Holding

A society whose governance, funding and control are dominated by the Central and State governments is an "authority" under Article 12 and therefore subject to Article 14; allocating more than 15% of total marks to a viva voce interview makes the admission process arbitrary and unconstitutional.

Summary

The petitioners challenged the admission process of the Regional Engineering College, Srinagar, run by a society registered under the Jammu & Kashmir Societies Registration Act, alleging that the viva voce interview was arbitrary, that 33⅓% of total marks were allocated to it, and that the procedure violated Article 14. The Court first examined whether the society qualified as a "State" under Article 12 and held that, because its composition, funding, and control were dominated by the Central and Jammu & Kashmir governments, it is an "authority" within Article 12 and therefore subject to fundamental rights. The Court then evaluated the admission procedure, finding that using an entrance test was reasonable, that viva voce can be a supplementary test, but allocating more than 15% of total marks to it and conducting interviews of only 2‑3 minutes with irrelevant questions was arbitrary and violative of Article 14. However, due to the hardship to students already admitted, the Court did not set aside the 1979‑80 admissions but ordered that the 50 best aggrieved candidates be admitted in the 1981‑82 session. The writ petitions were dismissed with each party bearing its own costs.

Issues considered

Whether the society managing the college is a "State" within the meaning of Article 12 and thus amenable to writ jurisdiction.
Whether the admission procedure, particularly the viva voce interview and its weightage, is arbitrary and violative of Article 14.
Whether the allocation of 33⅓% of total marks to viva voce exceeds the permissible limit under the equality clause.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 12, s. Article 14, s. Article 16, s. Article 309, s. Article 310, s. Article 311, s. Article 36
Jammu & Kashmir Registration of Societies Act

Subjects

Article 12State as authorityArticle 14 equalityArbitrarinessAdmission procedureViva voce interviewEngineering collegeSociety as instrumentalityWrit jurisdictionReservation of seatsMarks allocation

Judgment

79

AJAY RASIA ETC. A
v.
KHALID MUJIB SEHRAVARDI & ORS. ETC.
November 13, 1980
[Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, C.J., P. N. BHAGWATI, V. R. KRISHNA IYER, 8
s. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND A. D. KosHAL, JJ.]
Adn1ission to Engineering College-Jammu & Kashmir Regional Engineer-
ing College, Srinagar, registered as a society under the Jam1nu & Kashmir
Registration of Societies Act, 1898-Whether a "State" under Article 12 of the
Constitution and amenable to writ jurisdiction.
c
Viva voce test-Interview of each of thr candidates fa,Ning only two or
three minutes asking formal questions relating to the candidates parentage and
residence and without any relevance to the subject for which marks were allo-
cated, whether arbitrary-Allocation of 113 of the total marks required for the
qr1alifying examination for the viva voce-Whcther bad, unreasonable and
arbitrary-Whether prescribing different admission procedures for candidates
belonging to tlie State of Jammu & Kashmir and candidates belonging to other D
States is violative of the Equality Clause under Article 14.
Dismissing the writ petitions, the Court
HELD: (!). Having regard to the Me.norandum of Association and the
Rules of the Society, the respondent college is a State within the meaning of
Article 12. The composition of the Society is dominated by the representatives
appointed by the Central Government and the Governments of Jammu & E
Kashmir, Punjab, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh with the approval of the Central
Government. The monies required for running the College are provided entirely
by the Central Government and the Government of Jamrnu & Kashmir and
even if any other monies are to be received by the Society, it can be done only
v.ith the approval of the State and the Central Governments. The Rules to be
made by the Society are also required to have the prior approval of the State
and the Central Governments and the accounts of the Society have also to be F
submitted to both the Governments for their scrutiny and satisfaction. The
Society is also to comply \vith all such directions as may be issued by the State
Government with the approval of the Central Government in respect of any
matters dealt with in the report of the Reviewing Committee. The control of
the State and the Central Governments is indeed so deep and pervasive that no
immovable property of the Society can be disposed of in any manner without
the approval of both the Governments. The State and the Central Govern- G
ments. have even the power to appoint any other person or persons to be
members of the Society and any member of the Society otlier than a member
representing the State or the Central Government can be removed from the
membership of the Society by the State Government with the approve! of !he
Central Government. The Board of Governors, which is incharge of general
superintendence, direction and control of the affairs of the Society and of its
income and property is ailso largely controlled by nominies of the State and the H
Central Governments. The State Government and by reason of the provision
for epproval, the Central Government also thus have full control of the work-

-.,,,.-- _, - ·- -· ..C
>1&-:a~A••---a ..IF..
l _ _......M~
so SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981] 2 S.C.R.

A ing of the Society and therefore, the Society is merely a projection of the State
and the Central Governments. The voice is that of the State and the Centro1
Governments. The Society is an instrun1ent'ality or the agency of the State
and the Central Governments and it is an "authority" within the meaning of
Article 12. If the Society is, an "authority" and, therefore, the "State" within
the meaning of Article 12, it must follow that it is subject to the constitutional
obligation under Article 14. [99F-H, 100 K-FJ
B (2) The expressi0n "other authorities'\ in Article 12 must be given an
interpretation where constitutional fundamentals vital to the maintenance of
human rights are at stake, functional realism and not facial cosmetics must be
the diagnostic tool, for constitutional law must seek the substance and not the
form. The Government may act through the instrumentality or agency of
juridical persons to carry out its functions, since, with the advent of the welfare
State its new task have increased manifold. [90B-D]
c It is, undoubtedly, true that the corp0ration is a distinct juristic entity with
a corporate structure of its own and it carries on its functions on business
principles with a certain amount of autonomy which is necessary as well as
useful from the point of view of effective business management, but behind the
formal ownership which is cast in the corporate mould, the reality is very much
the deeply pervasive presence of the Government. It is really the Government
\\'hich acts through the instrumentality or agency of t'he corporation and the
0 juristic veil of corporate personality worn for the purpose of convenience of
management and administration cannot be allowed to obliterate the true nature
cf the reality behind which is the Government. It is clear that if a corporation
is an instrumentality or agency of the Government, it must be subject to the
same limitations in the field of constitutional law os the Government itself,
though in the eye of the la.w it would be a distinct and independent legal entity.
E H the Government acting through its officers is subject to certain constitutional
limit'ations, it must follow a fortiorari that the Government acting through the
instrumentality or agency of a corporation should equally be subject to the
same limitations. If such a corporation were to be free from the basic obliga-
tion to obey the Fundamental Rights, it would lead to considerable erosion of
the efficiency of the Fundamental Rights, for in that event the Government
would be enabled to override the Fundamental Rights by adopting the strata-
gem of carrying out its functions through the instrumentality or agency of a
F
corporation, while retaining control over it. The Fundamental Rights would
then be reduced to little more than an idle dream or a promise of unreality.
[91B-FJ
The Courts should be anxious to enlarge the scope and width of the Funda-
mental Rights by bringing within their sweep every authority which i• an
instrumentality or agency of the Government or through the corporate perso-
G nality of which the Government is acting, so as to subject the Government in
all its myriad activities, whether t'hrough natural persons or through corporate
entities, to the basic oblig6tion of the Fundamental Rights. The constitutional
philosophy of a democratic socialist republic requires the Government to under-
take a multitude of socio..economic operations and the Government, having
regard to the practical advantages of functioning through the legal device of
e. corporation, embarks on myriad commercial and economic activities by
H resorting to the instrumentality or agency of a corporation, but this contrivance
of ca1Tying on such activities through a corporation cannot exonerate the
Gov<:rnment from implicit obedience to the Fundamental Rights. To use the
AJAY RASIA V. KHALID MUJIB 81

