http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: SURENDRA KIJMAR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF B1HAR & oRS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT09/11/1984

BENCH: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) BENCH: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) SEN, A.P. (J) VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)

CITATION:  1985 AIR   87            1985 SCR  (2)  19  1984 SCC  (4) 609        1984 SCALE  (2)723

ACT:      Constitution  of  lndia  l950-Articles  14,16  and  32- admission to  Medical Colleges-Selection to be made on basis of merit-Nomination of candidates by Chief Minister-lnvalid      Educational Institution-Admission  to Medical Colleges- Nomination of candidates by Chief Minister-Invalid and abuse of power-Selection to be strictly on basis of merit.

HEADNOTE:      Nine seat  were reserved  in the  medical  colleges  of Jammu and  Kashmir for  candidates from  the State of Bihar. Thirty five students applied for these nine seats. A list of seven  candidates   was  prepared  by  the  Car  troller  of Examinations-cum-Additional Director  of Health Services for being recommended  to the  Government of  Jammu and Kashmir. The name  of  the  petitioner  figured  as  No.  3.  Another tentative list of seven candidates had also been prepared on the basis  of merit from the candidates in the waiting list. This list received nobody’s consideration.      From   time    to   time    applications   along   with recommendations of  V. I.  Ps. were  received by  the  Chief Minister’s Secretariat  and the  names of  ten persons other than  the   seven  persons  from  the  tentative  list  were recommended by  the Chief  Minister from  time to  time  for admission to medical colleges in Jammu and Kashmir.      Allowing the Writ Petition, ^      HELD:  1.   Even  after   thirty-four  years   of   the Constitution  proclaiming   equality  before   the  law  and equality of  opportunity, the  Chief  Ministers  of  some  . States  continue   to  regard   admissions  to  Professional Colleges and appointment to Government posts as their little private empires. (20F)      2 (i)  There can  be no  doubt that  there was  blatant abuse of  power by  the Chief Minister of Bihar. The list of names recommended by the Chief Minister is quashed. [22D-E]      (ii) The  Government of Bihar shall forthwith prepare a list according to merit and offer successively to candidates according to merit the opportunity of 20 pursuing medical  education in the medical colleges of Jammu

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

and  Kashmir  The  merit  list  shall  be  prepared  of  alI candidates who  sought  admission  into  the  local  medical colleges and should not be confined to the 35 candidates who applied for  admission to the colleges in Jammu and Kashmir. This is  because the  Government never  invited applications separately for  the seats  reserved in the colleges of Jammu and Kashmir. [22F-G]      3.  Until  a  policy  is  formulated  and  adopted  and concrete criteria  are  embodied  in  the  procedure  to  be selected  nominations   should  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. 121E-F]      Suman Gupta  v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, AIR 1983 SC 1235, referred to.

JUDGMENT:   ORIGINAL JURlSDlCTlON: Writ Petition No. 15329 of 1984.            (Under article 32 of the Constitution)      R.K Garg and L.R. Singh for the petitioner.      Lal Narain  Sinha, D. Goburdhan and Jay Narayan for the Respondents.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. Even after thirty four years of the Constitution proclaiming  equality  before  e  the  law  and equality of  opportunity, the Chief Ministers of some States continue to  regard admission  to Professional  Colleges and appointments to  Government posts  as their  litt1e  private empires. So  recently as on p September l9, 1983, this Court had to  disabuse this  impression in Suman Gupta v. State of Jammu and  Kashmir(l). The  question in that case arose this way: A  Certain number  of seats  in the medical colleges of one State  were reserved for candidates from other States to be nominated  by the Governments of the other States. Was an absolute power vested in the State Governments in the choice of candidates  for nomination  or was  it incumbent - on the State Governments  to adopt  definitive criteria  and follow pre-defined  norms   ?  Pathak,  J.  speaking  for  himself, Chandrachud C-J. and Sabyasachi Mukherji J. said:      "After considering the matter carefully, we confess, (1) AIR 1983 SC 1235. 21      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  .................................      .......................................................      To contend  that 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 the      unfettered discretion of executive authority is to deny      a fundamental  principle  of  our  constitutional  life      ............ 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 candidate  for nomination cannot be allowed to      prevail. It  is incumbent  on the  State Government  to      adopt a  criteria or restrict its power by reference to      norms which,  while designed  to achieve  its objective      nevertheless confine  the flow  of  that  power  within      constitutional limits.  We are  not convinced  that  an

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

    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.. ........................      .......................................................      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."      The pronouncement  of this court has apparently not yet been  heard   in  the   distant  corridors   of  the   Bihar Secretariat. It  appears nine  seats  are  reserved  in  the medical colleges  of Jammu  and Kashmir  for candidates from Bihar. Thirty  five students  applied for  the nine seats. A list of  seven candidates  was prepared by the Controller of Examinations-cum-Additional Director  of Health Services for being recommended to the Government of Jammu and Kashmir. He has not disclosed on what basis he prepared 22 the list  but the  name of  the petitioner,  Surendra Kumar, figured as  No. 3  in the  list.  It  appears  that  another tentative list of seven candidates has also been prepared on the basis  of merit from the candidates in the waiting list. This list  received nobody’s  consideration. We have it from the  counter-affidavit  filed  by  P.K.  Khare,  Officer  on Special duty-cum-Under  Secretary in  the  Chief  Minister’s Secretariat,   Patna    that   ’applications    along   with recommendations of  V.l.Ps. were  received from time to time by the  Chief Minister’ and from the counter-affidavit filed by  M.   Dass,  Controller   of  Examinations-cum-Additional Director of  Health Services  that ’the names of ten persons other  than  7  persons  of  the  tentative  list  had  been recommended by  the Chief  Minister from  time to  time  for admission to Medical Colleges in Jammu and Kashmir.’ Neither the counter-affidavit filed by M. Das nor that by P.K. Khare given the  least indication  for the  basis of the selection made by  the Chief Minister. There can thus be no doubt that there was  blatant abuse  of power  by the Chief Minister of Bihar. Whatever  excuse there  might have  been in the past, there can be no such excuse after the judgment of this court in Suman  Gupta’s case to which, we find, Deference was made in the  file now  produced before us. Shri Lal Narain Sinha, who appeared  for the respondent frankly told us that he was unable to  support the action of the Government. The list of names recommended  by the  Chief  Minister  is  quashed.  As already directed by us at the conclusion of the hearing, the Government of Bihar shall forthwith prepare a list according to merit  and offer  successively to candidates according to merit the  opportunity of  pursuing medical education in the Medical Colleges  of Jammu  and Kashmir.  Lest there  be any misunderstanding the  merit list  shall be  prepared of  all candidates who  sought  admission  into  the  local  medical colleges, as  was done  in Suman Gupta’s case and should not be confined  to the  35 candidates who applied for admission to colleges  in Jammu  and Kashmir.  We give  this direction because admittedly the Government never invited applications separately for  the seats  reserved in the colleges in Jammu and Kashmir.  The respondents  will pay  the  costs  of  the petitioner which we quantify at Rs. 1000.      We desire  to add  by way  of expression of our concern

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

and 23 regret that  this  is  not  the  first  occasion  that  such interference and  abuse of power at such high level has come to the  notice of  this A  court from the State of Bihar. In Chandrika Jha  v.  State  of  Bihar(l)  it  related  to  the constitution of  Board of  Directors of Cooperative Society; here it relates to nomination of candidates for admission to Medical Colleges.  But in  both there  is  clear  misuse  of power. The less said the better. N.V.K.                                     Petition allowed.      (1) [1984] 2 S.C.C. .41; 24