http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

PETITIONER: ARTI SAPRU

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR & OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT27/02/1981

BENCH: PATHAK, R.S. BENCH: PATHAK, R.S. REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)

CITATION:  1981 AIR 1009            1981 SCR  (3)  34  1981 SCC  (2) 484        1981 SCALE  (1)437  CITATOR INFO :  R          1981 SC2045  (10)  R          1983 SC 580  (9)  R          1984 SC1534  (9)

ACT:      Admission to  medical  college-Government  Notification No. 41-G.R. of 1980 dated 24th September, 1980 purporting to identify certain  villages  as  socially  and  educationally backward for  applying the  principle of  "rectification  of imbalance in  different  parts  of  the  State"-Whether  the classification  is   wholly  arbitrary   and   without   any foundation to  sustain  it  and  consequently  the  criteria adopted in  granting admission  to the  M.B.B.S.  course  is discriminatory, unreasonable  and void-When  viva voce  test lasts between  two to four minutes, whether allotment of 30% of total  marks  is  patently  unreasonable  and  arbitrary- Whether accepting applications beyond the time prescribed on the  ground   that  qualifying   examination  in  which  the applicant appeared  was  held  late  and  the  results  were announced after  the  date  prescribed  for  submitting  the applications, bad in law.      Regulations framed  by the Indian Medical Council under section 33  read with  section 19A  of  the  Indian  Medical Council Act, 1956, whether holding viva voce examination and assigning 30%  of the  total marks  in it is in violation of Article 31  of the  Constitution-Whether the  presence of  a Government official  on the  Selection Committee in the viva voce test is obnoxious to law.

HEADNOTE:      Selection of  candidates to  be  admitted  to  M.B.B.S. course in  the Medical  College of  the  State  of  Jammu  & Kashmir was  made by  a Selection  Committee on the basis of (a) merit  in  qualifying  examination  (35  marks)  (b)  an objective test  (35 marks)  and (c)  a viva  voce  test  (30 marks). The  seats were  distributed besides the examination base was  determined by  a distribution  of the  seats  into three distinct  divisions namely,  (i) 60%  on the  basis of open merit;  (ii)  20%  on  the  basis  of  reservation  for scheduled castes and other reserved categories, one of which was  broadly   described  as   "socially  and  educationally backward classes"  which included  candidates from (a) areas

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

adjoining actual line of control and (b) areas known as "bad pockets", including  Ladhak and  (iii) 20%  were reserved as seats to be filled "on the basis of inter se merit to ensure rectification of  imbalance in  the  admission  for  various parts of  the State,  if any,  so as  to give  equitable and uniform treatment to those parts".      In Nishi  Maghu v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, [1980] 3 S.C.R. 1253, the Supreme Court held that the selections made under the  third category  were  invalid,  inasmuch  as  the classification made  for rectification of regional imbalance without identifying  the areas  suffering from imbalance was vague.      The State Government, therefore, published Notification No. 41 G.R. of 1980 dated 24th September, 1980 purporting to identify certain  villages  as  socially  and  educationally backward for  applying the  principle of  "rectification  of imbalance in different parts of the States". and reduced the distribution of  seats in  the Medical Colleges of the State under this category from 18 to 17% under this category. This order is  challenged  by  the  petitioner,  an  unsuccessful candidate in  the selection  made for  admission to M.B.B.S. course for the year 1980-81. 35      Allowing the petitions, the Court ^      HELD: 1.  The classification  attempted  by  the  State Government by  its order  dated 24th September, 1980 suffers from the  vice of  arbitrariness and is, therefore, invalid. There  was   no  intelligible  data  before  the  Court  for sustaining the classification. No doubt the State Government had acted  in its own wisdom, but the material to which that wisdom was  applied was  not disclosed  at all.  The fact by itself that  some hundreds  of  villages  had  been  brought within the classification is of no assistance whatever. That a comprehensive  understanding of  regional imbalances  from the Anand  Committee report  and the Sikri Commission report had not  been possible  yet affords  no justification for an arbitrary classification. The State failed to bring the case within Article 15(4) of the Constitution. [39 G; 40 D]      State of  U.P. v.  Pradip Tandon,  [1975] 2  S.C.R. 761 applied.      2: 1.  There is  need to revise the marks ratio for the viva  voce  test  because  of  the  very  real  risk  future selections would  face on  this score.  The Government would also do  well to  ensure that Selection Committees take care to  devote   sufficient  time   to  the  oral  interview  of individual candidates  having regard to the several relevant considerations  which   must  enter   into  their   judgment respecting each candidate.[41 D & G]      A. Peeriakaruppan,  etc. v.  State of  Tamil  Nadu  and Ors., [1971] 2 S.C.R. 430; Nishi Maghu v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, [1980]  3 S.C.R.  1253; Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 79, referred to.      2: 2.  The selection  cannot be  said to be vitiated on the ground  that one of the members, Shri Kundal, left after some time  and therefore  the composition  of the  Interview Committee varied  from time to time, since three out of four members remained  present throughout  the proceedings  and a proportionately small  number only  of  the  candidates  was interviewed when Shri Kundal was present. [42 D-E]      2: 3.  The appointment  of a  Government official  as a member of  the Selection  Committee is  not obnoxious to the law. There is no principle of law disqualifying a Government official  from  participating  on  the  Interview  Committee merely because  he is  a Government  official. It  cannot be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

