkatapriyanka , the Division Bench, specifically observed thus:- “... We do not see how we can read these observations relied upon and particularly paragraph 21 in isolation and de hors the background facts. However, after Rajiv Wadhwa (supra), there has been a complete change in the Rules and each of the Rules after Wadhwa’s (supra) case have been prescribing the eligibility criteria on both counts, namely, residential/domicile and obtaining educational qualifications, in both tenth and twelfth standard examinations, cleared from within the State of Maharashtra is the prescription. It is thus not possible to agree with the petitioners' advocates that we must ignore the stipulation of passing the tenth examination from within the State and go on and relying upon other clauses to hold them eligible. Once we find this is but a common thread and flowing from these three rules and coupled with these three rules that this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court consistently laying down the principle that they do not fall foul of the constitutional mandate, can we construe them otherwise. Pertinently, in Wadhwa’s case, we have not found the Division Bench making a reference to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anant Madaan (supra). Pertinently, in Wadhwa’s case, we have not found the Division Bench making a reference to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anant Madaan (supra). That is an additional reason why we cannot, relying upon the judgment in Wadhwa’s case, take a different view.” In the wake of the detailed discussion, the validity of the Rule prescribing condition of passing qualifying examination, from an institution within the State was upheld. 35. This decision was followed by another Division Bench of this Court in case of Yash s/o. Kumar Waghmare Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Another , [WP No. 12210 of 2021decided on 23.12.2021] , in the backdrop of the challenge to the Rule 1-A VIII of Maharashtra Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission to the Full Time Professional Undergraduate Medical and Dental Courses) Rules, 2016 as added by Amendment Rules 2019, where the student who desired to take benefit of the State quota had to pass X th and XII th standard examination from the institution situated in Maharashtra. Dealing with the fact that the Petitioner is the domicile of the State of Maharashtra and claims to posses domicile of the State and he completed I st to VII th standard education from the school at District Latur. He passed X th standard examination from the school at Bidar in the year 2018. The Petitioner passed XII th standard examination from the Junior College in District Nanded. However, his form was not accepted from the State quota on the ground, that he had passed X th standard from the institution situated outside State of Maharashtra. The Petitioner reappeared for NEET examination in the year 2021 and again sought admission from the State quota. The argument advanced, in support of the Petitioner, was to read down the Rule, to mean that students who have domicile certificates of the State of Maharashtra and who had passed HSC qualifying examination from the State but passed X th standard from outside State, are eligible and entitled to claim seats under 85% State Quota for Health Science Course. On due consideration of the said Rules, in the backdrop of the decision including the decision in Rajiv Wadhwa (supra) as well as the decision in Yellamalli Venkatapriyanka (supra), the Division Bench observed thus:- “21. On due consideration of the said Rules, in the backdrop of the decision including the decision in Rajiv Wadhwa (supra) as well as the decision in Yellamalli Venkatapriyanka (supra), the Division Bench observed thus:- “21. In the present case, Rule in question lay down the requirements of obtaining education in the State and relaxation has been given to the children of the employee of the Government of Maharashtra or its undertaking who have joined services since beginning at a place situated outside the State of Maharashtra, but who have been transferred to a place situated within the State of Maharashtra shall be eligible for admission, even though such children might have passed HSC or SSC or equivalent examination from the recognized institution situated outside the State of Maharashtra. The relaxation is also provided to the children of the employee of the Government of Maharashtra or its undertaking who have been posted or transferred or deputed to the place situated outside the Maharashtra. Exception granted to these employees would be reasonable. 22. The policy is formulated by the experts in the educational field. This Court would normally not interfere with the educational policy framed by the experts, unless it is shown that, the policy is manifestly unjust, irrational or arbitrary. 23. The Rules do not appear to be arbitrary or unreasonable. Such Rules have also undergone scrutiny of the Apex Court in the case of Rajdeep Ghosh Vs. State of Assam and Others (supra) and the Division Bench of this Court in a case of Yellamalli Venkatapriyanka and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others (supra). The similar rules are held to be violating these judgments.” 