http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 19  

PETITIONER: STATE OF KERALA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: KUMARI T. P. ROSHANA & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT17/01/1979

BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. PATHAK, R.S.

CITATION:  1979 AIR  765            1979 SCR  (2) 974  1979 SCC  (1) 572  CITATOR INFO :  RF         1980 SC1230  (31)  D          1981 SC2045  (12,18)  R          1983 SC 580  (9)  R          1985 SC1495  (127)

ACT:      Constitution  of   India  1950-Art  14-Medical  College admission-Selection  of            students  from  different universities with  no uniformity of standards-Reservation of seats on  territorial  basis-Validity-Whether  violative  of Art. 14.

HEADNOTE:      Articles 32  and 136-When root of the grievance and the fruit of writ are not individual but collective courts power is one  of affirmative  structuring of  redress to  make  it meaningful and socially relevant-Decisional guidelines to be given.      The State of Kerala appointed a Commission to recommend which sections  of the  people  required  special  treatment under  Art.   15(4)  having   regard  to  their  social  and educational   conditions.    That   Commission   recommended equitable allocation  of seats  on  the  bais  of  education backwardness of  the Malabar  area.  Substantially  founding itself on  these recommendations  the these  recommendations the State Government evolved a formula, which by polling all applications for  admission to  the four medical colleges in the state  one consolidated list was prepared and candidates were selected  strictly according  to the  marks secured  by them.      This scheme  having been struck down by the High Court, a fresh  expert committee  was appointed  to examine the quo modo of  admissions to  medical colleges.  The Government on the  basis  of  these  recommendations  decided  that  seats available for  the medical  course might  be distributed for the students  of  the  two-1,  Universities  of  Kerala  and Calicut in  the ratio  of the  candidates registered for the pre-degree and B. Sc. course in them.      In a  writ petition  under Art. 226 the High Court held that the  scheme of  selection for  admission to the medical colleges on  an assessment  of merits of students drawn from different universities  with no  uniformity of  standards is

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 19  

objectionable and  the linkage of the division of seats with the registered student-strength of the universities bears no nexus and is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution.      On the  question of  the  validity  of  the  scheme  of selection for admission to the medical colleges. ^      HELD : 1. Current conditions warrant the classification of  student   community  on   the  zonal   basis-not  as   a legitimation of  endless perpetuation  but  as  a  transient panacea  for  a  geo-human  hadicap  which  the  State  must actively strive to undo.[980E]      2.The principal  of reservation  with weightage for the geographical area  of the  Malabar district is approved.[980 G]      3 The  reasoning of  the High  Court that there is such substantial  difference   in  the   pre-degree  courses  and evaluations between  the sister universities within the same State that  the breach  of Art. 14 by equal treatment of the marks un- 975 equally secured by the examinees in the two Universities may be spelt  out. Every inconsequential differentiation between two things  does not  constitute the vice of discrimination, if  law  clubs  them  together  ignoring  vanial  variances. Article 14  is not  a voodoo which visits. with invalidation every  executive   or  legislative   fusion  of   things  or categories  where  there  are  no  pronoanced  inequalities. Mathematical   equality    is   not    the   touchstone   of constitutionality. [983 E-F]      State of  Jammu &  Kashmir v. Triloki Nath Khosa & Anr. [1974] 1 SCC 19 at 42  referred to.      4. A  large latitude  is allowed  in this  area to  the State  to   classify  or   declassify   based   on   diverse considerations of  relevant  pragmatism  and  the  judiciary should not "rush in" where the executive varily treads. [984 A]      5. Many  colleges are run by the State or institutional managements  where   pre-degree  or   degree   courses   are undertaken,  The   teachers   move   from   one   university jurisdiction  to   the  other,   the  teaching  material  is inevitably of  a  like  nature,  the  subjects  taught  must ordinarily be  alike. The  examiners are  usually drawn from within  the   State  or   neighbouring  States.   Even   the composition of  the academic  bodies in the two universities may have  common members.  The University Act themselves are substantially  similar.   To  surmise   discrimination  from possibilities is  alien  to  the  forensic  process  in  the absence  of  hand  facts.  Gross  divergences  exist  amoung Universities affecting  the quality  of the teaching and the inaiking. the  anomalies of  grading and  the  absurdity  of equating the  end product  on the  blind assumption that the same marks  mean the  same excellence. But not glib surmises but  solid   facts  supply   the  sinews  of  discriminatory inequality  or  equality.  Some  backward  universities  and colleges have degenerated into degree-dealers bringing rapid discredit to Indian Academic status. [984 D-F]      6. The  vagarious element  in marking and moderation of marks may be a fact of life, but too marginal to qualify for substantial difference  unless otherwise  made  out  Indeed. there may  be differences  among the colleges under the same University. among the examiners in the same University. Such fleeting factors  or eohemeral  differences  cannot  be  the solid foundation  for a substantial differentiation which is the necessary  pre-condition for  quashing an  executive  or legislative  act   as  too  discriminatory  to  satisfy  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 19  

egalitarian essence of Art 14. [984 H-985 A]      7. The  functional validation  of the writ jurisdiction is an  appropriate examination  of the substantiality of the alleged disparity. [985 B]      8.  The  corner-stone  of  classification  adopted  for medical admission.  by the  Government  was  University-wise allocation. By  itself.  this  approach  had  constitutional sanction. [986 C]      D. N.  Chanchala v.  State of mysore & Ors. etc. [1971] Supp. SCR 608; relied on      9.   The    discriminatory   vice,if    University-wise classification and  consequential allocation  of seats  were resorted  to,   was  pressed   therein  but   repelled.  The fundamental ‘educational  realities and resultant resolution of the legal imbrogliro are instructively presented therein, which have special relevance to the instant case because the social    facts,     constitutional    confrontations    and administrative  answers   in  the   Kerala   and   Karnataka litigations are similar. [986 D, 986 H-987 A] 976      10.The  injection   of  the   University-wise   student strength is  drawing  the  redherring  across  the  trail-an irrelevance that  invalidates the  scheme. There is no nexus between the  registered student strength and the seats to be allotted. The fewer the colleges the fewer the pre-degree or degree students.  And so,  the linkages  of the  division of seats with  the registered  student strength  would make  an irrational inroad  into the University-wise allocation. Such a formula  would be  a punishment  for backwardness,  not  a promotion of the advancement. The discriminatory paring down based on unreason cannot be upheld. [990 G-H]      11. Law  is not  unimaginative, especially  in the writ jurisdiction where  responsible justice  is  the  goal.  The court cannot  adopt a  rigid attitude  of negativity and sit back after striking down the scheme of Government leaving it to the  helpless Government caught in a crisis to make-do as best  as   it  may,   or  throwing  the  situation  open  to agitational chaos  to find  a solution  by demonstrations in the streets  and worse.  In the  instant case unable to stop with merely  declaring that the scheme of admission accepted by Government  is ultra  vice and granting the relief to the petitioner of  admission to  the medical  colleges, the need for  controlling   its  repercussions   calls  for  judicial response. [991 H-992 A]      12. An incisive study of the exercise of the writ power in India  may reveal  that it limits its actions by quashing or nullifying  orders proceeding  on a violation of law, but stops short  of a  reconstruction whereby a valid scheme may replace  a   void  project.   This  is   symptomatic  of  an obsolescent aspect  of the  judicial process,  its  remedial shortcomings in practice and the need to innovate the means, to widen  the base  and to  organise the reliefs so that the Court  actualises   social  justice   even  as  it  inhibits injustice. [978 A-B]      13. This  community perspective  of the  justice system explains why  the Court  has  resorted  to  certain  unusual directions and  has shaped the ultimate complex of orders in these proceedings  in a  self-acting package. Chronic social disability cannot  be  amenable  to  instant  administrative surgery and law shall not bury its head, ostrich fashion, in the sands  of fiction and assume equality where the opposite is the reality. [978 C, 980 C]      14. The  rule of law runs close to the rule of life and where socieal  life, as  between one  part of  the State and another,  is   the  victim   of  die-hard   disparties,  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 19  

