http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: SUMAN GUPTA AND OTHERS ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF J & K AND OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT19/09/1983

BENCH: PATHAK, R.S. BENCH: PATHAK, R.S. CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ) MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)

CITATION:  1983 AIR 1235            1983 SCR  (3) 985  1983 SCC  (4) 339        1983 SCALE  (2)305  CITATOR INFO :  R          1985 SC  87  (11)  RF         1986 SC1224  (2,27,29)

ACT:      Constitution of  India, Art.  14-Powers and  procedures resulting in  unfairness and arbitrariness-violative of Art. 14.      Administrative Law-Vesting of absolute and uncontrolled power in public authority-Falls outside the Constitution and invalid.

HEADNOTE:      With a  view to  encourage national  integration, a few States  including   respondent   states   agreed   upon   an arrangement by  which a  certain percentage  of the seats in medical colleges  was reserved  for  candidates  from  other States on  a reciprocal  basis.  In  the  year  1982-83  the respondent States  made some  nominations  under  the  above arrangement.  The   validity  of   these   nominations   was challenged in  these writ petitions and civil appeals on the ground, inter  alia, that these nominations had been made by the  State  Governments  in  their  absolute  and  arbitrary discretion, without reference to any objective criterion, or any controlling norms or guidelines.      Partly allowing the writ petitions and the appeals, ^      HELD: The principle adopted by the State Governments of nominating  candidates  in  their  absolute  and  unfettered choice to  seats in  Medical Colleges  outside the  State is invalid. But  the  nominations  already  made  will  not  be affected. [991 F-G; E]      The exercise  of all  administrative  power  vested  in public authority  must be  structured  within  a  system  of controls informed  by both relevance and reason-relevance in relation to  the object  which it seeks to serve, and reason in regard  to the manner in which attempts to do so. Art. 14 of the  Constitution is  violated by  powers and  procedures which in  themselves result in unfairness and asbitrariness. There is  no doubt that in the realm of administrative power the element  of discretion  may properly,  find place, where the statute or the nature of the power intends so. But there

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

is a  well recognised  distinction between an administrative power  to   be  exercised   within  defined  limits  in  the reasonable  discretion   of  designated  authority  and  the vesting of  an  absolute  and  uncontrolled  power  in  such authority. One  is power  controlled by  law countenanced by the Constitution,  the other  falls outside the Constitution altogether. Proceeding from there, it is evident that if the State 986 Government desires  to advance  the  objective  of  national integration it  must adopt  procedures which  are reasonable and are related to the objective. In this Age of Reason, all law must measure upto that standard, and necessarily so also must all executive acts. [989 E-F; 989 G; 990 A-D]      In the present cases, viewed in this context and tested on the touchstone of our constitutional values, the claim of the State  Government that  the nature  of the objective and the means  adopted to  serve it  entitle it  legitimately to vest in  itself an absolute power in choosing candidates for nomination  is  to  deny  a  fundamental  principle  of  our constitutional life  and cannot  be allowed to prevail. [990 D-E]      Chitra Ghosh  and Anr.  v. Union  of  India  and  Ors., [1970] 1  S.C.R., 413, 420; Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, [1978] 2  S.C.R. 621;  and  Ramana  Dayaram  Shetty  v.  The International Airport  Authority of  India &  Ors., [1979] 3 S.C.R. 1015, referred to.      The Medical Council of India is directed to formulate a proper constitutional basis for determining the selection of candidates for  nomination  to  seats  in  Medical  Colleges outside the State in the light of the observations contained in this  judgment. Until  a  policy  is  so  formulated  and concrete criteria  are embodied  in the  procedure selected, the  nominations  shall  be  made  by  selecting  candidates strictly on  the basis  of merit,  the candidates  nominated being those,  in  order  of  merit,  immediately  below  the candidates selected for admission to the Medical Colleges of the home State. [991 G-H; 992 A]