36. We must also refer to the decision of the Apex Court in case of Rajdeep Ghosh (supra) stipulating domicile related requirement in Rule 3(1)(C) of the Assam Rules as the Rules prescribed six years of schooling from classes VII th to XII th in the State of Assam, in addition to the requirement that the candidate must be permanent resident of State and his/her father/mother must be residing in the State continuously for 20 years. Pronouncing upon the validity of the said Rule, which prescribed a condition of residence along with a condition of passing VII th to XII th standard from the State itself, Their Lordships of the Apex Court recorded thus:- “31. Pronouncing upon the validity of the said Rule, which prescribed a condition of residence along with a condition of passing VII th to XII th standard from the State itself, Their Lordships of the Apex Court recorded thus:- “31. As held in the aforesaid decisions, it is permissible to lay down the essential educational requirements, residential/domicile in a particular State in respect of basic courses of MBBS/BDS/Ayurvedic. The object sought to be achieved is that the incumbent must serve the State concerned and for the emancipation of the educational standards of the people who are residing in a particular State, such reservation has been upheld by this Court for the inhabitants of the State and prescription of the condition of obtaining an education in a State. The only distinction has been made with respect to postgraduate and postdoctoral super speciality course. 32. Rule 3(1)(c) of the 2017 Rules lays down the requirement of obtaining education in the State and relaxation has been given to the wards of the State Government employees or Central Government employees or to an employee of corporation/agency/ instrumentality under the Government of Assam or the Central Government, whether on deputation or transfer on regular posting from obtaining education from Classes VII to XII for the period his/her father or mother is working outside the State. As urged on behalf of the petitioners the employees of other State Government, but residents of Assam, similar relaxation ought to have been made cannot be accepted. Thus, their exclusion cannot be said to be irrational and arbitrary. The wards of the employees in the service of other States like Government employees of Arunachal Pradesh, in our opinion, form a totally different class. When the wards are obtaining education outside and the parents are working in Arunachal Pradesh as Government employee or elsewhere, they are not likely to come back to the State of Assam. As such Government of Assam holds that they should provide preference to State residents/ institutional preference cannot be said to unintelligible criteria suffering from vice of arbitrariness in any manner whatsoever, thus, Rule 3(1)(c) framed by the Government of Assam is based on an intelligible differentia and cannot be said to be discriminatory and in violation of Article 14.” 37. The aforesaid decision is also of some significance in dealing with the arguments of Mr. The aforesaid decision is also of some significance in dealing with the arguments of Mr. Thorat that for the betterment of the Petitioner, she was sent to Andhra Pradesh and may be that it provided her a residential facility along with coaching for cracking NEET-UG so that she could secure seat in the medical college in her own State is also dealt with as an argument was canvassed that the classification made between the residents of Assam and those students who for the purpose of better coaching are kept out and this particular submission was repelled by the observations to the following effect:- “34. It was urged that some of the students may obtain admission in other States for the purpose of better coaching. Relevant data has not been placed on record by the petitioners that in Assam coaching is not available. Apart from that, when they can afford to obtain coaching in other States, they stand on a different footing, they are the one who belong to an affluent class who can afford expensive education in other States and it is not necessary that they should be adjusted in State quota seat, they can stake claim for All India Quota Seats for the State of Assam. They can stake their claim with respect to open seats within the State of Assam. The exclusion is not total for them. However, with respect to the State-quota seats, since it is open to the State Government to lay down the educational as well as domicile requirement, incumbents must fulfil the criteria. The criteria so laid down in Rule 3(1)(c) of the 2017 Rules, cannot be said to be ultra vires of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.” 38. Therefore, the argument of Mr. Thorat that the Petitioner and similarly situated students like her, who deem it appropriate to move outside the State, only with object of successfully cracking the NEET/Entrance examination despite the fact that they were all the while domiciled/residents of the State to avail better coaching facilities shall not be deprived of the benefit of securing a seat in the State is already negated by the Apex Court in the case of Rajdeep Ghosh (supra). 