constitutional  mandate  of  equal  justice  under  the  law responds to  it  pragmatically  and  permits  classification geared to eventual equalisation.      15. The  writ of this Court binds the parties on record who must  abide by the directions issued necessitated by the exigency of  the situation  and the need to do justice. [993 D]      16. The  court system  belongs to  the people  and must promote  constructive   justice;   and   all   institutions, including the  Governments and Universities, likewise belong to the  people. This  commitment is the whet-stone for doing justice in the wider context of social good. [993 E-F]      17. Leaving  the Judgment  of the  High  Court  in  the conventional  form   of  merely   quashing  the  formula  of admission the  remedy  would  have  aggravated  the  malady, confusion, agitation,  paralysis. The  root of the grievance and the  fruit of the writ are not individual but collective and while  the "adversary  system" makes  the Judge  a  mere umpire, traditionally speaking, the community orientation of the judicual  function, so  desirable  in  the  Third  World remedial juris- 977 prudence, transforms  the  courts’  power  into  affirmative structuring  of   redress  so   as  to  make  it  personally meaningful and  socially relevant. Frustration of invalidity is part  of the  judicial duty;  fulfilment of  legality  is complementary.  This  principle  of  affirmative  action  is within the  court’s jurisdiction  under Art  136 and Art. 32 and the  present  cases  deserve  its  exercise.  Decisional guidelines given.[994 B-F]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2297 of 1978.      Appeal by  Special Leave  from the  Judgment and  Order dated 13-11-78 of the Kerala High Court in O.P. No. 3239/78.                             AND                  WRIT PETITION NO. 4705/78      M. M.  Abdul Khader,  Adv.  Genl.  for  Kerala,  V.  J. Francis and  Mustafa K.  Rowter for  the Appellant  in  C.A. 2297/78 and Respondents in W.P. 4705/78.      P. V.  Govindan  Nair,  N.  Sudhakaran  and  Mrs.  Baby Krishnan  for   the  Petitioner  in  W.P.  No.  4705/78  and Respondent No. 1 in CA 2297/78.      Dr.  V.   A.  Sayid   Muhammad,  S.  K.  Mehta,  P.  K. Shamshuddin, P. N. Puri and E. M. Sarul for the Interveners.      A. S. Nambiar for Respondent No. 3 in CA 2297/78.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      KRISHNA IYER,  J.-The dynamics of the writ jurisdiction and the  potential for  affirmative court action, as part of remedial jurisprudence,  constitute the  key  thought  which animates the ultimate decision and direction we give in this couple of  cases which  have come  up by  Special Leave  and under Art.  32 to  this Court,  aware as we are of a host of like proceedings which pend in the High Court.      The State  of Kerala  is the  appellant  in  the  civil appeal and  1st respondent  in the  Writ  Petition  but  the collective litigation  springs from  a traditional  type  of action and typical kind of relief granted in exercise of its writ  jurisdiction   by  the  High  Court  striking  down  a transitory scheme  of admission  to the  medical colleges of the State  evolved by  the Government but invalidated.by the High  Court   on  the   ground  of   discrimination  in  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 19  

distribution of seats among the eligible students drawn from two disparate  regions of  the State. Of course, the instant repercussion of  the decision  is apt to be confusion in the admission  to   the  academic   courses  which  have  hardly commenced  and  this  desperate  situation  has  driven  the Government to  this Court  seeking reversal  of the Judgment under appeal. Law promotes order, not anomie. 978      Any incisive study of the exercise of the writ power in India may  reveal that  it limits  its action to quashing or nullifying orders  proceeding on  a violation  of  law,  but stops short  of a  reconstruction whereby a valid scheme may replace a  void project.  This is  no reflection on the High Court’s ruling  but is  symptomatic of an obsolescent aspect of  the  judicial  process,  its  remedial  shortcomings  in practice and  the need  to innovate  the means, to widen the base  and   to  organise  the  reliefs  so  that  the  court actualises social  justice even  as it  inhibits  injustice. This community  perspective of  the Justice  System explains why we  have resorted to certain unusual directions and have shaped the  ultimate complex  of orders in these proceedings in a  self-acting package.  With this exordium we proceed to narrate  briefly   the  necessary   facts  and  developments revelatory of  the course of events and the cause of action, the impact  of the High Court’s judgment and the compulsions which have brought the State in appeal to this Court.      The  Kerala   State,   notwithstanding   its   striking demographic, cultural,  linguistic and political integrality and educational advance, has certain historical hangovers of academic disparity  and developmental  maldistribution which have survived for two decades as this case testifies. We are not concerned  with the etiological enquiry into this malady but recognise  it as a reality since the authentic materials from Commission  reports and prior rulings of the High Court concurrently   so    establish.   Broadly   speaking,   this ‘composite’ State  may be  dichotomised as Travancore-Cochin and Malabar  regions woven  into one  fabric by  the  States Reorganisation Act,  1956. Gaping disparities of development cannot be wished away by political fusion into one State and determined efforts  at  equalisation  of  human  conditions, economic and  cultural, alone  lend living  validity to geo- political homogeneity.  Malabar being  admittedly laggard in the educational  field, the  State endeavoured  to wipe  out this weakness by starting or supporting new colleges in this neglected segment;  and one such institution was the medical college  at  Calicut.  Indeed,  the  drive  to  upgrade  the educational status  of this  backward region  persuaded  the State to  set  up  the  Calicut  University  to  which  were affiliated  all   the  colleges   in  that  Cindrella  area, including  the   Calicut  Medical   College.  An   adjoining district, Trichur,  was also  tacked  on,  for  convenience, maybe.      The cynosure  of attention  in this  litigation is  the scheme of admission to medical colleges in the State; and so we may adjust the forensic lens to focus on the struggle for seats in  the four  medical colleges in the State-all run by Government but  providing for five hundred and odd students, as against several thousands of applicants. This ‘musical 979 chair’ situation  naturally led  to many qualified claimants being rejected  and litigative  adventures being inaugurated on grounds  of discrimination. One such writ petition having been allowed,  the State  has, by  special leave, come up in appeal. The points raised in the writ petition under Art. 32 are identical.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 19  