JUDGMENT:      ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition Nos. 9078 to 9106, 9025-43 of 1982, 24 & 35. 43-46 and 2839 of 1983.       (Under article 32 of the Constitution of India).                             WITH            Civil Appeal Nos. 3812 & 3813 of 1983.      Appeals by  Special leave  from the Judgement and Order dated the  31st December,  1982 of  the Andhra  Pradesh High Court in W.P. Nos. 6844 of 1982 & 6937 of 1982.                             AND      (CMP. Nos. 13616, 16617, 22151, 22125 & 23486 of 1983).      For the Appearing Petitioners in Writ Petitions:      M.K. Ramamurthi, Anil Dev Singh, Subhash Sharma, Satish Vig, Shri  Narain, V.K.  Pandita,  R.D.  Upadhyay  and  E.C. Agarwala. 987      For the Appearing Respondents in Writ Petitions:      G.L. Sanghi  and Mr.  S.N. Kacker Altaf Ahmad and Irfan Ahmad.      A. Subba Rao for the Appellants in Civil Appeals.      S.S. Ray,  Vineet Kumar,  T.V.S. Narasimhachari, G.V.L. Narasimha Rao  and Mrs.  Urmila Sirur for the Respondents in Civil Appeals.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

    PATHAK, J.  This Court  has had occasion in the past to entertain the  complaints of several young men and women who aspired to admission to the Medical Colleges of their States and had  been wrongly  denied admission thereto. In the writ petitions and  civil appeals  now before  us, the  grievance voiced by  the petitioners  and the appellants takes us to a new category  of cases and to a new dimension. They question the validity of nominations by the State Government of Jammu and Kashmir  and the  State Government  of Andhra Pradesh of candidates to  seats reserved  in the  Medical  Colleges  of other States.  The civil  appeals are  directed against  the judgment dated  December 31, 1982 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissing writ petitions filed by the appellants.      The Medical  Council of  India, in its report on under- graduate medical  education, recommended that with a view to encouraging national  integration, ten per cent of the seats in veery  Medical College, other than those where admissions were planned on an all India basis, should be reserved, on a reciprocal basis  for students  from other  States.  At  the Joint Conference  of the  Central Council  of Health and the Central Family  Welfare Council, held from December 28, 1977 to January  31,  1978,  the  matter  was  considered  and  a resolution was passed recommending that five per cent of the seats in  Medical Colleges should be reserved for candidates from other  States on  a reciprocal  basis. After protracted correspondence between  a number  of State  Governments, the States of  Andhra Pradesh,  Jammu  and  Kashmir,  Karnataka, Kerala and  Tamil Nadu  agreed upon  such an arrangement. It was decided  that each  of them  would  have  the  right  to nominate candidates to seats reserved 988 in the  Medical Colleges  of the other participating States. We are  concerned herewith  nominations made  by  the  State Government of  Jammu and Kashmir and the State Government of Andhra Pradesh. Twenty two of the thirty nominations made by the State Government of Jammu and Kashmir for the year 1982- 83 have  been challenged in these writ petitions and all the nominations made  by the  State Government of Andhra Pradesh have been assailed in the associated Civil Appeals.      The  petitioners   in  the   writ  petitions   and  the appellants in  the appeals  were candidates for admission to the M.B.B.S.  course of  studies in  the Medical Colleges of their respective  States, and  not having  succeeded in that object, they  claim that  they  should  have  been  properly considered for  nomination by their State Governments to the seats reserved  in the  Medical Colleges  outside their home States  because  they  have  secured  higher  marks  in  the qualifying examination  than the  nominated candidates. They urge  that  the  nominations  actually  made  by  the  State Governments have  been made  in their absolute and arbitrary discretion, without reference to any objective criterion, or any controlling  norms or  guidelines. They also allege that the  nominations   have  been  influenced  by  the  personal relationship of  the candidates  to persons  in  the  ruling political party  or to  Government officers  in positions of high authority.      The position  taken by the Jammu and Kashmir Government and by  the Andhra  Pradesh Government  is that to serve the objective  of   national  integration  the  selection  of  a candidate has  to be  determined not  merely  by  the  marks obtained by  him in  the qualifying  examination but also by his ability  to project  an appropriate image of the culture of his  home State in the State to which he is nominated. It is submitted that no objective criterion is possible in that context, and  the selection  must perforce  be left  to  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