39. 39. The decision in the case of Kalluri Naga Narasimha Abhiram (supra) along with connected Writ Petition, involve peculiar facts, as it involved the Petitioners who had studied in the State of Telangana all through and they shifted to the State of Andhra Pradesh as the institute therein was offering coaching for NEET examination exclusively and therefore they passed the Intermediate examination from the State of Andhra Pradesh. When they were denied the benefit of admission in the medical college in the State of Telangana, in the wake of Rule 3(III)(A) of Rules of 2017, an argument was advanced, that the said Rule imposed a stringent requirement of not only residence but of having passed the XII th standard class examination from the State of Telangana and it amounted to denial of their right to secure admission in a college in the State despite they being domiciled and normal residents of the State. The argument was appreciated in the background of the Andhra Pradesh Re-organisation Act, 2014 and by referring to Section 95 of the Act of 2014, which mandated that in order to ensure equal opportunities for quality higher education to all students in the successor State of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, the existing admission quotas in all Government or private aided, unaided institutions of High Technical and Medical Education in so far as it provided under Article 371D of the Constitution, shall continue for a period of ten years during which existing common admission process shall continue. It is in the background of this particular provision as the State of Andhra Pradesh was bifurcated by creating a separate State of Telangana, the Court considered the expression ‘local candidate’ defined in the Rules, to mean, a candidate who had studied or resided in local area for four consecutive years ending with the year in which he appeared or first appeared in the relevant qualifying examination and in case he does not study in local area for a period of four years, he has to reside in the local area for a period of four years preceding the date of commencement of the relevant qualifying examination. 40. The validity of the said Rules was earlier tested in bunch of Petitions, when the Division Bench following the decision in Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation Vs. 40. The validity of the said Rules was earlier tested in bunch of Petitions, when the Division Bench following the decision in Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation Vs. Nilaybhai R. Thakore , [ (1999) 8 SCC 139 ] agreed with the view expressed by the Division Bench at Bombay in Rajiv Wadhwa (supra) and the Karnataka High Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs. B. Mahadevaiah , [ (2014) 2 AIR Kant R 578 ] and specifically held thus: “(i) The 2017 Rules have been framed in exercise of powers under Section 3 read with Section 15(1) of the Telangana Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Prohibition of Capitation Fee), Act, 1983; (ii) There is no justification for denying the benefit of admission to a student who is permanent resident of Telangana who may not have studied in local area for four academic years ending with the academic year in which he or she appeared or, as the case may be, first appeared for relevant qualifying examination. (iii) Rule 3(III)(B) of the 2017 Rules was read down and it was held that the same shall not apply to permanent residents of State of Telangana. It was further held that reading down the provision shall be in consonance of object of Article 371D(2)(b)(ii) of the Constitution of India. (iv) In case petitioners in the aforesaid batch of petitions produce residence certificate issued by the competent authority of the Government of Telangana, the petitioners in the said bunch of cases shall be treated as local candidates." 41. Recording that the period of ten years expired on 01.06.2024 and therefore it was incumbent on the State Government to amend the Rules and therefore in exercise of powers under Section 3 read with Section 15(1) of the Telangana Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983, amended the Rule 3 of the 2017 Rules, which now required a candidate seeking admission under the quota made for “local candidates” to study in the State of Telangana for a period of four years or reside in the State of Telangana for a period of four years in addition to the requirement of passing of qualifying examination in State of Telangana. 42. The issue that arose was considered threadbare by keeping in mind the object of the Rule when the Court observed thus:- “76. 