    A sensitive  appreciation of the grievance successfully ventilated by  the writ  petitioners in  the High  Court  is possible only if we unfold a fuller conspectus of the facts. Cognizance of some essential circumstances is necessitous as the first  step. There  are three  Universities in the State but we  are  concerned  only  with  two-the,Kerala  and  the Calicut Universities-to  which the four medical colleges are affiliated, three of which are under the jurisdiction of the first and the fourth under the latter. Broadly speaking, the latter caters  to the  academic requirements  of the Malabar segment plus  a neighbouring  district and the former to the rest of the State.      The Malabar  area  has  been  regarded  as  notoriously backward from  the point  of view of collegiate education so much so,  the number  of colleges  which provide  pre-degree courses necessary  by way of qualification for entrance into the medical  colleges, are  relatively  fewer  and,  on  the contrary, the  remaining part  of the  State thanks  to many factors, has  been on  a higher  level, with  colleges  more numerous and  pre-degree students  more prolific. Geographic justice, a  component of social justice, has to take note of these comparative  imbalances. Rightly, therefore, the State Government,  based   on  certain   reports  of  Commissions, considered the  two territorial  divisions as separate units and regulated  seat allocations  to medical  colleges in the State on  an equitable  basis.  The  social  thrust  of  the classification, based  on geographical  dissimilarities, was the core  factor in fomulation of that scheme of admissions. This principle  found favour with the High Court in its Full Bench ruling in Rafia Rahim’s(1) case. While over the years, amelioration produced  by State Plans has reduced the degree of  backwardness,   the  fact   remains   that   substantial equalisation of  opportunities between  the two  areas is  a "consummation devoutly to be wished." We agree with the High Court that           "in considering  the question  of the  educational      backwardness of  a particular  class  of  people  or  a      Particular tract  of territory of this State, we cannot      forget that  the evolution  of human  society  and  its      march from backwardness to progress must essentially be      a slow  and gradual  process. It  is not  as if,  by  a      Government or  executive fiat,  a class  of people or a      bit of  territory has  been condemned  to backwardness,      and with 980      the lifting  of the ban by efflux of time or otherwise,      they auto  matically spring  back into a progressive or      forward class  of people  or tract.  It  is  useful  to      recall the  observations made by this Court is State of      Kerala v. Jacob Mathew (1964 KL T 298).           "9.  In these regions of human life and values the                clear-cut .  distinctions of cause and effect                merge into  each other.  Social  backwardness                contributes  to   educational   backwardness;                educational backwardness  perpetuates  social                backwardness; and both are often no more than                the inevitable corollaries of the extremes of                poverty and  the deadening  weight of  custom                and tradition."(1)      If we  may add,  chronic social  disability  cannot  be amenable to instant administrative surgery and law shall not bury its  head, ostrich fashion, in the sands of fiction and assume equality where the opposite is the reality.      The rule  of law  runs close  to the  rule of  life and where societal  life, as  between one  part of the State and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 19  

another,  is   the  victim   of  die-hard   disparities  the constitutional  mandate  of  equal  justice  under  the  law responds to  it  pragmatically  and  permits  classification geared to  eventual equalisation.  We, therefore, agree with the  High   Court  that   current  conditions   warrant  the classification of  the student community on the Zonal basis- not as  a legitimation  of endless  perpetuation  but  as  a transient panacea  for a  geo-human handicap which the State must actively strive to undo.      In  Kerala,   as  in  some  other  States,  reservation policies   of    Governments    and    ‘equal    protection’ pronouncements of  courts have  chased each  other. A  happy harmony among the great instrumentalities for accomplishment of constitutional  goals  by  complementary  action  is  the desideratum for  developing countries,  if  we  may  say  so respectfully.      The principle  of reservation  with weightage  for  the geographical area  of the  Malabar District has our approval in endorsement  of the  view or  the High  Court. An earlier decision of  the Kerala  High Court (1964 KLT 298) gave rise to a Commission appointed to recommend which sections of the people required  special treatment  under Art.  15(4) of the Constitution, having  regard to their social and educational conditions.  That   Commission,  inter   alia  accepted  the educational backwardness of the Malabar area and recommended equitable allocation of seats on that footing. Substantially founding itself  on these recommendations but modifying them in some  measure Government  hummered out a formula, a basic feature of  which was  pooling together the applications for admission to  the four  medical colleges in the State in one consolidated list 981 and  selecting   students  for   medical  courses   strictly according to  the marks  secured-of course, making allowance for seats reserved for a limited percentage of students from outside and  the customary bonus of reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes,  Scheduled Tribes  and  backward  classes. This part of the ’selection calculus’ is beyond cavil before us, as the nation with all its social engineering boasts and all its  tumultuous bungling,  is distances  away from human justice through  human law. The rough and tumble of academic life, based  on the  Pooling System seemed to run smooth for some years  when a  new attack was mounted on it in the High Court with  constitutional artillery  from the inexhaustible armoury of Art. 14. A Full Bench hit the scheme fatally this time,  not  with  the  familiar  but  fruitless  archery  of geographical  discrimination   but  with   the  weaponry  of ’reverse discrimination’ in a different mani festation.      The strategy  of attack  was neatly  expressed  by  the learned Single  Judge  whose  judgment  on  this  point  was endorsed by the Full Bench. Discrimination was discovered by the Court  in attributing  parity to the markes of examinees in pre-degree  and degree  courses of the Calicut University with those  of the  candidates of the Kerala University. The Full Bench framed the question, tell-tale fashion:           "The question  is not  whether one  University  is      superior to  the other or maintains higher standards in      the matter of syllabus, examination and evaluation than      the other,  but  whether  the  operation  of  different      Universities with  varying standards  of their  own  is      productive of inequality.’(1)      The descriptive  presentation  of  this  discriminatory facet was  given by  the learned  single Judge  in the  same case:           "To compare  the marks obtained by students of two