corporate methodology is not to liberate the Government from its basic obliga- A
tion to respect the Fundamental Rights and not to override them. The mantle
of a corporation may be adopted in order to free the Government from the
inevitable constraints of red-tapism and slow motion but by doing so, the
Government cannot be allowed to play truant with the basic human rights,
otherwise it would be the easiest thing for the government to assign to a plum-
lity of corporations almost every State business such as Post and Telegraph,
TV, Radio, Rail, Road and Telephones-in short every economic activity-and B·
thereby cheat the people of India out of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed to
them. That would be a mockery of the Constitution and nothing short of
treachery and breach of faith with the people of India, because though appa-
rently the corporation will be carrying out these functions, it will in truth and
reality be the Government which will be controlling the corporation and carry-
ing out these functions through the instrumentality or agency of the corporation.
Courts cannot by a process of judicial construction allow the Fundemental C
Rights to be rendered futile and meaningless and thereby wipe out Chapter Ill
from the Constitution. That would be contrary to the constitutional faith of
the post-Menaka Gandhi era. It is the Fundamental Rights which along with
the Directive Principles constitute the life force of the Constitution and they
must be quickened into effective action by meaningful and purposive interpreta·
tion. If a corporation is found to be a mere agency or surrogate of the
Government, "in fact owned by the Government, in truth controlled by the D
government and in effect an incarnation of the government,11 the court must not
allow the enforcement of Fundamental Rights to be frustrated by taking the
view that it is not the government ·and, therefore, not subject to the constitu·
tional limitations. Therefore, where a corporation is an instrumentality or
agency of the Government, it is an authority within the meaning of Article 12
end, hence, subject to the same basic obligation to obey the Fundamental Rights
as the government. [91G-H, 92A-G] E
R. D. Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India & Ors., [1979]
1 S.C.R. 1042 and U.P. Warehousing Corporation v. Vijay Narain, [1980] 3
S.C.C. 459, followed. < '

(3) The test for determining as to when a corporation can be s8.id to be
en instrumentality or agency of Government may be culled out from the judg- F
ment in the International Airport Authority's case. They are not conclusive
or clinching, but they are merely indicative indicia which have to be used with
care and caution, because while stressing the neCessity of a wide meaning to
be placed on the expression "other authorities", it must be realised that it should
not be stretched so far as to bring in every autonomous body which has some
nexus with the Government with the sweep of the expression. A wide enlarge-
ment of the meaning must be tempered by a wise limitation. The relevant
G
tests gathered from the decision in the International Airport· Authority's case
may be summarised as : (i) "One thing is clear that if the entire share capital
of the corporation is held by Government it would go a long woy towards indi·
eating that the Corporation is an instrumentality or agency of Government:
(ii) 'Where the financial assistance of the State is so much as to meet almoot
entire expenditure of the corporation1 it would afford some indication of the
'orporation be.ing impregnated with governmental character.' (iii) 'It may also
be a relevant factor ......... whether the corporation enjoys monopoly status
H
which is the State conferred or State protected.' (iv) 'Existence of 'deep and
pervasive State control may afford an indication that the Corporation is a state
82 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981 J 2 S.C.R.

A agency or instrumentality.' (v) 'If the functions of the corporation of public
importance and closely related to governmental functions, it would be a rele 4

vant factor in classifying the corporation an instrumentality or agency of
Government.' (vi) 'Specifically, if a department of Government is transferrer!
to a corporation, it would be a strong factor supportive of this inference" of
the corporation being an instrumentality or agency of Governmenr." [96F-H,
97A-D]
B
Ir is immaterial for this purpose whether the corporation is created by a
statute or under 0 statute. The test is \vhether it is an instrumentaJit'y or agency
of the Government and· not as to how it is created. The enquir}' has to be not
as to how the juristic person is born but why it has been brought into existence.
The corporation may be a statutory corporat'ion created by a statute or it may
be a Government company or a company formed under the Companies Actt
1956 or it may be a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860
c or any other similar statute. Whatever be its genetical origin, it \Vould be an
"authority" within the meaning of Article 12 if it is an instrumentality or
agency of the Government and that would have to be decided on a proper
assessment of the facts in the light of the relevant factors. The concept of
instrumentality or agency of the Governn1ent is not Jimited to a corporation
created by a statute but is equally applicable to a company er society nnd in
a given case it would have t'o be decided, on a considefation of the relevant
D factors, 'vhether the company or society is an instrumentality or agency of the
Government so Gs to come within the meaning of the expression "authority" in
Article 12. [97F-H, 98A-BJ
(4) Merely because a juristic entity may be an 11authority" and, therefore,.
"State," within the meaning of Article 12, it miay not be elevated to the position
of "State" for the purpose of Articles 309, 310 and 311 which find a place
E in Part XIV. The definition of "State" in Article 12 which includes an
''authority" within the territory of India or under the control of the Govern-
ment of India is limited in its application only to Part III and by virtue-
of Article 36, to Part IV and it does not extend to the other provisions of the
Constiiution and, hence, a juristic entity which may be "State'" for the purpose
of Parts III and IV would not be so for the purpose of Part XIV or any other
provision of the Constitution. [98B-D]
F
S. L. Aggarwal v. Hindustan Steel Ltd., [1970] 3 S.C.R 365; Sabha;it
Tewary v. Union of India & Ors., [1975] 3, S.C.R. 616 and Sukhdev Singh v.
Bhagat Ram. [1975] 3 S.C.R. 619, explained and distinguished.
(5) Article 14 must not be identified with 'the doctrine of classification.
What Article 14 strikes at is arbitrariness because any action that is arbitrary~
must necessarily involve negation of equality. The doctrine of classification
G which is evolved by the courts is not para-phrase of Article 14 nor is it the
objective and end of that Article. It is merely a judicial formula for determin-
ing whether the legislative or executive action in question is arbitrary and
therefore constituting denial of equality. If the classification is not reasonable
and does not satisfy the two conditions, namely, (1) that the classification is
founded on an inteIJigible differentkt and (2) that differentia has a rational
relation to the object sought to be achieved by the impugned legislative or
B executive action, the impugned legislative or executive action, \t·ould pfr1inly
be arbitrary and the guarantee of equality under Article 14 \Vould be breached.
Where.v£r, therefore, there is arbitrariness in State action whether it be of the
AJAY HASIA V. KHALID MUJIB 83

legislaiure or of the executive or of an "authority" under Article 12, Article A.
14 immediately springs into action and strikes down such State action. In fact,
the concept of reasonableness and non-arbitrariness pervades the entire consti·
tutional scheme and is a golden thread which runs through the whole of the
fabric of the Constitution. [lOOG, 102D·F]

E. P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, [1974] 2 S.C.R. 348; Maneka Gandhi
v. Union of India, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 621 and R. D. Shetty v. The International B~
Airport Authority of India, & Ors., [1979] 1 S.C.R. 1042, applied.