42. The issue that arose was considered threadbare by keeping in mind the object of the Rule when the Court observed thus:- “76. One of the objects of Rule 3(a) in the Rules of admission is to protect the claim by the students residing within the State or domicile for admission to medical courses within the State. Another object of the Rule is to ensure that medical facilities are made available to the residents of the State as permanent residents of the State will remain in the State upon obtaining medical education. Therefore while interpreting the rule, its object has to be upheld. In case a peron who otherwise is a permanent resident of domicile of State of Telangana is excluded form the process of admission merely on the ground that he has not passed the qualifying examination from the State of Telangana, the object of the Rule would be defeated. The permanent resident/domicile of State of Telangana may have cleared the relevant qualifying examination for an institution outside the State and may otherwise be eligible cannot be denied the benefit of admission merely on the basis of study or residence outside the State.” 43. When the question arose that this Rule deserved to be struck down, the reference was made to the common order dated 29.08.2024 passed in bunch of Writ Petitions already decided by relying upon the principle regarding the reading down of a provision and in light of the aforesaid, by relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (supra), the Bench observed thus:- “84. An interpretation which advances the object and purpose of the Act has to be preferred. The object of Rule 3(a) of the 2017 Rules, as amended vide G.O.Ms. No.33, dated 19.07.2024, isto be provide reservation for local candidates. In case the rule is struck down, then students from all over the country shall be entitled to admission in medical colleges situated in the State of Telangana and the domicile/permanent residents of State of Telangana would be deprived of the benefit of admission. Therefore, we read down the Rule 3(a) and 3(iii) of the Telangana Medical and Dental Colleges Admission (Admission into MBBS & BDS Courses) Rules, 2017, as amended vide G.O.Ms. No.33, dated 19.07.2024. It is held that the aforesaid Rule shall not apply to permanent residents of the State of Telangana. Therefore, we read down the Rule 3(a) and 3(iii) of the Telangana Medical and Dental Colleges Admission (Admission into MBBS & BDS Courses) Rules, 2017, as amended vide G.O.Ms. No.33, dated 19.07.2024. It is held that the aforesaid Rule shall not apply to permanent residents of the State of Telangana. Thus, by reading down the Rule in the manner indicated above shall also be in consonance of object of Article 371D(2)(b)(ii) of the Constitution of India i.e., of making special provision to the people of different parts of State for admission to educational institutions.” 44. The Telangana High Court has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (supra), where the Supreme Court was confronted with the validity of Rule 6(i) and Rule 7 of the Rules for admission to Smt. N.H.L. Municipal Medical College and Rule 7 of the Rules confined admission to 85% of the students who had studied in educational institutions within the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation. When the validity of the said Rule was challenged before the Gujarat High Court, the High Court struck down the said Rule on the ground that the classification made made by Rule 7 providing admission to local students to the extent of 85% only from the educational institutions situated within the Ahmedabad Municipal limits was violative of Article 14. While upholding the said decision, the Apex Court dealt with a piquant situation and answered, whether the permanent resident students of Ahmedabad City, who for fortuitous reasons happen to acquire qualification from educational institutions situated just outside the municipal limits, i.e. AUDA, will not be eligible for being treated as local students, in no uncertain words, it observed thus:- “If that be the object, in our opinion, the same would be defeated be restricting the definition of “local student” to those students who have acquired their qualification from institutions situated within the Ahmedabad municipal area, because as has happened in this case, the actual resident students of the Municipality whose parents would have contributed towards the revenue of the Ahmedabad Municipality who for reasons beyond their control or otherwise, had acquired their qualification from institutions situated just outside the Ahmedabad municipal area i.e. within AUDA, would be denied the benefit of admission to the College which is run by the Ahmedabad Municipality. In our opinion, confining the definition of “local student” to only those students who acquired the qualification from educational institutions situated within the local area creates an artificial distinction from amongst the students who are residents of Ahmedabad city and those who may not be the residents of Ahmedabad city but who have studied in educational institutions situated in the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation limits. We do not find any nexus in this type of classification with the object to be achieved. Let us test the logic of this rule with reference to a permanent resident of Ahmedabad who resides within the Ahmedabad municipal limits but is employed within AUDA. Can the Municipality refuse the benefit of its services to such a resident of the city only on the ground that he is employed in AUDA? The answer again can only NO. Similarly, if the object of the rule is to provide medical education to the students of Ahmedabad because of its municipal obligations then a differentia within the class of students of Ahmedabad on the basis of their acquiring qualifications from schools within the Ahmedabad municipal limits or within the limits of AUDA would be arbitrary and violative of Article 14.” 