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 19  

    different Universities valued by different examiners on      answer papers  of different  patterns may  not  be  the      proper mode  of determining  comparative merit. Even in      the  case   of  candidates   appearing  for   the  same      examination in the same university there may be a cause      for complaint  in the  matter of  marks awarded  to the      candidates. Quite  often revaluation  has shown that at      least in some cases there is justification for the plea      for such  revaluation. Different  examiners  value  the      answer papers  and though there is a Chief Examiner his      role is quite limited. But these are inevitable and the      marginal errors  may have  to be  ignored. By and large      the  comparative  merits  of  the  candidates  will  be      reflected in the marks they obtain in the exami- 982      nation to  which all candidates are uniformly subjected      to. But  the same  could not  be said  in the  case  of      examinations conducted  by two or more Universities. It      is well-known that some times question papers are tough      and  sometimes   valuation  is   liberal.  Quite  often      valuation is  guided by the percentage of pass expected      in an  examination. Moderation  is  also  resorted  to.      While  all   these  may   work  uniformly  on  all  the      candidates appearing  for the  same examination  in the      same University  that could not be the case with regard      to the  candidates appearing  for the  same  qualifying      examination from  another University  writing different      papers,  which   are  valued  by  a  different  set  of      examiners. When  comparison is  between two  candidates      passing out  from two  Universities  taking  respective      examinations  of   the  Universities  the  equation  of      candidates in matters where near-accuracy is called for      becomes difficult.  May be the examinations are similar      and the  valuation  also  is  similar,  but  the  other      factors cannot  be ruled  out. If admissions to courses      like medicine  and engineering  is to  be on  the basis      that the best talent is to be preferred, where students      from more  than one  University passing  the qualifying      examination have  to compete  some  method  other  than      comparing their  marks should  be devised  to determine      their comparative talent."(1)      The Full  Bench agreed  with this  anathematization  of equal treatment  of  ’unequals’  and  voided  the  Selection Process. The  Court,  with  helpful  realism,  concluded  by adding  a   positive  guideline   to  the   declaration   of nullification:(2)           "As a  result of  our discussion,  we are  of  the      opinion, that  the scheme of selection for admission to      the Medical  Colleges on  an  assessment  of  merit  of      students drawn  from  different  Universities  with  no      uniformity of  standards is objectionable and violative      of Art.  14 of the Constitution. We grant a declaration      to  the   writ-petitioner  to   that  effect.  We  deny      effective relief  to the  writ-petitioner on account of      non-joinder  of   the  selected   candidates,  and  the      futility   and   ineffectiveness   of   upsetting   the      selections and directing fresh admission at this stage.      We consider  that the  best scheme  of selection in the      circumstances would  be  the  method  of  selection  of      candidates by holding a uniform Entrance Examination to      secure 983      uniformity of  standards, as  recommended by the Indian      Medical Council-vide Exts. P5 and P8-and as endorsed by      the University authorities (vide Ex. P7). We direct the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 19  

    State  Government  to  forthwith  devise  a  scheme  of      selection by  holding such  an Entrance Examination and      publish the same within three months from today so that      the candidates  wishing to  apply for  selection to the      Medical Colleges  of this  State for  the next academic      year, have  due notice  of the scheme of selection. The      object being  to secure  uniformity  of  standards  for      assessment  and   evaluation  of  students  drawn  from      different Universities,  our direction  should  not  be      understood as  unalterably and inelastically fixing the      limits for  Governmental action.  Methods for  securing      uniformity of  syllabus, pattern  of  examination,  and      mode of evaluation in the different Universities, would      well be  within  the  province  of  the  Government  to      undertake. We  allow this  writ appeal  to the  limited      extent indicated above."      In the end, the writ petitioner won the battle but lost the war,  for she  got  an  abstract  declaration  that  her exclusion was  invalid but was denied the concrete direction to be admitted into the college.      We are  not  impressed  much  with  the  surmise  which colours the  reasoning of  the Full  Bench and  the  learned Single Judge  that there  is such  substantial difference in the pre-degree  courses and  evaluations between  the sister universities within  the same  State that the breach of Art. 14 by  equal treatment  of the  marks unequally  secured  by examinees in  the two  universities may  be spelt out. It is trite law that every inconsequential differentiation between two things  does not  constitute the vice of discrimination, if law  clubs them  together ignoring venial variances. Art. 14 is  not a  voodoo which  visits with  invalidation  every executive or  legislative fusion  of  things  or  categories where there  are no  pronounced  inequalities.  Mathematical equality is  not the  touchstone of  constitutionality. This Court in Triloki Nath Khosa cautioned:           "Mini-classifications based  on micro-distinctions      are false to our egalitarian faith and only substantial      and straightforward  classifications plainly  promoting      relevant goals  can have  constitutional  validity.  To      overdo classification is to undo equality."      In the  same ruling  there  was  a  caveat  entered  by Chandrachud, J  (as he  then was)  against  "a  charter  for making minute and microcosmic 984 classifications." What  is more, a large latitude is allowed in this area to the State to classify or declassify based on diverse  considerations  of  relevant  pragmatism,  and  the judiciary should  not "rush  in" where  the executive warily treads.  The   core  question   is  whether  there  is  such substantial differentiation  between the two universities in regard to  the pre-degree  or degree  courses and  system of examinations as  too glaring to imperil the equal protection clause. The  presumption  is  in  favour  of  the  vires  of legislative and  executive action where Art. 14 is the basis of challenge. We see no factual disparities disclosed in the Full  Bench  ruling  to  reach  the  result  of  substantial difference in  the syllabi,  in the pattern of examinations, in the  marking systems or in the choice of the examiners so as to  warrant invalidation on account of equal regard being accorded to  the marks secured by the examinees from the two universities. We cannot forget that many colleges are run by the State  or institutional  managements where pre-degree or degree courses  are undertaken.  The teachers  move from one university jurisdiction  to the other, the teaching material is inevitably  of a  like nature;  the subjects  taught must