(6) The procedure adopted by the respondent Society cannot be regarded
as arbitrary merely because it refused to take into account the marks obtained
by the candidates at the qualifying examination bur chose to regulate the
admissions by relying on the entrance test. The entrance test facilitates the
assessment of the comparative talent of the condidates by application of a c·
uniforril standard and is always preferable to evaluation of .::on1parative merit
on the basis of marks obtained at the qualifying examination, when the qualifyM
ing examination is held by two or more different authorities, because lack of
uniformity is bound to creep into the assessment of candidates by different
authorities with different n1odes of examination. [103AMB, D-F]

(7) 'The oral interview test is undoubtedly not a very satisfactory test for I)
assessing and evaluating the capacity and calibre of candidates, but in the
absence of any better test for measuring personal charo.cteristics and traits, the
oral interview test must, at the present stage, be regarded as not irrational or
irrelevant though it is subjective and based on first impression, its result is,
influenced by many uncertain fo.ctors and it is capable of abuse. In the matter
of admission to college or even in the matter of public employment, the oral
interview test as presently held should not be relied upon as an exclusive test, E.
but it may be resorted to only as an additional or supplementary test and,
moreover, grel;lt care must be taken to see that persons who are appointed
to conduct the oral interview t'est are men of high integrity, calibre and quaJift-
cation. [106C-E]

R. Chitra Lckha and Others v. State of Mysore and Others, [1964] 6 S.C.R.
368, followed. II'
(8) Having regard to the drawbacks rand deficiencies in the oral interview
test and the conditions prevailing in t'he country, particularly when there i~
d~terioration in moral values and corruption and nepotism are very much on
the increase, a11ocation of Q high percentage of marks for the oral intervie 1N
a.s compared to the marks allocated for the \Vritt'en test, is not free from the
Yice of arbitrariness. The allocation of as high a percentage as 33 1/ 3 of the G
total marks for oral interview suffers from the vice of arbitrariness. [I 07A-D]

The court, however, to avoid immense hardship being caused to those
students in whose case the validity of the selection cannot otherwise be quesM
tioned und who have nearly completed three semesters and taking into consiM
demtion the fact that even if the petitioners are ultimately found to be deserving
of selection on the application of the proper test, it would not be possible to
restore them to the position as if they were admitted for the academic year IJ
1979-80, which has run out long since declined to set aside the selection made.
The Court 'Nas, however, of the view that under the existing circumstances.
84 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981] 2 S.C.R.

A allocation of more than 15% of the total marks for the oral interview would
be arbitrary and unreasonable. [107G-H, 108A-FJ

A. Peeriakaruppan v. State of Tamil Nadu, [1971] 2 S.C.R. 430; Miss Nishi
Meghu y. State of lammu & Kashmir & Ors., [1980] 3 S.C.R. p. 1253, applied.

(9) There can be no doubt that if the interview did not last for more thar.
R two or three minutes on an average and the questions asked had no bearing on
the factors required to be taken into account the oral interview test would be
viriated, because it would. be impossible in such an interview to assess the merit
of a candidate with reference to these factors. Here the absence of proper
affidavit by the members of the committee to the contrary leads to the only
conclusion that the selection made on the basis. of such test must be held to be
arbitrary. However, if the marks aJlocated for the oral interview do not exceed
C 15% of the total marks and the candidates are properly interviewed and rele-
vant questions are asked with a view to assessing their suitability with reference
10 the factors required to be taken into consideration, the oral interview test
\\'ould satisfy the criterion of reasonableness and non-arbitrariness. Further it
would be desirable if the interview of the candidates is tape-recorded, for in
that event there will be contemporaneous evidence to show what \Vere ~be
questions asked to the candidates by the interviewing committee and what were
O the answers given and that will eliminate ~ lot of unnecessary controYersy be-
sides acting as a check on the possible arbitrariness of the interviewing com-
mittee. [109A-B, D-E, F-H]

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition Nos. 1304, 1262, 1119,
1118, 1574-75, 1373-74, 1244-45, 1230, 1494-97, 1566-67, 1143,
1440, 1586, 1420-23, 1441-43, 1389, 1144, 1461, 1437-39, 1431,
E
1268, 1145, 1263 and 1331 of 1979.
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution)
Anil Dev Singh, Lalit Kumar Gupta, Subhash Sharma, C. P.
Pandey and S. K. Sabharwal for the Petitioners in W.Ps. 1389,
F 1437-39, 1262, 1497, 1586, 1230 and 1263 of 1979.
Y. S. Chitale, P. N. Duda, V. K. Pandita, R. Sarish and E. C.
AgarwaTa for the Petitioners in W.P. Nos. 1241-43, 1495-96, 1566-
67, 1423, 1143-44,1118-19,1494, 1145 and 1331 of 1979.
.'r
S. K. Bisiaria for the Petitioner in W.P. 1461/79.
G
Rishi Kesh and B. Datta for the Petitioner in W.Ps. 1373-74, 1304
and 1431;79.
Y. S. Chitale, D. N. T1ku, E. C. Agarwala, M. Mudgal, Ashok
Kaui and Vineet Kumar for the Petitio"ners in W.Ps. 1244-45, 1420-22
and 1440/79.
H
S. S. Khanduja for the Petitioners in W.Ps. 1268, 1574-75/79.
S. N. Kacker and Altaf Ahmed for the appearing Respondents.
AJAY HASIA v. KHALID MUJIB (Bhagwati, J.) 85

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A
BHAGWATI, J. These writ petitions under Article 32 of the
Constitution challenge the validity of the admissions made to the
~egional Engiheering College, Srinagar for the academic year 1979-80.

The Regional Engineering College, Srinagar (hereinafter referred
to as the College) is one of the fifteen Engineering Colleges in the B
country sponsored by the Government of India. The College is e;ta-
blished and its administration and management are carried on by a
Society registered under the Jammu and Kashmir Registration of
Societiecs Act, 1898. The Memorandum of Association of the Society
in c;ause 3 sets out the objects for which the Society is incorporanw
and they include amongst other things establishment of the college, c
with a view to providing instruction and research in such branches of
engih,~ering and technology as the college may think fit and for the
advancement of learning and knowledge in such branches. Vide sub-
clause (i). The Society is empowered by clause 3 sub-clause (ii) of
the Memorandum of Associatioo to make rules for the conduct of the
affairs of the Society and to add to, amend, vary or rescind them from D
time to time with the approval of the Government of Jammu and
Kashmir State (hereinafter referred to as the State Gover'nment) and
the Central Government. Clause 3 sub-clause (iii) of the Memora-
ndum of Association confers power on the Society to acquire and hold
property in the name of the State Government. Sub-clause (v) of
E
clause 3 of the Memorandum of Association contemplates that monies
for running the college would be provided by the State and Central
Governments and sub-clause (vi) requiv~ the Society to deposit all
monies credited to its fund in such banks or to invest them in such
manner as the Society may, with the approval of the State Government
decide. The accounts of the Society as certified by a duly appointed
F
auditor are mandatorily required by sub-clause (ix) of clause 3 of
the Memorandum of Association to be forwarded annually to the
State and Central Governments. Clause 6 of the Memorandum of
Association empowers the State Government to appoint one or more
persons to review the working and progress of the Society, or the
college and to hold inquiries into the affairs thereof and to make a G
report and on receipt of any such report, the S.tate Government has
power, with the approval of the Central Government, to take· such
action and issue such directions as it may consider necessary in respect
of any of the matters dealt with in the rep<irt and the Society or the
College, as the case may be, is bound to comply with such directions .
.There is a provision made in clause 7 of the Memorandum of Asso- D
ciation that ih case the Society or the college is not functioning pro-
porly, the State Government will have the power to take over the
86 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981] 2 S.C.R.