said that  a Government  official cannot be a person of high integrity, calibre and qualifications. The constitution of a Committee lies  in the wisdom of the State Government and it is expected  men suitably qualified in every respect will be appointed to  discharge the  functions of  the Committee. So long as  the State  Government acts  bona fide  it cannot be said that  the presence  of a  Government  official  on  the Selection Committee vitiates its constitution. [44H, 45 A-B]      2: 4.  Selection of  a number  of  candidates,  in  the present case,  cannot be  said to  have been made because of favouritism on  account of  relationship or  friendship with members of  the Selection  Committee or  because  they  were related to  important and  influential persons in the State. Besides being  sketchy and extremely vague, such allegations have been made for the first time in the rejoinder affidavit and  there   has  been  no  reasonable  opportunity  to  the respondents to reply to them.[42 F] 36      3. The  grant of admission to respondents Nos. 7 to 12, in the  instant case,  is in order, inasmuch as the relevant qualifying examination was held late and the announcement of the results  was delayed.  The  State  Government  correctly permitted  the   candidature  of   these  applicants  to  be considered for  inclusion in a common list drawn up to cover candidates for admission to either of the Government Medical Colleges, at  Srinagar  and  at  Jammu.  Even  according  to petitioner those respondents have an excellent record and if they had  applied in  time for  admission in  the Government College at  Srinagar they would certainly have been admitted on the basis of their merit. [42G-H]      4. A competitive entrance examination is permissible in law in  addition to the qualifying examination. In regard to the sufficiency  of the  objective test,  the absence  of  a prescribed formal  curriculum does not vitiate the objective test. [44 E]      5. A  reading of  the regulations  framed by the Indian Medical Council  under section  33 read with section 19 A of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 makes it clear that the reservation permissible  need not necessarily be confined to Scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. [44 E]

JUDGMENT:      ORIGINAL JURISDICTION:  Writ Petition  Nos. 5600, 5601, 5615, 5689-5697 and 6283-6307/1980.      (Under Article 32 of the Constitution)      Soli J.  Sorabjee, O.N.  Tikku,  E.C.  Aggarwala,  M.L. Bhatt, R.  Satish, and  V.K. Pandita  for the Petitioners in W.Ps. 5600-01,5615 & 5689-97/80.      M. K. Ramamurthy, Miss R. Vaigai, Joginder Singh and J. Ramamurty for the Petitioners in WPs. 6283-6307/80.      S.N. Kacker  and Altaf Ahmed for the Respondents in all the Writ Petitions.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      PATHAK J.  The petitioner challenges the admission of a number  of   candidates  to   the  M.B.B.S.  course  in  the Government Medical College Srinagar for the session 1980-81. The petitioner,  who had  also applied  for  admission,  was denied  it.  She  contends  that  the  criteria  adopted  in granting  admission,  is  discriminatory,  unreasonable  and void.      The Principal,  Government  Medical  College,  Srinagar invited applications by 3rd April, 1980 for admission to the M.B.B.S. course  for the  session 1980-81,  and  the  notice