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 19  

ordinarily be  alike. The  examiners are  usually drawn from within  the   State  or   neighbouring  States.   Even   the composition of  the academic  bodies in the two universities may have  common members. The University Acts themselves are substantially  similar.   To  surmise   discrimination  from possibilities is  alien  to  the  forensic  process  in  the absence  of   hard  facts.  We  are  aware  that  there  are Universities and  Universities, that gross divergences among them exist  affecting the  quality of  the teaching  and the marking, the  anomalies of  grading  and  the  absurdity  or equating the  end products  on the blind assumption that the same marks  mean the  same excellence. But not glib surmises but  solid   facts  supply   the  sinews  of  discriminatory inequality  or   equality.  Going  by  vague  reports,  some backward universities  and colleges  have  degenerated  into degree-dealers bringing  rapid discredit  to Indian academic status.      The Indian  Medical Council  Act, 1956  has constituted the Medical  Council of  India as  an expert body to control the minimum  standards of  medical education and to regulate their observance.  Obviously, this  high-powered Council has power  to   prescribe  the   minimum  standards  of  medical education.  It   has  implicit   power  to   supervise   the qualifications or  eligibility standards  for admission into medical institutions.  Thus there is an overall invigilation by the  Medical Council  to  prevent  sub-standard  entrance qualifications for medical courses.      The vagarious  element in  marking  and  moderation  of marks may be a fact of life, but too marginal to qualify for substantial difference  unless otherwise  made out.  Indeed, there may be differences among the 985 colleges under  the same  University, among the examiners in the same  university. Such  fleeting  factors  or  ephemeral differences cannot be the solid foundation for a substantial differentiation which  is the  necessary  pre-condition  for quashing  an   executive   or   legislative   act   as   too discriminatory to  satisfy the  egalitarian essence  of Art. 14. The functional validation of the writ jurisdiction is an appropriate examination of the substantiality of the alleged disparity. We  do not, however, proceed finally to pronounce on this  point with  reference to the two universities since nothing is  available before  us, or,  for that  matter, was before the  High Court  to warrant  a fair conclusion on the issue. We  are persuaded  to  make  these  observations  for future guidance,  so that academic schemes may not be struck down as  arbitrary or irrational save where some sound basis has been laid.      We get back to where we left off before this divagation into the  Full Bench  decision’s ratio  on discrimination as between  the   two  universities.  The  sole  question  that survives is  of allocation  of seats  on a  university  wise classification. Following upon the Full Bench decision which struck down the pool scheme of selection, a constitutionally viable process  had to  be evolved.  Government,  therefore, appointed a fresh expert committee to examine and report the quo modo  of admissions  to medical colleges in the light of the directives  contained in  the Full  Bench decision.  Two solutions were seriously considered by the Committee, namely (1) a  common entrance  examination such  as is  in vogue in many States  and has  the approval of the Medical Council of India; and  (2) the standardization of the syllabi uniformly for the  two universities  and the  elimination of different yardsticks in  regard to  the setting  of  question  papers, marking systems  and the  like. The  first one,  though  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 19  

better, was  given up  as productive  of public  and student resistance. However  wise a  measure may  be, its  viability depends on  its acceptance  by the  consumers,  namely,  the student community  and  the  parent  community.  Agitational opposition or  determined dead-locking may make it unwise to inflict it  on an  unwilling constituency.  Of course,  by a gradual process  of  enlightenment  the  wisdom  of  such  a measure may  dawn. What  is rejected  to-day may  be greeted tomorrow. The  Committee jettisoned  the first proposal of a common   entrance   examination   partly   scared   of   its impracticability at  the moment. So it opted for the second, namely uniformity  of standards,  from  the  formulation  of syllabi upto assignment of marks at the examinations. Surely either of  the proposals  is an effective answer to Art. 14. Even so,  when the  Committee’s recommendations  were placed before  the   Government  it   reflected  carefully  on  the pragmatics of implementation and reached the 986 conclusion that  it would  take some time to fulfil the pre- requisites to  give  effect  to  that  formula.  Time  runs, university applications  rush  in,  admissions  must  begin, courses must start and administrative paralysis in decision- making is  no alibi.  Implementational  dilatoriness  cannot stall the  flow of medical education. Caught in this crisis, caused, in  part, by the court ruling, Government fabricated a quick  scheme of  admission to  the four medical colleges, which, again,  has now  been struck  down by  the High Court resulting in the appeal before us.      The corner-stone  of classification adopted for medical admissions by  the Government  this time  was universitywise allocation. By  itself,  this  approach  had  constitutional sanction, having regard to the ratio in Chanchala’s case.      The ratio  in Chanchala  concludes the  dispute in this case.   The    discriminatory   vice,   if   university-wise classification and  consequential allocation  of seats  were resorded to,  was pressed  but repelled. Shelat, J. speaking for the Court, formulated the contention thus:           "The  next   contention  was  that  r.9(1),  which      prescribes  university-wise   distribution   of   seats      results  in   discrimination  for   it  lays   down   a      classification  which   is   neither   based   on   any      intelligible differentia, nor has a rational nexus with      the object of the rules. The argument was that although      there is one selection committee for all the Government      medical colleges  in all the three universities and for      the said 59 seats in private colleges, students passing      from colleges affiliated to a particular university are      first   admitted   in   Government   medical   colleges      affiliated to  that university  and only seats upto 20%      in each  of such  medical colleges  can be  allotted to      outsiders in  the  discretion  of  the  committee.  The      result is  that a  student having higher marks than the      last admitted  student is  deprived of  a seat only for      the reason  that he  had passed  his P.U.C. examination      from  a   college  affiliated  to  another  university.      According to  counsel  such  a  classification  has  no      rational basis  and has no reasonable nexus with and is      in  fact   inconsistent  with   the  very   object   of      establishment of  Government medical  colleges, namely,      to train  in medicine  the most meritorious amongst the      candidates seeking admission."      The fundamental  educational  realities  and  resultant resolution  of   the  legal   imbroglio  are   instructively presented in Chanchala’s case, which 987

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 19  

have special relevance to our case because the social facts, constitutional confrontations  and administrative answers in the Kerala  and Karnataka litigations are similar. Shelat J. observed:           "The three  universities  were  set  up  in  three      different places presumably for the purpose of catering      to the  educational and  academic needs of those areas.      Obviously one  university for  the whole  of the  State      could  neither  have  been  adequate  nor  feasible  to      satisfy those  needs. Since it would not be possible to      admit all candidates in the medical colleges run by the      Government, some basis for screening the candidates had      to be  set up.  There can be no manner of doubt, and it      is now  fairly well  settled, that  the Government,  as      also other private agencies, who found such centres for      medical training,  have the  right to  frame rules  for      admission so  long as  those rules are not inconsistent      with the university statutes and regulations and do not      suffer from  infirmities, constitutional  or otherwise.      Since the  universities are  set up  for satisfying-the      educational needs of different areas where they are set      up and medical colleges are established in those areas,      it can safely be presumed that they also were so set up      to satisfy  the needs  for medical  training  of  those      attached to  those universities.  In our view, there is      nothing undesirable  in ensuring that those attached to      such universities have their ambitions to have training      in  specialised   subjects,  like   medicine  satisfied      through colleges  affiliated to their own universities.      Such a  basis for selection has not the disadvantage of      districtwise or  unitwise selection as any student from      any  part   of  the   state  can  pass  the  qualifying      examination  in   any   of   the   three   universities      irrespective of  the place  of his  birth or residence.      Further, the rules confer a discretion on the selection      committee to  admit outsiders  upto 20%  of  the  total      available seats  in any  one of  these  colleges,  i.e.      those who  have passed  the equivalent examination held      by any  other university not only in the State but also      elsewhere in  India.....  The  fact  that  a  candidate      having lesser  marks might obtain admission at the cost      of another  having higher marks from another university      does not  necessarily  mean  that  a  less  meritorious      candidate gets  advantage over  a more meritorious one.      As is well known, different universities have different      standards  in   the  examinations   held  by   them.  A      preference to one attached to one university in its own      institutions for post-graduate or 988      technical training  is not  uncommon..... Further,  the      Government which  bears the financial burden of running      the  Government   colleges  is  entitled  to  lay  down      criteria for  admission in  its  own  colleges  and  to      decide the  sources from which admission would be made,      provided  of   course,  such   classification  is   not      arbitrary and  has a  rational bass  and  a  reasonable      connection with  the object  of the  rules. So  long as      there is no discrimination within each of such sources,      the validity  of the  rules laying  down  such  sources      cannot be successfully challenged. [See Chitra Ghosh v.      Union of India] In our view, the rules lay down a valid      classification.   Candidates    passing   through   the      qualifying examinations  held by  a university  form  a      class by themselves as distinguished from those passing      through   such   examination   from   the   other   two