A administration and assets of the college with the prior approval of
the Central Government. The founding member~ of the Society are
enumerated in clause 9 ol the Memorandum of Association and they
are the Chairman to be appointed by the State Government with the
approval of the Central Government, two representatives of the State
Government, one representative of the Central Government, two repre- .,
B sentatives of the All India Council for Technical Education to be
nominated by the northern Regional Committee, one representative of
the University of Jammu and Kashmir, one non-official representative
of each of the Punjab, Rajasthan, U.P. and Jammu and Kashmir
States to be appointed by the respective Governments in consultation
with the Central Government and the Principal who shall also be the
c the ex-officio Secretary.
The Rules of the Society ar.e also important as they throw light
on the nature of the Society. Rule 3 clause (i) reiterates the com-
position of the Society as set out in clause 9 of the Memorandum of
Association and clause (ii) of that Rule provides that the State and
D the Central Govenunents may by mutual consultation at any time
appoint any other person or persons to' be member or members of the
society. Rule 6 vests the general superintendence, direction and
control of the affairs and its income and property in the governing
body of the Society which is called the Board of Governors. Rnle 7
lays down the constitution of the Board of Governors by providing that
E it shall consist of the Chief Minister of the State Government as Chair-
man and the following as members : Three nominees of the State
Government, fhree nominees of the Central Government, one repre-
sentative of the All India Council for Technical Education, Vice-
Chancellor of the University of Jammu1 and Kashmir, two industrialists/
F technologists in the region to be nominated by the State Government,
one nominee of the Indian Institute of Technology in the region, one
nominee of the University Grants Commission two representatives o'f
the Faculty of the College and the Principal of the college as ex-officio
member-Sec1etary. The State Government is empowered by rule 10
to remove any member of the Society other than a member represent-
G ing the State or Central Government from the membership of the Society
with the approval of the Central Government. Clause (iv) of Rule
15 confers power on the Board to make bye-laws for admission of
students to various courses and clause (xiv) of that Rule empowers
the Board to delegate to a committee or to the Chairman such of its
powers for the conduct of its business as it may deem fit, sub-
H ject to the condition that the action taken by the committee of .
the Chairman shall be reported for confirmation at the next meet-
ing of the Board. Clause (xv) of Rule 15 provides that the Board shall.
AJAY HASIA v. KHALID MUJIB (Bhagwati, J.) 87

bmre power to consider and pass resolution on the annual report, the A
annual accounts and other financial estimates of !he college, but the
annual report and the annual accounts together with the resolution
11assed thereon are required to be submitted to the State and the
Central Governments. The Society is empowered by Rule 24, clause
(i) to alter, exteud or abridge any purpose or purposes for which it is
established, subject to the prior approval of the State and the Central B
·Governments and clause (ii) of Rule 24 provides that the Rnles may
be altered by a Resolution passed by a majotity of 2/3rd of the
members present at the meeting of the Society, but such alteration.
shall be with the approval of the State and the Cenrtal
Governments.
c
Pursuant to clause (iv) of Rule 15 of the Rules, the Board of
Governors laid down the procedure for admission of students to
various courses in the colleg~ by a Resolution dated 4th June, 1974.
We are not directly concerned with the admission procedure laid down
by this Resolution save and except that under this Resolution admis-
sions to the candidates belonging to the State of Jammn and Kashmir D
were to be given on the basis of comparative merit to be determined
. by holding a written entrance test and a viva voce examination and
the marks allocated for the written test in the subjects of English,
Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics were 100, while for viva voce
examination, the marks allocated were 50 divided as follows : (i)
E
General Knowedge and Awareness-15; (ii) Broad understanding
of Specific Phenomenon-15; (iii) Extra-curricular activities-IO
and (iv) General Personality Trait-10, making up i:n the aggre-
gate-SO. The admissions to the college were governed by the pro-
cedure laid down in this Resolution until the academic year 1979-
80, when the procedure was slightly changed and it was decided that F
out of 250 seats, which were available for admission, 50% of the seats
shall be reserved for candidates belonging to the Jammu & Kashmir
State and the remaining 50% for candidates belonging to other States
including 15 seats reserved for certain categories of students. So far
as the seats reserved for candidates belonging to States other than
Jammu & Kashmir were concerned, certain reservations were made for G
caudidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and
sons and wards of defence personnel killed or disabled during hostilities
and it was provided that "inter se merit will be determined on the basis
of marks secured in the subjects of English, Physics, Chemistry and
Mathematics only". The provision made with regard to seats reserved
for candidates belonging to Jammu & Kashmir State was that "apart H
from 2 seats reserved for the sons and daughters of the permanent
college employees, reservations shall b~ made in accetrdance with tht;
88 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981] 2 S.C.R.

A Orders of Jammu and Kashmir Government for admsision to technical
institutions and the seats shall be filled up on the basis of comparative
merit as determined under the following scheme, both for seats to be
filled on open merit and for reserved seats in each category separately;
(1) marks for written test-100 and (2) marks for viva voce examina-
tion-50, marking up in the aggregate-150. It was not mentioned ..
B expressly that the marks for the written test shall be in the subjects
of Physics, English, Chemistry and Mathematics nor were the factors
to be taken into account in the viva voce examination and the allo-
cation of marks for such factors indicated specifically in the admis-
sion procedure laid down for the academic year 1979-80, but we
were told and this was not disputed on behalf of the petitioners in
c any of the writ petitions, that the subjects in which the written test
was held were English, Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics and the
marks at the viva voce examination were allocated under the same
four heads and in the same manner as in, the case of admissions under
the procedure laid down in the Resolution dated 4th June, 1974.
In or about April 1979, the college issued a notice inviting
D applications for admission to the first semester of the B.E. course in
various branches of engineering and the notice set out the above
admission procedure to be followed in granting admissions. for the
academic year 1979-80. The petitioners in the writ petitions before
us applied for admission to the first semester of the B.E. course in one
or the other branch of engineering and they appeared in the written
test which was held on 16th and 17th June, 1979. The petitioners
were thereafter required to appear before a Committee consisting of
three persons for viva voce test and they were interviewed by the
Committee. The case of the petitioners was that the interview of each
of them did not last for more than 2 or 3 minutes per candidate on
F an average and the only questions which were asked to them were
formal questions relating to their parentage and residence and hardly
any question was asked which would be relevant to any of the tour
factors for which marks were allocated at the viva voce examination.
When the admissions were announced, the petitioners found that
though they had obtained very good marks in the qualifying examhm-
G tion, they had not been able to secure admission to the college
because the marks awarded to them at the viva voce examination were
very low and candidates who had much less marks at the qualifying
examination, had succeeded in obtaining very high marks at the viva
voce examination and thereby managed to secure admission in prefe-
rence to the' petitioners. The petitioners filed before us a chart show-
H ing by way of comparison the marks: obtained by the petitioners on the
one hand and some of the successful candidates on the other at the
qualifying examination, in the written test and at the viva voce exami-
AJAY HASIA v. KHALID MUJJB (Bhagwati, J.) 89

nation. This chart shows beyond doubt that the successful candidates A.
whose marks are given in the chart had obtained fairly low mark~ at
-( the qualifying examination as also in the written test, but they had
been able to score over the petitioners only on account of very high
. marks obtained by them at the viva voce examination. The petitioners
feeling aggrieved by this mode of selection filed the present writ
petitions challenging the validity of the admissions made to the college B
on various grounds. Some of these grounds stand concluded by the
•• recent decision of this Court in Miss Nishi Maghu v. State vi Jammu
& Kashmir & Ors.( 1 ) and they were therefore not pressed before us.
Of the other grounds, only one was canvassed before us and we shall
examine it in some detail.
c
But before we proceed to consider the merits of this ground of
challenge, we must dispose of a preliminary objection raised on behalf
of the respondents against the maintainability of the writ petition.
The respondents contended that the college is run by society which
is not a corporation created by a slatute but is a society registered under
the Jammu & Kashmir Societies Registration Act, 1898 and it is there- D
fore not an 'authority' within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Consti-
tution and no writ petition can be maintained against it, nor can any
complaint be made that it has acted arbitrarily in the matter of grunt-
ing admissions and violated the equality clause of the Constitution.
Now it is obvious that the only ground on which the validity of the
admissions to the college can be assailed is that the society adopted an E
arbitrary procedure for selecting candidates for admission to the college
and this resulted in denial of equality to the petitioners in the matter
of admission violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. It would appear
that prima facie protection against infraction of Art. 14 is available
only against the State and complaint of arbitrariness and denial of
equality can therefore be sustained against the society only if the
F
society can be shown to be State for the purpose of Art. 14. Now
'State' is defined in Art. 12 tQ,include inter a/ia the Government of
India and the Government of each of the States and all local or other
authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the
Government of India and the question therefore is whether the Society G
can be said to be 'State' within the meaning of this definition. Obviously
the Society cannot be equated with the Government of India or the
Government of any State nor can it be said to be a local authority and
therefore, it must come within the expression "other authorities" if it
is to fall within the definition of 'State'. That immediately leads us to
a consideration of the question as to what are the "other authorities" H
contemplated in the definition of 'State' in Art. 13.
(I) [1980] 3 SCR p. 1253.
90 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [J 98 lj 2 S.C.R.