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

specified  the  qualifying  examinations  of  the  Board  of Secondary Education,  Kashmir, or any other equivalent Board or University  which constituted  the basis  of eligibility. The manner  and  procedure  governing  the  eligibility  for admission had been set forth in a Government order 37 of 3rd  April,  1978,  which  laid  down  that  a  Selection Committee constituted  by the Government would determine the inter se  merit of  eligible candidates  on the  basis of an interview  for  judging  their  (a)  physical  fitness,  (b) personality, (c)  aptitude, (d)  general knowledge  and  (e) general intelligence.  This Government order was modified by a subsequent  Government order  dated 23rd June, 1980 and in the result  eligible candidates  were now required to appear not only  in the  viva  voce  examination  but  also  in  an objective test.  These two  tests along  with merit  in  the qualifying  examination   of   the   Board   or   University constituted the  three elements  which together  combined to form a  basis  for  Selection.  The  qualifying  examination carried 35  marks, the  objective test was allotted 35 marks and the viva voce examination was assigned 30 marks.      Besides  the   examination  base   constituted  by  the aforesaid three  criteria, the selection was also determined by  a   distribution  of   the  seats  into  three  distinct divisions. Of  the total  number of seats 50% were earmarked for being  filled on  the basis  of  open  merit,  25%  were reserved for  candidates from  Scheduled  Castes  and  other reserved categories,  one of  which was broadly described as "socially and  educationally backward  classes" and included candidates from  (a) areas adjoining actual line of control, and (b)  area known  as bad  pockets including Ladhak. After selection had  been made  as above  the remaining 25% of the seats were  to be  filled "on the basis of inter se merit to ensure rectification  of imbalance  in the admission for the State, if any, so as to give equitable and uniform treatment to those  parts". It was also recited that in case there was no "visible  imbalance", the seats earmarked under that head were  to   be  distributed   among  further   "open   merit" candidates. On  27th June,  1974, the  percentage  of  seats reserved for  the different  categories was refixed, so that 60% of  the seats  were now  earmarked for  admission on the basis of "open merit", 20% for distribution among candidates from the  Scheduled Castes  and  other  reserved  categories including socially  and educationally  backward classes, and the remaining  20% of the seats were earmarked for "ensuring rectification of imbalances". Still another order dated 21st April, 1976  reduced the  reservation for  removing regional imbalances from 20% to 18%.      The  selection  of  candidates  for  admission  to  the Government Medical  College, Jammu  for  the  academic  year 1979-80 was challenged in this Court in Nishi Maghu v. State of Jammu and Kashmir(1) 38 and  the  Court  held  that  "the  classification  made  for rectification of  regional imbalance without identifying the areas suffering  from imbalance was vague and the selections made under  that head  were accordingly  invalid". The Court directed that  the seats  reserved under that head should be added to  the quota  of seats earmarked for selection on the basis of merit and filled accordingly.      Thereafter, in  an attempt  to  remove  the  deficiency pointed out  by this Court in Nishi Maghu (supra), the State Government published  Notification No.  41-GR of  1980 dated 24th September, 1980 purporting to identify certain villages as socially  and educationally  backward  for  applying  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