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 19  

    universities. Such  a classification  has a  reasonable      nexus with the object of the rules" namely, to cater to      the needs  of candidates  who would  naturally look  to      their own  university  to  advance  their  training  in      technical studies,  such as  medical  studies.  In  our      opinion, the  rules cannot  justly be  attacked on  the      ground of  hostile discrimination or as being otherwise      in breach of Art. 14:      We do  not mean  to lay down, as an inflexible dogma of universal application,  that under  utterly different social and  educational   environs  university-based   grouping  of candidates for  specialised courses  will,  willy-nilly,  be valid. But  the basic  identity of  pertinent  circumstances bearing on the university-centred descrimen in Chanchala and here constitutionalize  the scheme  of selection  adopted by Government grouping  all eligibles  from colleges affiliated to each  University as  separate  units.  The  High  Court’s perspective in this regard is impeccable.      It is  an interesting  sidelight that  in Chanchala  as much  as  20%  of  the  total  seats  were  thrown  open  to ’outsiders’ i.e.  ’those  who  have  passed  the  equivalent examination held  by any  other university  not only  in the State but  also elsewhere  in India. The underlying unity of syllabus and  broad agreement  on evaluation  are assumed in this pool  system, confined  to  20%  but  open  to  several universities.      Having  held  in  the  earlier  Full  Bench  case  that university-wise categorisation for seats allocation was good the High  Court, in the impugned judgment, still struck down the new  scheme as  discriminatory. The vice was traced to a certain  feature   which  went  beyond  mere  universitywise allocation and  made further  modifications governed  by the propor 989 tion  of  the  number  of  students  presented  by  the  two universities for  the pre-degree  and B.  Sc.  examinations. ’Ay, there’s the rub’.      The  Committee’s  long  range  proposal  of  uniformity between the  two universities  was unexceptionable  and,  if adopted, would  end apprehensions of injustice stemming from dissimilarities   flowing   from   divergent   syllabi   and examination methodology.  Indeed Government  has accepted it as the  long-term solution  and rightly.  The relevant  G.O. dated July  14, 1978,  sums up  the Committee’s  unification solution thus :           "As a  long teirm solution Government may move the      Universities  of   Kerala  and  Calicut  to  unify  the      curriculum and  courses of  study for pre-degree course      and form  Inter University  Board for  the  conduct  of      examination. When  such a  scheme is  established  pre-      degree will  be the  only  qualifying  examination  for      selection to  all courses  in the medical colleges. The      Committee has  pointed  out  that  unification  of  the      syllabus, course  of study  and examination in the four      disciplines of B.Sc., viz., Physics, Chemistry, Zoology      and Botany would be impossible and thus the reservation      now given  to  graduate  candidates  for  selection  to      Medical and dental colleges will have to be abolished." And the decision of Government is in these terms:           "Government.......have accepted the recommendation      of the  committee to have unified curriculum and course      of study  and common  board for conduct of examinations      for the Kerala and Calicut Universities. But Government      consider that  unification of  syllabus and  method  of      examination should  be made  also at  degree  level  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 19  

    respect of  the 4  disciplines  of  Physics  Chemistry,      Zoology and  Botany and  that the reservation now given      to the  graduates for  admission  to  the  medical  and      dental colleges  should be  continued. The Universities      concerned are being requested to take further action in      the matter." But the  modus operandi  for unification of syllabi and what not  are   incapable  of  instant  execution  by  unilateral declaration, since  it is  the business of the Universities. And Universities  are self-consciously  autonomous and often politicised, with the result that the writ of Government may not run  there. Moreover,  administrative slow-motion is the genius   of    governmental   and    university   processes. Universities,  with   plural   bodies,   many   voices   and contradictory cerebrations,  may meet  and  debate,  appoint sub-committees and discuss their reports, await reactions 990 of other organs and hold joint meetings to consider academic issues in  all their dimensions and act generally only after leisurely reflect  on. Academies cannot be hustled and often hasten  slowly.  Meanwhile,  the  year  rolls  on,  students stagnate and medical education grinds to a halt.      These  painful   realities   apparently   induced   the Government  to   fabricate  in  its  secretariat  foundry  a transitory strategy for the current year.      This short-run  project adopted  each University  as  a unit which, as we have earlier explained, was good so far as it went.  But a  dubious rider  was added  which invited the judicial Waterloo.  That is the bone of contention and so we excerpt the relevant portion:           "After considering the proposal in all its aspects      Government have  decided that  the seats  available for      MBBS course  after deducting  the seats  for  mandatory      admission may  be distributed  for the  students of the      two  Universities   in  the  ratio  of  the  candidates      registered for  the pre-degree  and B.Sc. course in the      two Universities,  taking the  average of the number of      candidates registered  for  the  pre-degree  and  B.Sc.      degree  courses   with  eligibility  for  admission  to      Medical Colleges  for  the  last  three  years  as  the      basis." This operated  as a cut back on the total ’Calicut’ seats as wholly available  for the  Calicut University  students and, indeed, as  urged by  counsel  for  the  respondent,  subtly subverted the criterion of ’Malabar’ backwardness.      The Calicut  Medical College and the Calicut University were  created   as  the   purpose-oriented  mechanisms   for progressive elimination  of educational backwardness in that territory. This  objective would  be fulfilled if the entire number  of   seats  of  the  Calicut  Medical  College  were exclusively made  the entitlement for eligible students from colleges affiliated  to that  University.  A  further  slice knifed out of the cake would spell reversal of policy.      We agree  with the High Court that the injection of the university wise  student-strength is drawing the red-herring across the trail-an irrelevance that invalidates the scheme. We cannot  see the  nexus between  the  registered  student- strength and  the  seats  to  be  allotted.  The  fewer  the colleges the  fewer the  pre-degree or  degree students. And so, the linkage of the division of seats with the registered student-strength would  make an  irrational inroad  into the university-wise  allocation.  Such  a  formula  would  be  a punishment  for  backwardness,  not  a  promotion  of  their advancement. We cannot uphold the discriminatory paring down based on unreason.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 19  