A While considering this question it is necessary to bear in mind ihat
an authority falling within the expression "other authorities" is, by
reason of its inclusion within the definition of 'State' in Article 12, ..
subject to the same constitutional limitations as the Government and
is equally bound by the basic obligation to obey the constitutional man- ..
B
date of the Fundamental Rights enshrined in Part III of the Constim-
tion. We must therefore give such an interpretation to the expression
I
"other authorities" as will not stultify the operation and reach of the
j
fundamental rights by enabling the Government to its obligation in
relation to the Fundamental Rights by setting up an authonty to act
as its instrumentality or agency for carrying out its functions. Whe1.1e
c constitutional fundamentals vital to the maintenance of human rights
are at stake, functional realism and not facial cosmetics must be the
diagnostic tool, for constitutional law must seek the substance and not
.
the form. Now it is obvious that the Government may act thrnugh the
instrumentality or agency of natural persons or it may employ the
instrumentality or agency of juridical persons to carry out its functions.
D In the early days when the Government had limited functions, it could
operate effectively through natural persons constituting its civil
service and they were found adequate to discharge governmental
functions which were of traditional vintage. But as the tasks of the
Government multiplied with the advent of the welfare State, it began
to be increasingly felt that the frame work of civil service was not
E sufficient to handle the new tasks which were often specialised and
highly technical in character and which called for flexibility of approach
.
and quick decision making. The inadequacy of the civil sc:rvice to
deal with these new problems came to be realised and it became
necessary to forge a new instrumentality or administrative device for
handling these new problems. It was in these circumstances and with
F a view to supplying this administrative need that the corporation came
into being as the third arm of the Government and over the years it
has been increasingly utilised by the Government for selling up and
running public enterprises and carrying out other publio functions.
Today with increasing assumption by the Government of commercial
ventures and economic projects, the corporation has become an effec-
G tive legal contrivance in the hands of the Government for carrying out I-
its activities, for it is found that this legal facility of corporate instru-
ment provides considerable flexibility and elasticity and facilitates
proper and efficient management with professional skills and on busi-
ness principles and it is blissfully free from "departmental rigidity,
slow motion procedure and hierarchy of officers". The Government in
H many of its commercial ventures and public enterprises is resorting
to more and more frequently to this resourceful legal contrivance of
a corporation because it has many practical advantage~ and at th~
AJAY HASIA v. KHALID MUJIB (Bhagwati, J.) 91

A
same time does not involve the slightest diminution in its ownership
and control of the undertaking. In such cases "the true owner is the
State, the real operator is the State and the effective controllorate is
the State and accountability for its actions to the community and
to Parliament is of the State." n is undoubtedly true that the corpora
tion is a distinct juristic entity with a corporate structure of its own B
and it carries on its functions on business principles with a certain
amount of autonomy which is necessary as well as useful from the
point of view of effective business management, but behind the formal
ownership which is cast in the corporate mould, the reality is very
much the deeply pervasive presence of the Government. It is really
the Government which acts through the instrumentality or agency of c
'\ th<> corporation and the juristic veil of corporate personality worn for
the purpose of convenience of management and administration cannot
be allowed to obliterate the true nature of the reality behind which is
the Government. Now it is obvious that if a corporation is an instru
mentality or agency of the Government, it must be subject to the same
limitations in the field of constitutional law as the Government itself, D
though. in the eye of the law it would be a distinct and independent
legal entity. If the Government acting through its officers is subject
to certain constitutional limitations, it must follow a fortiorari that the
Government acting through the instrumentality or agency of a corpo
ration shoukl equally be subject to the same limitations. If such a
corporation were to be free from the basic obligation to obey the
E
Fundamental Rights, it would lead to considerable erosion of the
efficiency of the Fundamental Rights, for in that event the Govern
ment would be enabled to over-ride the Fundamental Rights by
adopting the stratagem of carrying ont its functions through the instru
mentality or agency of a corporation, while retaining control over it.
F
The Fundamental Rights would then be reduced to little more than an
idle dream or a promise of unreality. It must be remembered that the
Fundamental Rights are constitutional guarantees given to the people
of India and are not merely paper hopes or fleeting promises and so
long as they find a place in the Constitution, they should not be allow
ed to be emasculated in their application by a narrow and constricted G
judicial interpretation. The courts should be anxious to enlarge the
scope and width of the Fundamental Rights by bringing within their
sweep every authority which is an instrumentality or agency of the
Government or through the corporate personality of which the Gov
ernment is acting, so as to subject the Government in all its myriad
activities, whether through natural persons or through corporate H
entities, to the basic obligation of the Fundamental Rights. The
constitutional philosophy of a democratic socialist republic requires
1-12&1SCl}&O
92 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981] 2 S.C.R.

A the Government fo undertake a multitude of socio-economic opera-
tions and lhe Government, having regard to the practical advantages
of functioning through the legal device of a corporation, embarks on
myriad commercial and economic activities by resorting to the instru-
mentality or agency of a corporation, but this contrivance of carry-
ing on such activities through a corporation cannot exonerate the
Government from implicit obedience to the Fundamenlal Rights. To
use. the corporate methodology is not to liberate the Government from
its basic obligation to respect lhe Fundamental Rights and not to
oveHide them. The mantle of a corporation may be adopted in order
to free the Government from the inevitable constraints of red-lapism
and slow molion but by doing so, the Government cannot be allowed
c to play truant with the basic hnman rights. Otherwise it would be the
easiest thing for the government to assign to a plurality of corporalions
almost every State business such as Post and Telegraph, TV and
Radio, Rail Road and Telephones-in short every .economic activity-
and \hereby cheat the people of India out of the Fundamental Rights
guaranteed to them. That would be a mockery of the Constitution and
D
nething short of treachery and breach of faith with the people of India,
because, though apparently the corporation will be carrying out these
functions, it will in truth and reality be the Government which will be
controlling the corporation and carrying out these functions through
\he instrumenlality or agency of the corporation. We cannot by a
E process. of judicial construction allow the Fundamental Rights to be
rendered futile and meaningless and thereby wipe out Chapter III
from the Constitution. That would be contrary to· the constitutional
faith of the post-Menaka Gandhi era. It is the Fundamental Rights
which along with the Directive Principles constitule th~ life force of
the Constitution and they must be quickened into effective action by
F meaningful and purposive interpretation. If a corporation is found to
be a mere agency or surrogate of the Government, "in fact owned by
the Government, in truth controlled by the government and in effect
an incarnation of the government," the court must not allow the
enforcement of Fundamental Rights to be frustrated by taking the
>-
view that it is not the government and therefore not subject to the
G constitutional limitations. We are clearly of the view that where a
corporation is an instrrnnentality or agency of the government, it must
be held to be an 'authority' within the meaning of Art. 12 and hence
5ubject to the same basic obligation to obey the Fundamental Rights
as lhe government.
H We may point out that this very question as to when a corporation
can be regarded as an 'authority' within the meaning of Art. 12 arose
for consideration before this Court in R. D. Shelly v. The International
AJAY HASIA v. KHALID MUJJB (Bhagwati, J.) 93