45. The factual scenario before the Telangana High Court while it decided a group of Petitions and declared that Rule 3(A) of Telangana Medical and Dental Colleges Admission (Admission into MBBS & BDS Courses) Rules, 2017 shall be read down as well as the factual scenario in the case of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (supra), where the students had travelled to a nearby area in form of AUDA were held to be otherwise qualified being a residents of Ahmedabad City but moved out of the City, could not be discriminated by refusing to recognise them as ‘local’ and that is how the aforesaid decisions deserve a distinction. 46. 46. If it is open for the State to encourage students who are permanent residents of that State to secure seats in the respective colleges of Technical Education including Medical Education within the State by providing reservation and since this right has received recognition as long as it does not result in reserving more than 85% seats, we see no reason why we shall show an indulgence, if State of Goa by the impugned Rule 5.1, has imposed a criteria for a candidate to compete for a General Category seat on merits by declaring that he/she must have cleared the qualifying examination, only from within the State. It may be a different situation when Courts have time and again recognised, that on account of some fortuitous circumstances, ward of the parents, who is either a serviceman or for reasons beyond his control was required to move out from the State, the benefit of availing the seat from ‘General Category’, cannot be denied to him and for this purpose even the Rule 5.1 of the Prospectus, itself has provided for relaxation in residential requirements. However, in addition to the requirement of residence, passing of qualifying examination from an institution within the State has received approval on more than one occasion and in Rajdeep Ghosh (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has re- visited the law laid down in this regard and in particular, followed the judgment in Anant Madaan (supra), where the Court had considered the validity of a provision providing 85% seats, on prescription of candidate having education for preceding three years in the State along with domicile, and held that it did not violate Article 14 of the Constitution. The condition requiring a candidate to have studied X th 10+1 and 10+2 classes as a regular candidate in recognised institution, found favour with the Court, since it was a well settled position, that preference in admission on the basis of residence, institutional reference is permissible, so long as there is no total reservation on the basis of residence or institutional preferences and as early as back in 1955 in D. P. Joshi (supra), a distinction was drawn between the ‘place of birth’ and ‘residence’ and reservations on that basis, in educational institutions was upheld. While upholding such a reservation, the rationale that the candidates, residing in a particular region are more likely to remain in the region and serve their region was the primary consideration, as it was noted that if they were preferred to admission to Technical Institution in the State, particularly medical colleges, the talent would remain in the State itself and they are more likely to offer services in the State. The argument of Mr. Thorat that by virtue of Rule 5.1 merit will be compromised, do not appeal to us at all as we find that there is enough competition between the students in the State of Goa who have all the while continued to reside in the State of Goa and also took up the qualifying examination from an institution in the State of Goa and then appeared for the NEET-UG and secured a ranking. Such candidates form a distinct class from those students who have passed the qualifying examination from an Institution outside the State of Goa and, according to us, the classification between the two is reasonable and has a nexus with the object of reserving 85% seats in the Government Medical College for those students who are domiciled in the State and also who have cleared qualifying examination from the institute within the State. It is also not a case, that the Petitioner is completely ousted from the competition, as she can still compete in the 15% seats, which are reserved in All India quota in the State of Goa and depending on her merit and standing in the merit list, she may take up a seat in Goa Medical College, which the Rules permit. 47. In the wake of the above, finding no merit and substance in the Petition, Rule is discharged. Easy on cost.