991      Once this  premise is  reached  the  calculus  is  non- controversial.      The three  medical colleges  affiliated to  the  Kerala University have  a total  strength of  345 students  and the only college  affilated to  the  Calicut  University  has  a student  strength  of  180.  On  these  basic  figures,  the arithmatic worked  out on  the principles  of  deduction  is beyond controversy.  42 students form the reserved quota and have to  be apportioned  between the two universities in the ratio of  their student  strength. Making available of seats for  candidates  from  other  universities  is  also  common ground. Both  sides agree  that  the  net  number  of  seats available to  be filled  up, if  we proceed  solely  on  the principle of university-wise allocation, will be 166 for the Calicut  University   students  and   317  for   the  Kerala University students.  The admissions,  even on  these agreed figures, will  be subject  to the  die-hard rule of Communal reservation. The  further division  of seats in the ratio of 60: 40  as between  the graduates  and pre-degree candidates also has  to be  maintined. No  question of complicating the numbers by  any further  injection of  the population  ratio between Malabar and Travancore-Cochin arises because the new formula takes  care of the backwardness of Malabar and there cannot be double benefits.      Decoding the  rules in  simplex form,  what we  get  in arithmatical terms  is that  the Calicut University students who have  now been  alloted under the Government formula 136 seats will be eintitled to an extra 30 seats.      If we  rigidly direct  that these  additional seats  be assigned to  the students  emerging from  the colleges under the Calicut  University an  equal  number  may  have  to  be expelled from  the students already admitted from out of the Kerala University quota. This consequence becomes ccmpulsive since the  total strength  sanctioned for  the four  medical colleges fixed  by the  two Universities and approved by the Medical Council of India is 525 seats.      Here comes  the play  of processual realism in moulding the relief  in the  given milieu. The rule of law should not petrify life  or be  inflexibly mulish.  It is  tempered  by experience, mellowed  by principled  compromise, informed by the anxiety  to avoid  injustice and softens the blow within the marginal  limits of  legality. That is the karuna of the law.      Nor  is  law  unimaginative,  especially  in  the  writ jurisdiction where  responsible justice  is  the  goal.  The court cannot  adopt a  rigid attitude  of negativity and sit back after  striking down  the scheme of Government, leaving it to  the helpless Government caught in a crisis to make-do as best  as it  may,  or  throwing  the  situation  open  to agitational chaos to find a 992 solution by demonstrations in the streets and worse. We are, therefore, unable  to stop  with merely  declaring that  the scheme of  admission accepted  by Government  is ultra vires and granting  the relief  to the  petitioner of admission to the  medical   college.  The   need  for   controlling   its repercussions calls for judicial response. After all, law is not a  brooding omnipresence  in the  sky but an operational art in society.      The High  Court’s ultimate direction is: "We allow this writ petition  and quash Exh. P2 G.O. to the extent to which it accepts alternative proposal of the committee referred to in Exh.  P.1". The Court also observes: "We think it will be unfair in  the circumstances to deny effective relief to the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 16 of 19  

writ petitioner......"  The relief  claimed was admission to the medical college.      The upshot of the judgment, in terms of student impact, government policy,  college  admissions  and  potential  for agitation, may  be envisioned  for a while. We may also take note of  the gregarious  trend of  one writ  petition  being followed by  many when the grievance is common and the first case is  in essence  a test  case and  class action. What is granted to  the petitioner  has to  be granted to others who follow her.  In terms of numbers several candidates may have to be  admitted into the medical colleges. More than that is the chaotic  consequence of  the pro  tempore project of the Government being struck down with no alternative methodology of selection.  Governments have  no magic  remedies to  tide over sudden crisis. Their processes are notoriously slow and the  temper   of  the   student  community   is  notoriously inflammable. Thus  the negative  stroke of  voiding the G.O. and granting  relief to  the petitioner  is to  throw out  a number of  students already  undergoing their  course and to incite unwittingly  student unrest  of magnitude, apart from leaving the  academic algebra  for admissions  in a state of vacuum. One  thing is  certain. If  the syndrome  of  campus chaos is  to be  obviated, the  court  should  come  to  the assistance  of   the  Kerala   University  students  already admitted and  undergoing  their  medical  course  who  might otherwise have to be jettisoned. We, therefore, do not think it right to force into the medical colleges any students who may be qualified for admission by virtue of our order at the expense of  another who  has already  been admitted  and  is undergoing the  medical course.  This means that 30 students from the  colleges affiliated to the Calicut University will have  to   be  provided  for  ab  extra.  But  how  to  find accommodation for 30 more students ?      The Universities  concerned have  the power to increase the streghth  ad hoc  when gripped  by a  crisis such as has occurred here.  The Medical  Council of India has an overall control in this field, being the statu- 993 tory body  created under  the Indian  Medical  Council  Act, 1956. Thus,  the concurrence  of the  Calicut and the Kerala Universities  and  the  Medical  Council  of  India  becomes necessary for  working out  effective reliefs  in  terms  of adding to  the strength on a temporary footing, with a sense of  equity  and  anxiety  to  do  justice  to  the  existing entrants.      Unfortunately, neither  the Universities  concerned nor the students  affected are  parties.  The  presence  of  the Medical Council  of India also has to be secured. Confronted by this  situation, we  directed, as  a measure of emergency issuance of  notice to  the two  Universities and  made them party to the record. A similar step was taken in the case of the Medical Council of India. At short notice, all the three parties entered  appearance. Although  Shri A.  S.  Nambiar, appearing for the University, expressed inability to consent to any  course of  addition of  strength, he agreed that the concerned academic  bodies were  likely to  meet shortly and the Universities  themselves would  abide by  any directions this Court  issued in  the interests of Justice. The learned Advocate  General   had   earlier   represented   that   the Universities were likely to agree to a temporary addition of strength, provided  the Medical  Council of India would also approve of  the course.  We need hardly say that the writ of this Court  binds the  parties on  record and  all the three bodies are  before us  and must  abide by  the directions we issue necessitated  by the exigency of the situation and the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 17 of 19  