Airport Authority of India & Ores. ( 1 ) There, in a unanimous judg- A
ment of three Judges delivered by one of us (Bhagwati, J) this Court
pointed out :
"So far as India is concerned, the genesis. of the
emergen.ce of corporations as inslrumentalities or agencies of
Government is to be found in the Government of India
Resolution on Industrial Policy dated 6th April, 1948 where
it was stated inter alia that "management of State enterprises
will as a rule be through the medium of public corporation
under the statutory control of the Central Government who
will assume such powers as may be necessary to ensure this."
It was in pursuance of the policy envisaged in this and sub- c
sequent resolutions on Industrial policy that corporations
were created by Government for setting up and manage-
ment of public enterprises and carrying out other public
functions. Ordinarily these functions could have been car-
ried out by Government departmentally through its service
personnel but the instrumentality or agency of the corpora- D
tion was resorted to in these cases having regard to the
nature of the task to be performed. The corporations acting
as instrumentality or agency of Government would obviously
be subject to the same limitations in the field of constitutional
and administrative law as Government itself, though in the
eye of the law, they woukl be distinct and independent E
legal entities. If Government acting through its officers is
subject to certain constitutional and public law limitations,
it must follow a fortiori that Government acting through
instrumentality or agency of corporations should equally be
subject to the same limitations."
F
The Court then addressed itself to the question as to how to determine
whether a corporation is acting a9 an instrumentality or agency of the
Government and dealing with that question, observed :
• "A corporation may be created in one of two ways. It may
be either established by statute or incorporated under a G
law such as the Companies Act 1956 or the. Societies
Registration Act 1860. Where a Corporation is wholly con-
trolled by Government not only in its policy making but
' also in carrying out the functions entrusted to it by the law
establishing it or by the Charter of its incorporation, there
can be no doubt that it would be an instrumentality or H
agency of Government. But o!Pinarily where a corporation
(I) [1979] I S.C.R. 1042.

______ ,,,..
94 SUPRHIE COURT REPORTS (1981] 2 S.C.R.

A is established by statute, it is autonomous in its working,
subject only to a provision, often times made, that it shall
be bound by any directions that may be issued from time
to time by Government in respect of policy matters. So
also a corporation incorporated under lilw is managed by a
board of directors or committee of management in accord-
B ance with the provisions of the statute under which it is in•
corporated. When does such a corporation become an
instrumentality or agency of Government? Is the holding
of the entire share capital of the Corporation by Govern-
ment enough or is it necessary that in addition there should
be a certain amount of direct control exercised by Govern-
ment and, if so what should be tl1e nature of such con-
trol ? Should the functions which the Corporation is
charged to carry out possess any particnlar characteristic or
feature, or is the nature of the functions immaterial? Now,
one thing is clear that if the entire share capital of the cor-
D poration is held by Government, it would go a Jong way
towards indicating that the corporation is an instrumental-
ity or agency of Government. But, as is quite often the
case, a corporation established by statute may have no
shares or shareholders, in which case it would be a rele-
vant factor to consider whether the administration is in the
E hands of a board of directors appointed by Government
though this consideration also may not be determinative,
because even where the directors are appointed by Govern-
ment, they may be completely free from governmental con-
trol in the discharge of their functions. What then are
tests to determine whether a corporation established by
F statute or incorporated under law is an instrumentality or
agency of Government ? It is not possible to formulate an
inclusive or exhaustive test which would adequately answer
>-
G
this question. There is no cut and dried formula, which
would provide the correct division of corporations into those
which are instrumentalities or agencies of Government and
those which are not."
-
The Court then proceeded to indicate the different tests, apart from
ownership of the entire share capital :
" ........ if extensive and unusual financial assistance is
H given and the purpose of the Goverument in giving snch assis-
tance coincides with the purpose for which the corporation
is expected to use the assistance and such purpose is of
AJAY !!ASIA v. KHALID MUJIB (Bliagwati, J.) 95

public character, it may be a relevant circumstance support- A
ing an inference that the corporation is an instrumentality
or agency of Government. . . . . . . . . . It may therefore be
possible to say that where the financial assistance of the
State is so much as to meet almost entire expendiutre
of the corporation, it would afford some indication of the
corporation being impregnated with governmental character B
. . . . . . . . . . But a finding of State financial support plus
an unusual degree of control over the management and
policies might lead one to characterise an operation as State
action-Vide Sukhdev v. Bhagatram [1975] 3 SCR 619 at
658. So also the existence of deep and pervasive State con-
trol may afford an indication that the Corporation is a State
c
agency or instrumentality. It may also be a relevant factor
to consider whether the corporation enjoys monopoly status
which is State conferred or State protected. There can be
little doubt that State conferred or State protected mono-
poly status would be highly relevant in assessing the aggre- D
gate weight of the corporation's ties to the State."

"There is also another factor which may be regarded
as having a bearing on this issue and it is whether the
operation of the corporation is an important public function.
It has been held in the United States in a number of cases
E
that the concept of private action must yield to a conception
ofl State action where public functions are being perform-
ed. Vide Arthur S. Miller : "The Constitutional Law of
the Security State" ( 10 Stanford Law Review 620 at
664) ."
F
"It may be noted that besides the so-called tra<;litional
functions, the modern state operates as multitude of public

- enterprises and discharges a host of other public functions.
If the functions o~ the corporation are of public importance
and closely related to governmental functions, it would be
a relevant factor in classifying the corporation as an instru- G
mentality or agency of Government. This is precisely
what was pointed out by Mathew, J., in Sukhdev v.
Bhagatram (supra) where the learned Judge said that
"institutions engaged in matters of high pnblic interest of
performing public functions are by virtue of the nature of
!he functions performed government agencies. Activities H
which are too fundamental to the society are by definition
too important not to be considered government functions."

1• &WM
96 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981] 2 S.C.R.

A The court however proceeded to point out with reference to the last
functional test :
" .......... the decisions shc:iw that even this test of public
or governmental character of the function i§ not easy of
application and does not invariably lead to the correct
inference because the rang e of governmental activity is broad
B and varied and merely because an activity may be such
as may legitimately be carried on by Governmen.t, it does
not mean that a corporation, which is otherwise a private
entity, would be an instrumentality or agency of Govern
ment by reason of carrying on such activity. In fact, it is
difficult to distinguish between governmental functions and
c
non-governmental functions. Perhaps the distinction bet
ween governmental and non-governmental functions is not
valid any more in a social welfare State where the laissez
faire is an outmoded concept and Herbert Spencer's social
statics has no place. The contrast is rather between govern-
mental activities which are private and private activities
D
which are governmental. [Mathew, J. Sukhdev v. Bhagatram
(supra) at p. 652]. But the public nature of the function,
if impregnated with governmental character or "tied or
entwined with Government" or fortified by some other
additional factor, may render the corporation an instru
E mentality or agency of Government. Specifically, if a de
partment of Government is transferred to a corporation, it
would be a strong factor supportive of the inference."
These observations of the court in the International Airport Authority's
case (supra) have our full approval.