absolute and  unfettered choice of the State Government. The Andhra Pradesh  Government relies  on G.O.M.  No. 508, M & H dated July  27, 1979,  which brings  the scheme  into effect from the  academic year  1979-80. It expressly provides that the selection of candidates for such nominations is excluded from the purview of the Selection Committees constituted for admission to the M.B.B.S. Course in the States.      At the  outset, we may dispose of an objection taken on behalf of  the respondents.  It  is  pointed  out  that  the petitioners in  the writ petitions and the appellants in the civil appeals applied merely for 989 admission to the Medical Colleges of the home State and have not alleged  anywhere that  they applied for nomination to a seat in  a Medical  College outside  the State.  It is urged that inasmuch  as  the  scheme  of  nominations  to  Medical Colleges outside  the State  is distinct altogether from the scheme of  admissions to  Medical Colleges  within the State the petitioners  and the  appellants  are  not  entitled  to question the  validity of those nominations. We are referred to Chitra Ghosh and Another v. Union of India and Others.(1) In the  civil appeals  before us, however, we find that some of the  appellants did  apply for  nomination to a seat in a Medical College  outside  the  State.  Besides,  the  Andhra Pradesh High  Court has  elaborately considered the question on its  merits, and  it seems desirable in the circumstances to pronounce  our opinion  on the controversy. The objection is overruled.      For the purpose of these cases, we shall proceed on the assumption that national integration, which is undeniably in itself a  highly commendable and laudable objective, will be effectively served  by a policy encouraging the admission of candidates of  one State to seats in the Medical Colleges of another State.  After considering  the matter  carefully, we confess, we  are unable  to subscribe  to the  view that the selection of  candidates for that purpose must remain in the unlimited discretion  and the  uncontrolled  choice  of  the State Government.  We  think  it  beyond  dispute  that  the exercise  of  all  administrative  power  vested  in  public authority must  be structured  within a  system of  controls informed by  both relevance and reason-relevance in relation to the  object which it seeks to serve, and reason in regard to the  manner in  which it  attempts to do so. Wherever the exercise of  such power affects individual rights, there can be no  greater assurance  protecting its valid exercise than its governance  by these  twin tests.  A stream  of case law radiating from  the now well known decision of this Court in Maneka Gandhi  v. Union  of India(2)  has laid down in clear terms that.-      Article 14  of the  Constitution is  violated by powers and procedures  which in themselves result in unfairness and arbitrariness.  It   must  be  remembered  that  our  entire constitutional system  is founded in the Rule of Law, and in any system  so designed  it is  impossible  to  conceive  of legitimate power which is arbitrary in character and travels beyond the bounds of reason. To contend that 990 the choice  of a  candidate selected  on the  basis  of  his ability to  project the  culture and ethos of his home State must  necessarily   be  left  to  unfettered  discretion  of executive authority  is to  deny a  fundamental principle of our constitutional  life. We  do not doubt that in the realm of  administrative  power  the  element  of  discretion  may properly find  place, where the statute or the nature of the power intends so. But there is a well recognised distinction