need to do justice.      After all,  the Court  system belongs to the people and must promote  constructive justice;  and  all  institutions, including  the   Governments  and   Universities,   likewise belong,to the  people. This commitment is the whet stone for doing justice  in the  wider context  of  social  good.  The Universities, as we gather from counsel representing all the parties,  may  not  find  it  difficult  to  accommodate  30 students more,  apportioned among  the four medical colleges of the  State. This  addition is  compelled by  the critical condition set  out above.  This need  will not  survive this academic year  and, in  that sense,  no long term trauma for academic standards will be inflicted by each of the colleges accommodating a  few more  students for  their courses  this year. After all, not much time has passed since the teaching session began.  Compared to  their  existing  strength,  the additions are  negligible. The  Medical  Council  of  India, through  the   learned  Additional  Solicitor  General,  has expressed that  it has  no objection  to this proposal for a miniscule addition confined to this acadcmic year. We see no ground for  either University to plead inability to help the cause of  Justice. The  insistence on standards, measured by marks, is  not being  relaxed, so much so the quality of the admission of additional students does not suffer. A marginal strain in the 994 matter of teaching and perhaps extra burden in regard to the practicals may  have to  be endured.  We are, therefore sure that the  Universities, the colleges concerned, the teaching community and the alumni themselves will appreciate the goal and cooperate in the success of the direction we make.      Had we  left the  Judgment of  the High  Court  in  the conventional  form   of  merely   quashing  the  formula  of admission the  remedy  would  have  aggravated  the  malady- confusion, agitation,  paralysis. The  root of the grievance and the  fruit of the writ are not individual but collective and while  the ’adversary  system’ makes  the Judge  a  mere umpire, traditionally speaking, the community orientation of the judicial  function, so  desirable  in  the  Third  World remedial jurisprudence,  transforms the  court’s power  into affirmative  structuring   of  redress  so  as  to  make  it personally meaningful  and socially relevant. Frustration of invalidity is  part of  the  judicial  duty;  fulfilment  of legality is  complementary. This  principle  of  affirmative action is within our jurisdiction under Art. 136 and Art. 32 and we think the present cases deserve its exercise      We direct the State Government to admit 30 more willing students who  are qualified  under the  rules  and  who  are students from  the  colleges  affiliated    to  the  Calicut University-in order  of the  marks  secured.  They  will  be distributed  by  the  Selection  Committee  among  the  four medical colleges of Government in an equitable way and their decision  will   be  final.   The  Kerala  and  the  Calicut Universities will  be bound  to expand  the strength  of the medical colleges  concerned for  this year  in obedience  to this direction  of the Court and the respective bodies under the Universities will act accordingly.      The selection of these 30 students will not be confined to those  who have moved this Court or the High Court by way of writ  proceedings or  appeal.  The  measure  is  academic excellence, not  litigative persistence.  It will  be thrown open to  the first  30, strictly according to merit measured by marks secured. The apportionment as between graduates and pre-degree students  and the  application  of  the  communal reservation will  apply to  these 30  to  be  selected.  The

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 18 of 19  

Selection Committee  will make its decision on or before the 31st January  1979. The  Universities concerned  will convey their approval  to the Government for the nceessary addition to the  student strength  in obedience  to the  direction of this Court on or before the 27th January 1979.      We direct  the State Government for the coming academic year 1979-80,  to allot  166 seats for the students from the colleges affiliated 995 to the Calicut University and 317 seats to the students from the  colleges  affiliated  to  the  Kerala  University,  the formula regarding  every other  aspect being as indicated in this Judgment  such as  for the  mandatory  admissions,  the apportionment between  pre-degree students  and  the  degree holders and other reservations.      Another  imperative   step   we   cast   on   the   two Universities,  which   are  parties   before  us,  and  are, therefore, bound  by  this  Order  deserves  to  be  clearly expressed. Having  regard to  the utter confusion in medical studies that  may be  produced by keeping the unification of syllabi and  methodology of  examinations in a flux we think it absolutely  essential  to  fix  a  time  target  for  the University bodies  to act.  Government will  issue necessary directions  to   its  representatives  on  these  bodies  to accelerate the  pace. We  expect both  the  Universities  to implement the proposal made by the Committee and accepted by the Government  regardnig the  uniform curricula  and common examination system  and allied  matters in  such manner that there will  be no  inequality as  between students  emerging from one  University and  the other  within the  State. This process shall be completed on or before 31st May 1979.      We are  aware that  these various directions and orders call  for   high  pressure  activisation.  Perhaps,  we  may emphasise the  need for  guarding against  the slow march of bureaucratic  movement  embodied  in  Lord  Curzon’s  lament respecting the  administration  of  his  time,  a  state  of affairs wholly  opposed to  the dynamic  fulfilment  of  the imperatives cast by the Constitution upon the nation and its institutions.  Said   Lord  Curzon  in  a  despatch  to  the Secretary of State:           "Your despatch  of August  5th arrived. It goes to      Foreign Department.  Thereupon Clerk  No 1  paraphrases      and comments  upon it  over 41  folio pages of print of      his own  composition, dealing  solely with  the  Khyber      suggestions in  it. Then comes Clerk No. 2 with 31 more      pages upon  Clerk No.  1. Then  we get to the region of      Assistant   Secretaries,    Deputy   Secretaries    and      Secretaries. All  these gentlemen state their werthless      views at equal length. Finally we get to the top of the      scale and we find the Viceroy and Military Member, with      a proper regard for their dignity, expanding themselves      over a  proportionate space of print. Then these papers      wander about from Department to Department and amid the      various Members  of Council.  I am  grappling with this      vile system  in my  own department,  but it  has seated      itself like the 996      Old Man  of the  Sea upon  the shoulders  of the Indian      Government and  every man  accepts, while deploring the      burden."(1) Hopefully, we  part with  this case  with the  thought  that there will  be  no  occasion  for  any  party  to  move  for extension of  time or  to prove  that the  curse Lord Curzon spelt out  still haunts  the wheels  of administration.  The appeal is  allowed; so  also the writ petition-in the manner

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 19 of 19  

and to  the extent  we have  directed. The parties will bear their costs. The decisional guidelines herein given will, we dare say, so help dispose of the many Writ Petitions pending in the  High Court.  The journey to the Supreme Court is not always necessitous for final justice.                            ORDER      While there is agreement that thirty seats more have to be added  as has  been indicated  in the judgment making the total number  of seats  allocable to  the  students  of  the Calicut University  to 166,  there is some dispute regarding the number  of seats available for the students belonging to the Kerala  University. We  have mentioned  in the  judgment that it is 317. It is open to the State Government or to the concerned Universities  to bring  it to  the notice  of  the court in case there is any clarification necessary. N. V. K.                          Appeal & Petition allowed. 997