principle of  "rectification of imbalance in different parts of the  State". A  long schedule  (covering over 60 pages of the record  before us)  was annexed and listed some hundreds of villages.      About the  same time,  a Government  order  was  issued fixing 17% of the seats in the M.B.B.S course of the medical colleges of the State as the admission quota for the purpose of "rectification of imbalances."      From 14th to 17th July, 1980, as many as 660 candidates were interviewed  by a  Committee at Srinagar by way of viva voce examination.  On 21st  July, 1980  the State Government issued a  directive that  a total  list of 125 candidates be prepared against all the seats of the two Government Medical Colleges, at  Srinagar and  at Jammu.  A Selection  List was finalised taking  into account  the  reservations  made  for various categories  and classes  by the different Government orders, and  was published  on 29th September, 1980, and the names of  75 candidates  were announced for admission to the M.B.B.S. course to the Government Medical College, Srinagar.      The principal contention of Mr. Soli Sorabjee appearing for the  petitioner in  Writ Petition  No. 5600  of 1980, is that  notwith  standing  this  brave  attempt  to  meet  the constitutional requirement  indicated in Nishi Maghu (supra) the State  Government has failed in its purpose. It is urged that there  was no  material  before  the  State  Government affording a  pertinent basis for classifying these villages. It is  pointed out  that almost  whole tehsils  of different districts have been identified as socially and educationally backward, ‘bad  pockets’ and  areas belonging to the line of actual control  have been  included and  in the  result with more than 95 per cent of the villages classified as socially and educationally  backward,  the  inference  must  be  that almost all 39 of Kashmir  Division calls  for a  reservation quota.  It is asserted   that a  portion of  Srinagar city, which includes Sangin Darwaza  and Bhagwanpure, has also been identified as socially and educationally backward. To that class have also been added  towns where  Notified Area Committees exist. The submission is  that the  classification is  wholly arbitrary and  without   any  foundation   to  sustain  it.  The  mere circumstance,  it  is  urged,  that  the  classification  is defined on  the basis  of  villages  without  anything  more demonstrates its unconstitutional character.      The  case   of  the   State  Government   is  that  the classification fully  satisfies the  criterion  "social  and educational backwardness".  In proof  of the assertion it is pointed out that the present selection shows that candidates from areas  not included  in this  classified category  have taken 66  seats out  of 75 on the basis of open merit. It is conceded that  a large number of villages have been included in the  classification, but  it  is  pointed  out  that  the greater bulk  of the population resides in the two cities of Srinagar and  Jammu alone  and would  be equivalent  to  the population of  hundreds  of  villages  taken  together.  The classification is supported by the consideration that in the nature of  things the  inhabitants of  the rural  areas  are socially and educationally backward. It is urged that merely because some  of the  villages are  administered by Notified Area Committees  does not remove the stigma of backwardness. It is  admitted that two reports, popularly described as the Anand Committee  report and the Sikri Commission report, are under consideration  by the Government but, it is said, as a comprehensive appreciation of the situation disclosed by the two reports  of all  the aspects  of social  and educational