The tests for determining as to when a corporation can be said
F to be a instrumentality or agency of Government may now be call
ed out from the judgment in the International Airport Authority's case.
These tests are not conclusive or clinching, but they are merely indi r
cative indicia which have to be used with care nnd caution, because
while stressing the necessity of a wide meaning to be placed on the
expression "other authorities", it must be realised that it should not
.G
be stretched so far as to bring in every autonomous body which
J1as some nexus with the Government within the sweep of the ex
pression. A wide e_nlargement of the meaning must be tempered by
a \\;ise limitation. We may summarise the relevant tests gathered
from the decision in the Intemational Airport Authority'� case as

H follows :

(1) "One, thing is clear that if the entire share capital of
the corporation is held by Government it would go a long
AJAY BASIA v. KHALID MUJIB (Bhagwati, J.) 97

way towards indicating that the corporation is an instru A
mentality o r agency of Government."
(2) "Where the financial assistance of the State is so
much as to meet almost entire expenditure al' the corpora
). tion, it would afford some indication of the corporation
being impregnated with governmental character."
B
(3) "It may also be a relevant factor ......whether the
corporation enjoys monopoly status which is the State con
ferred or State protected."
( 4) "Existence of deep and pervasive State control
may afford an indication that the Corporation is a State
agency or instrumentality." c
(5) "If the functions of the corporation of public im
portance and closely related to governmental functions, it
would be a relevant factor in classifying the corporation as
an instrumentality or agency of Government."
(6) "Specifically, if a department of Government is
D
transferred to a corporation, it would be a strong factor
supportive of this inference of the corporation being an
instrumentality or agency of Government."
If on a consideration of these relevant factors it is found that the
corporation is an instrumentality or agency of government, it would,
as pointed out in the International Airpirt Authority's case, be an E
'authority' and, therefore, 'State' within the meaning of the expression
in Article 12.
We find that the same view has been taken by Chinnappa Reddy,
J. in a subsequent decision of this court in the U. P. Warehousing
Corporation v. Vijay Narain(') and the observations made by the
learnei;l Judge in that case strongly reinforced the view we arn taking F
particularly in the matrix of our constitutional system.
We may point out that it is immaterial for this purpose whether the
corporation is created by a statute or under a statute. The test is
whether it is an instrumentality or agency of the Government and not
as to how it is created. The inquiry has to be not as to how the
G
juristic person is born hut why it has been brought into existence. The
corporation may be a statutory corporation created by a statute or it
may be a Government Company or a company formed under the Com
papies Act, 1956 or it may be a society registered under the Societies
Registration Act, 1860 or any other similar statute. Whatever be its
genetical origin, it would be an "authority " within the meaning of Article R
12 if it is an instrumentality or agency of the Government and that would

c1i 11�so11sec459.
98 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1981] 2 S.C.R.

A have to be decided on a proper assessment of the facts in the light of
the relevant factors. The concept of instrumentality or agency of the
Government is not limited to a corporation created by a statute but is
equally applicable to a company or society and in a given case it
would have to be decided, on a consideration of the relevant factors,
whether the company or society is an instrumentality or agency of the
B Government so as to come within the meaning o'f the expression
"authority" in Article 12.
It is also necessary to add that merely because a juristic entity may
be an "authority" and therefore "State" within the meaning of Article
12, it may not be elevated to the position of "State" for the purpose
c of Articles 309, 310 and 311 which find a place in Part XIV. The
definition of "State" in Article 12 which includes an "authority" with-
in the territory of India or under the control of the Government of ..<
India is limited in its application only to Part III and by virtue of
Article 36, to Part IV : it does not extend to the other provisions of
the Constitution and hence a juristic entity which may be "State" for
•
D the purpose of Parts III and IV would not be so for the purpose of
Part XIV or any other provision of the Constitution. That is why the
decisions of this Court in S. L. Aggarwal v. Hindustan Steel Ltd.(1)
and other cases involving the applicability of Article 311 have no rele-
vance to the issue before us.
E The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents Nos. 6
to 8, however, relied strongly on the decision in Sabhajit Tewary v.
Union of India & Ors(') and contended that this decision laid down
in no uncertain terms that a society registered under the Societies Regis-
tration Act, 1860 can never be regarded as an "authority" within the
meaning of Article 12. This being .a decision given by a Bench of
F live Judges of this Court is undoubtedly binding upon us but we do
not think it lays down any such proposition as is contended on behalf
of the respondents. The question which arose in this case was as to
whether the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research which was
juridjfa1ly a society registered under the Societies Registration Act,
1860 was an "authority" within the meaning of Article 12. The test
G
which the Court applied for determining this question was the same
as the one laid down in the International Airport Authority's case and
approved by us, namely, whether the Council was an instrumentality or ,
agency of the Government. The Court implicitly assented to the pro-
position that if the Council were an agency of the Government, it would
II undoubtedly be an "authority". But, having regard to the various
(1) [1970] 3 S.C.R. 365.
(2) [1975] 3 S.C.R. 616.
AJAY HASIA v. KHALID MUJIIl (Bhagwati, J.) 99

features enumerated in the judgment, the Court held that the Council A
was not an agency of the Government and hence could not be regard-
ed as an "authority". The Court did not rest its conclusion on the
ground that the Council was a society registered under the Societies
Registration Act, 1860, but proceeded to consider various other
features of the Council for arriving at the conclusion that it was not
an agency of the Government and therefore not an "authority". This B
would have been totally unnecessary if the view of the Court were
that a society registered under the Societies Registration Act can
never be an "authority" within the meaning of Article 12.

..M' The decision in Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagat Ram (1975) 3 SCR 619
was also strongly relied upon ·by the learned counsel for respqndents c
Nos. 6 to 8 but we fail to see how this decision can assist the respon-
dents in repelling the reasoning in the International Airport Autho-
rity's case or contending that a company or society formed under a
statute can never come within the meaning of the expression "autho-
rity" in Article 12. That was a case relating to three juristic bodies,
D
namely, the Oil and Natural Gas Commission, the Industrial Finance
Corporation and the Life Insurance Corporation and the question
was whether they were "State" under Article 12. Each of these
three juristic bodies was a corporation created by a statute and the
Court by majority held that they were "authorities" and therefore
"State" within the meaning of Article 12. The Court in this case was E
not concem~d with the question whether a company or society
formed under a statute can be an "authority" or not and this decision
does not therefore contain anything which might even remotely
suggest that such a company or society can never be an "authority".
On the contrary, the thrust of the logic in the decision, far from
being restrictive, applies to all juristic persons alike, irrespective F
whether they are created by a statute or formed under a statute.

It is in the light of this discussion that we must now proceed to
examine whether the Society in the present case is an "authority"
falling within the definition of "State" in Article 12. Is it an instru-
mentality or agency of the Government'? The answer must obvious- G
ly be in the affirmative if we have regard to the Memorandum Cif
Association and the Rules of the Society. The composition of the
Society is dominated by the representatives appointed by the Cetitfal
' Government and the Governments of Jammu & Kashmir, Punjab,
Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh with the approval of the Central Gov-
ernment. The monies required for running the college are provided H
entirely by the Central Government and the Government of Jammu
.& Kashmir and even if any other monies are to• be received by the
100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981] 2 S.C.R.

A Society, it can be done only with the approval of the State and the
Central Governments. The Rules to be made by the Society are slsci
required to have the prior approval of the State and the Central Gov
ernments and the accounts of the Society have also to be submitted to
both the Governments for their scrutiny and satisfaction. The Society
is also to comply with all such directions as may be issued by the State
B Government with the approval of the Central Government in respect
of any matters dealt with in the report of the Reviewing Committee.
The control of the State and the Central Governments is indeed so
deep and pervasive that no immovable property of the Society can
be disposed of in any manner without the approval of both the Govern"
ments. The State and the Central Govermnents have even the power
c
to appoint any other person or persons to be members of the Society
and any member of the Society other than a member representing the
State or the Central Government can be removed from the member ;

ship of the Society by the State Government with the approval of the
Central Government. The Board of Governors, which is in charge
D of general superintendence, direction and control of the affairs of
Society and of its income and property is also largely controlled by
nominies .of the State and the Central Governments. It will thus be
seen that the State Government and by reason of the provision for
approval, the Central Government also, have full control of the
working of the Society and it would not be incorrect to say that the
E Society is merely a projection of the State and the Central Govern
ments and to use the words of Ray, C.J. in Sukhdev Singh's case
(supra), the voice is that of the State and the Central Governments
and the bands are also of the State and the Central Governments. We
must, therefpre, hold that the Society is an instrumentality or agency
of the State and the Central Governn1•::'nts and it is an 'authority'
F within the meaning of Art. 12.