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

between an  administrative  power  to  be  exercised  within defined limits  in the  reasonable discretion  of designated authority and  the vesting  of an  absolute and uncontrolled power in  such authority.  One is  power controlled  by  law countenanced by  the Constitution,  the other  falls outside the Constitution  altogether. Proceeding  from there,  it is evident that  if the State Government desires to advance the objective of  national integration  it must adopt procedures which are  reasonable and  are related  to the objective. In this Age of Reason, all law must measure upto that standard, and necessarily  so also  must all executive acts. Viewed in this context,  the claim  of the  State Government  in these cases that the nature of the objective and the means adopted to serve  it entitle  it legitimately  to vest  in itself an absolute power  in choosing candidates for nomination cannot be  allowed  to  prevail.  It  is  incumbent  on  the  State Government to  adopt a  criterion or  restrict its  power by reference to  norms which,  while designed  to  achieve  its object, nevertheless  confine the  flow of that power within constitutional limits. We are not convinced that an adequate system of  standards cannot  be devised  for  that  purpose. Tested on  the touchstone  of our constitutional values, the claim of  the State  Government to  the content of the power assumed by it must, in our opinion, be declared invalid.      Now, the  selection of  an appropriate  procedure  lies ordinarily within  the domain  of administrative policy, and when the  objective  can  be  fulfilled  by  more  than  one constitutionally valid method, the selection must be left to administrative choice.  The Courts  are generally  concerned merely with  the legal validity of the choice made. We think it desirable,  therefore, to leave it to the Medical Council of India  to formulate  a proper  constitutional  basis  for determining the  selection of  candidates for  nomination to seats in  Medical Colleges outside the State. The problem is one which  needs to be tackled at the national level, having regard to  the objective  which is sought to be achieved and to  the   circumstance  that   it   calls   for   reciprocal arrangements between Medical Colleges throughout the 991 country. Until  a policy  is so  formulated and  adopted and concrete criteria  are  embodied  in  the  procedure  to  be selected, we  direct that  nominations be  made by following the procedure  of selecting candidates strictly on the basis of merit,  the candidates nominated being those, in order of merit, immediately  next below  the candidates  selected for admission to the Medical Colleges of the home State.      Before concluding  it is  desirable to  advert  to  the contention raised  on behalf  of the respondents that as the State Government finances medical education within the State it is  entitled to  exercise an  absolute discretion  in the nomination  of  candidates  to  seats  in  Medical  Colleges outside the  State, specially when the nomination is part of a reciprocal  arrangement between  the different  States. In our opinion,  the contention  cannot be regarded as valid in view of  what has been laid down now by this Court in Ramana Dayaram Shetty  v. The  International Airport  Authority  of India and Ors.(1)      Considerable and  vehement argument  has been addressed on behalf  of the  petitioners and  the appellants  that  we should make  an order  revoking the nominations already made by the  Jammu and  Kashmir Government and the Andhra Pradesh Government. We do not propose to do so. The State Government proceeded in the bona fide belief that the procedure adopted by it was just and proper, the basis being one which appears to have  been uniformly  adopted by  all  the  participating

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

States.  Besides,  the  candidates  nominated  have  already covered a substantial part of their course of studies. These considerations  considered  cumulatively  dissuade  us  from interfering with the nominations already made.      In the  result, we  allow the  writ petitions  and  the civil appeals  insofar that  the principle  adopted  by  the State Governments of nominating candidates in their absolute and unfettered  choice to  seats in Medical Colleges outside the State  is declared invalid. The Medical Council of India is directed  to formulate  a proper constitutional basis for determining the  selection of  candidates for  nomination to seats in  Medical Colleges outside the State in the light of the observations  contained in this judgment. Until a policy is so  formulated and  concrete criteria are embodied in the procedure  selected,   the  nominations  shall  be  made  by selecting candidates  strictly on  the basis  of merit,  the candidates nominated being those, 992 in order of merit, immediately below the candidates selected for admission to the Medical Colleges of the home State. The judgment dated  December 31, 1982 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court is modified accordingly. In the circumstances of these cases, we make no order as to costs.      A copy  of this judgment and order shall be sent to the Medical Council of India. H.S.K.                    Appeals & Petition partly allowed. 993