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

backwardness in  the  State  has  not  been  made  yet,  the Government has proceeded "in its own wisdom" to identify the areas suffering from regional imbalance.      We are  of opinion that the classification attempted by the State Government by its order dated 24th September, 1980 suffers from  the vice of arbitrariness and must be declared invalid.  There  is  no  intelligible  data  before  us  for sustaining the classification. No doubt the State Government has acted  in its own wisdom, but the material to which that wisdom was  applied has  not been disclosed at all. The fact by itself  that some  hundreds of villages have been brought within the classification is of no assistance whatever.      Over six  years ago,  this Court  in State  of U.P.  v. Pradip Tandon(1)  ruled that  in the  matter of admission of students to medical colleges 40 a reservation  in favour  of candidates  on the  ground that they hailed from rural areas was unconstitutional. The Court repelled the argument that it was necessary to reserve seats for  candidates   from  rural   areas  because   they   were handicapped in the matter of education. It also rejected the plea that as the number of marks obtained by candidates from rural areas  in the qualifying test were much lower than the marks  obtained  by  the  general  candidates  that  was  an indication of  the former’s  educational backwardness.  Ray, C.J., speaking for the Court, observed:           "The  reservation   for  rural   areas  cannot  be      sustained on  the ground that the rural areas represent      socially  and   educationally   backward   classes   of      citizens. This  reservation appears  to be made for the      majority population  of the  State 80  per cent  of the      population of  the State cannot be a homogeneous class.      Poverty  in   rural  areas   cannot  be  the  basis  of      classification to support reservation for rural areas."      The criterion adopted by the State Government cannot be accepted unless  supported by other relevant considerations. That a  comprehensive understanding  of regional  imbalances from the  Anand Committee  report and  the Sikri  Commission report has  not been  possible yet  affords no justification for an  arbitrary classification.  We are not satisfied that the State  Government has  succeeded in  bringing  the  case within Article  15 (4)  of the  Constitution.  The  material before us  is woefully  inadequate and fails to sufficiently support the  validity  of  the  classification.  We  are  of opinion that  the order  of the  State Government dated 24th September, 1980 must be declared invalid.      The next contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the allocation  to the  viva voce test of 30 per cent of the total marks  is patently  unreasonable  and  arbitrary.  Our attention has  been drawn  to the observations of this Court in Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib(1) where an allocation of more than 15  per cent  of the total marks for the oral interview was regarded  as arbitrary and unreasonable and liable to be struck down as constitutionally invalid. It seems to us that the State  Government would have done well to apply its mind seriously to the evaluation ratio between the three criteria adopted for  admission. When  the Government  order of  23rd June, 1980  dividing  the  total  marks  between  the  three criteria was issued, there 41 was ample  evidence of the principle and practice adopted by examining bodies  of high  repute and status in the country. The  marks   ratio  adopted  by  the  Union  Public  Service Commission provided  wise example.  Besides, almost 10 years before this  Court in  A. Peeriakaruppan,  etc. v.  State of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

Tamil Nadu  & Ors. had expressed its disapproval of the ear- marking of 75 marks for the interview test out of 275 marks. And before  the selection  process was  taken in the present case this  Court had already observed in Nishi Maghu (supra) that reserving  50 marks for the interview out of a total of 150 marks appeared excessive, especially when the time spent was  not  more  than  4  minutes  on  each  candidate.  This precisely is  what happened here, because on the case of the State Government itself the average time devoted to the oral interview of  each candidate  was 4 minutes. However, we are reluctant to  interfere  on  this  ground  because  a  clear pronouncement that  an allocation  of more  than 15%  of the total marks  to the  viva voce  examination would  result in constitutional invalidity  has been  made only  recently, in Ajay Hasia  (supra), by  this Court  and that  was after the selection process  in the  present  case  had  already  been taken. We  would prefer  to impress  on the State Government that there  is need to revise the marks ratio because of the very real risk future selections will face on this score.      The next  contention for  the petitioner is that having regard to  the number of candidates interviewed and the time applied to conducting the interview no more than two minutes or so  could have  been given  on the  average to  the  oral interview of  each candidate, a period demonstrating, in the submission of  learned counsel,  that the  selection process was conducted  in a perfunctory manner and there was no real application of  the mind to the selection of candidates. The State Government  maintains that  the time  spent  was  four minutes per  candidate. We have given the matter our anxious consideration, and  we are  unable to  hold  that  there  is adequate material  for striking  down the  selection on this ground. But here again the State Government would do well to note the  observations made  by this  Court  in  Ajay  Hasia (supra)  in  this  matter,  and  to  ensure  that  Selection Committees take  care to  devote sufficient time to the oral interview of  individual candidates  having  regard  to  the several relevant  considerations which must enter into their judgment respecting each candidate. 42      We are also told by the petitioner that the composition of the  Interview Committee  varied from time to time during the interviews.  Therefore, it is said, the selection stands vitiated. It  is alleged  that while  one member,  Shri N.S. Pathania,  Principal,  Medical  College,  Jammu  joined  the Committee some  time after the interviews had begun, another member, Shri  B.R. Kundal, Deputy Commissioner, Udhampur was present during  a part  of the  proceedings  only  and  left thereafter. In  regard to  Shri N.S.  Pathania,  it  is  not possible to  say that  his joining  with a  slight delay has materially affected  the validity of the proceedings. And as regards Shri  Kundal, it  appears that he was present on the 14th July, 1980 and according to the petitioner, left on the morning of  the next  day. It  will be  noticed that all the members of  the Committee  except Shri  Kundal were  persons closely associated  with medical education. Shri B.R. Kundal was Deputy  Commissioner of  Udhampur. We  also do  not know what was  the mode of functioning employed by the Committee, whether it  was such as to invalidate the proceedings if one of the  members ex  necessitas, was  unable  to  participate throughout in  them. The  respondents maintain that at least three out  of four  members remained  present throughout the proceedings.   And    according   to   the   petitioner,   a proportionately small  number only  of  the  candidates  was interviewed  when  Shri  Kundal  was  present.  In  all  the circumstances,  we  find  it  difficult  to  say  that  Shri

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

Kundal’s   absence   from   the   Committee   vitiated   its proceedings.      Shri Soli  Sorabjee then  contends  that  a  number  of candidates  were   selected   for   admission   because   of favouritism on  account of  relationship or  friendship with members of  the Selection  Committee or  because  they  were related to  important and  influential persons in the State. The allegations  have for  the most  part been  made for the first time  in the rejoinder affidavit and there has been no reasonable opportunity  to the respondents to reply to them. Such allegations  on this point as are contained in the writ petition are  extremely vague  and sketchy,  and can form no basis for a finding in favour of the petitioner.      There is  one more  contention, and  that is  that  the respondents Nos.  7 to 12 did not apply for admission to the Principal, Government Medical College, Srinagar, and even if they are  found to have done so their applications must have been submitted  beyond the time prescribed as the qualifying examination in  which they  appeared was  held late  and the results  were   announced  after  the  date  prescribed  for submitting the applications at Srinagar had expired. It 43 appears from  the record  before us  that  inasmuch  as  the relevant examination  was held  late and the announcement of the results  was delayed  the State Government permitted the candidature  of   these  applicants  to  be  considered  for inclusion in  a common list drawn up to cover candidates for admission to  either of  the Government Medical Colleges, at Srinagar and  at Jammu.  Besides,  it  is  conceded  by  the petitioner that  those respondents  have an excellent record and if  they had  applied  in  time  for  admission  to  the Government Medical  College, Srinagar,  they would certainly have been  admitted on  the basis  of their  merit.  In  the circumstances, we do not propose to interfere with the grant of admission to those respondents.      Accordingly, the  only relief  which, in  our judgment, should be  awarded to  the petitioner  is  the  quashing  of admissions granted  in the  quota  reserved  for  rectifying regional imbalances.  In consequence,  those seats  must  be filled up on the basis of open merit.      Writ Petitions Nos. 5601 of 1980, 5615 and 5689 to 5697 of 1980,  which proceed  on the  same lines as Writ Petition No. 5600 of 1980, must be disposed of in like manner.      The remaining  cases, Writ  Petitions Nos. 6283 to 6307 of 1980,  fall in  a separate category. The petitioners here challenge the  selection of  candidates for admission to the M.B.B.S. course in the Government Medical College, Jammu for the year 1980-81; and complain of the denial of admission to them. The  facts on  which these  writ petitions  have  been brought and  the grounds  on which  they  claim  relief  are substantially the same as in Writ Petition No. 5600 of 1980. Indeed,  Shri  M.K.  Ramamurthi,  learned  counsel  for  the petitioners,  states  at  the  outset  that  he  adopts  the submissions urged  in that  case against the validity of the admissions granted  for  the  purpose  of  rectification  of regional imbalances,  in regard to the invalidity alleged by the assigning  of 30% marks to the viva voce examination and also  in  regard  to  the  legal  effect  on  the  interview proceedings of  the absence of some members of the Selection Committee during  part of the proceedings. These points have been considered and disposed of by us in that writ petition, and those  findings are  of equal  validity  in  these  writ petitions also.      Besides  this,  learned  counsel  for  the  petitioners raises other  contentions. He urges that the selections made

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

are not  in accordance  with the  Regulations framed  by the Indian Medical  Council under s. 33 read with s. 19A, Indian Medical  Council   Act,  1956   and  therefore  violate  the fundamental right of the petitioner guaranteed 44 under Article  15 of  the Constitution. It is contended that the Regulations  are law and are enforceable in a court, and that if they are to prevail the only reservation permissible is that  in favour of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. According to  the Regulations,  it is  asserted, a Selection Committee can  either  take  into  consideration  the  marks obtained in  a qualifying  examination or in the competitive test. Nor,  it is  said, can  a  viva  voce  examination  be permitted as  a  vehicle  for  selection.  The  validity  of holding a  separate objective  test is also assailed as also of assigning 35% of the total marks to it. The merit test is challenged  on  the  ground  that  no  curricula  have  been prescribed in relation thereto      Objection to  the objective  test  and  the  viva  voce examination is  based on  the ground  that they fall outside the scheme  envisaged by  the Regulations made by the Indian Medical Council  for admission  to the  M.B.B.S. course. The respondents,  however,   question  the   validity   of   the Regulations. We  are then  referred by  the  petitioners  to clauses (j)  and (I)  of s.  33, Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 in  support of  the contention  that the  power of  the Council to  make regulations  extends to  making regulations prescribing the  examinations and  tests for  admission.  It seems to  us  prima  facie  that  those  provisions  do  not authorise  the  Council  to  do  so.  But  we  refrain  from expressing any final opinion in the matter as the Council is not a  party before  us. We  are also not satisfied that the reservations  permissible  must  be  confined  to  Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Nor do we find sufficient basis in the  submission that  there is arbitrariness in providing for 35 marks to a separate objective test in addition to the 35 marks  earmarked  for  the  qualifying  examination.  The grounds taken before us do not justify the conclusion that a competitive entrance  examination is  not permissible in law in addition  to the qualifying examination. In regard to the sufficiency of the objective test, we are not satisfied that the absence  of a  prescribed formal curriculum vitiates the objective test.      The next  contention on  behalf of  the petitioners  is that the  presence of a Government official on the Selection Committee vitiates its constitution. It is stressed that the viva voce  test to  be acceptable  should  be  conducted  by persons  who   are  men   of  high  integrity,  calibre  and qualifications. There  is no  principle of law, so far as we know, disqualifying a Government official from participating on the Interview Committee merely because he is a Government official. Nor  do we  believe  that  a  Government  official cannot  be   a  person   of  high   integrity,  calibre  and qualifications. The constitution of a 45 Committee lies  in the wisdom of the State Government and it is expected  that men  suitably qualified  in every  respect will  be   appointed  to  discharge  the  functions  of  the Committee. So  long as  the State  Government acts bona fide and on  the basis  of  relevant  considerations  it  is  not possible  to  say  that  the  appointment  of  a  Government official is obnoxious to the law.      In the  result, the  writ petitions are allowed insofar that the  selection  of  candidates  for  admission  to  the M.B.B.S.  course  of  the  Government  Medical  Colleges  at

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10  

Srinagar and at Jammu for the year 1980-81 made on the basis of  rectifying   regional  imbalances  is  quashed  and  the respondents are directed to fill up those seats on the basis of open  merit. The  candidates who  will  be  displaced  in consequence have already completed a few months of study and in order  to avoid  serious prejudice and detriment to their careers it  is hoped  that the  State Government  will  deal sympathetically with  their cases  so that  while effect  is given to  the judgment  of  this  Court  the  rules  may  be suitably relaxed, if possible by a temporary increase in the number of  seats, in  order  to  accommodate  the  displaced candidates. In  the circumstances,  there is  no order as to costs. S.R.                                      Petitions allowed. 46