If the Society is an "authority" and therefore "State" within the
1
meaning of Article 12, it must follow that it is subject to the consti
tutional obligation under Article 14. The true scope and ambit of
Article 14 has been the subject matter of numerous decisions and it
G is not necessary to make any detailed reference
'.° them. It is suffi
cie nt to state that the content and reach of Article 14 must not be
the
confused with the doctrine of classification. Unfortunately, in
me
early stages of the evolution of our constitutional law, Article 14 ca.
to be identified with the doctrine of classifci ation because the view
taken was that that Article forbids discrimination and there would
H be no discrim ination where the classification making the differentia
-
fulfils two conditions, namely, (i) that the. classific
ation is founded
.
ible differe ntia which distinsn ishes person s or things
on an intellig
A.JAY HASJA v. KHALID MU.JIB (Bhagwati, J.) 101

that nre grouped together from others left out of the group; and A
(ii) that that differentia has a rational relation to the object sought
to be achieved by. the impugned legislative or executive action. It
was for the first time in E.P. Royappa v, State of Tamil Nad!t(I)
that this Court laid bare a new dimension of Article 14 and pointed
out that that Article has highly activist magnitude and it embodies a
B
guarantee against arbitrariness. This Court speaking through one of
us (Bhagwati, J.) said :

"The basic principle which therefore informs both
Articles 14 and 16 is equality and inhibition against discri
-1 I mination. Now, what is the content and reach of this great
equalising principle ? It is a founding faith, to use the c
words of Bose, J., "a way of life", and it must not be sub
jected to a narrow pedantic or lexicographic approach. We
cannot countenance any attempt to truncate its all-embrac
ing scope and meaning, for to do so would be to violate
its activist magnitude. Equality is a dynamic concept with
many aspects and dimensions and it cannot be "cribbled, D
cabined and confined" within traditional and doctrinaire
limits. From a positivistic point of view, equality is anti
thetic to arbitrariness. In fact, equality and arbitrariness
are sworn enemies; one belongs to the rule of law in a
republic while the other, to the whim and caprice of an
E
absolute monarch. Where an act is arbitrary it is implicit
in it that it is unequal both according to political logic and
constitutional law and is therefore violative of Art. 14,
and if it affects any mat.t_er relating to public employment, it
is also violative of Art. 16. Articles 14 and 16 strike at
arbitrariness in State action and ensure fairness and equality
F
of treatment."

This vital and dynamic aspect which was till then lying latent and
submerged in the few simple but pregnant words of Article 14 was
explored and brought to light in Royappa's case and it was re
affirmed and elaborated by this Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union
G
of India(') where this Court again speaking through one of us (Bhag
wati, J,) observed :

"Now the question immediately arises as to what is the
requirement of Article 14 : what is the content and reach
of the great equalising principle enunCiated in this article ?
There can be no doubt that it is a founding faith of the H

(I) [1974] 2 S.C.R. 348.
(2) [1978] 2 S.C.R. 621.
102 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981] 2 S.C.R.
A Constitution. It is indeed the pillar on which rests securely
the foundation of our democratic republic. And, therefore,
it must not be subjected to a narrow, pedantic or lexicogra-
phic approach. No attempt sliould be made to truncate
its all-embracing scope and meaning for, to do so would be
to violate its activist magnitude. Equality is a dynamic
B concept with many aspects and dimens_ions and it cannot be
imprisoned within traditional and doctrinaire limits ..... .
. . . . . . . . Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in State action
arid ensures fairness and equality of treatment. The
principle of reasonableness, which legally as well as phi-
losophically, is an essential element of equality or non-
c arbitrariness pervades Article 14 like a brooding omni-
presence."
This was again reiterated by this Court in lnt~rnational Airport Auth-
ority's case (supra) at page 1042 of the Report. It must therefore
now be taken to be well settled that what Article 14 strikes at is
D arbitrariness because any action that is arbitrary, must necessarily
involve negation of equality. The doctrine of classification which is
evolved by the courts is not para-phrase of Article 14 nor is it the
objective and end of that Article. It is merely a judicial formula for
determining whether the legislative or executive action in question is
arbitrary and therefore constituting denial of equality. If the classi-
E fication is not reasonable and does not satisfy the two conditions .
referred to above, the impugned legislative or executive action would
plainly be arbitrary and the guarantee of equality under Article 14
would be breached. Wherever therefore there is arbitrariness in
State action whether it be of the legislature or of the executive or of
an "authority" under Article 12, Article 14 immediately springs into
F
action and strikes down such State action. In fact, the concept of
reasonableness and non-arbitrariness pervades the entire constitutional
scheme and is a golden thread which runs through the whole of the
fabric of the Constitution. ·
We may now turn to the merits of the controversy between the
G parties. Though several contentions were urged in the writ petitions,
challenging the validity of the admisisons made to the college, they
were not all pressed before us and the principal contention that was
advanced was that the society acted arbitrarily in the matter of grant-
ing of admissions, first by ignoring the marks obtained by the candi-
dates at the qualifying examination; secondly by relying on viva voce
H examination as a test for determining comparative merit of the candi-
dates; thirdly by allocating as many as 50 marks for the viva voce
examination as against 100 marks allocated for the written test and
AJAY IIASIA v. KHALID MUJIB (Bhagwati, J.) 103

lastly, by holding superficial interviews lasting only 2 or 3 minutes on A
an average and-asking questions which had no relevance to assess-
ment of the suitability of the candidates with reference to the four
factors required to be considered at the viva voce examination. Now
so far as the challenge on the first count is concerned, we do not think
it is at all well-founded. It is difficult to appreciate how a procedure
for admission which does not take into account the marks obtained B
at the qualifying examination, but prefers to test the comparative
merit of the candidates by insisting on an entrance examination can
ever be said to be arbitrary. It has been pointed o'ut in the counter
affidavit filed by H. L. Chowdhury on behalf of the college that there
are two universities on two different dates and the examination by the
('
Board of Secondary Education for Jammu is also held on a different
date than the examination by the Board of Secondary Education for
Kashmir and the results of these examinations are not always declared
before the admissions to the college can be decided. The College
being the only institution for education in engineering courses in the
State of J ammn & Kashmir has to cater to the needs of both the D
regions and it has, therefore, found it necessary and expedient to
regulate admissions by holding an entrance test, so that the admission
process may not be held up on account of late declaration of results
of the qualifying examination in either of the two regions. The ent-
rance test also facilitates the assessment of the comparative talent of
the candidates by application of a uniform standard and is always E
preferable to evaluation of comparative merit on the basis of marks
obtained at the qualifying examination, when the qualifying examina-
tion is held by two or more different authorites, because lack of
uniformity is bound to creep into the assessment of candidates by
different authorities with different modes of examination. We would
not, therefore, regard the procedure adopted by the society as arbit- II'
rary merely because it refused to take into account the marks obtain-
ed by the candidates at the qualifying examination, but chose to
regulate the admissions by relying on the entrance test.
,
The second ground of challenge questioned the validity of viva
voce examination as a permissible test for selection of candidates for G
admission to a college. The contention of the petitioners under this
ground of challenge was that viva voce examination does not afford
a proper criterion for assessment of the suitability: of the candidates
for admission and it is a highly subjective and impressionistic test
where the result is likely to be influenced by many uncertain and im-
ponderable factors such as predelictions and prejudices of the inter- H
viewers, his attitudes and approaches, his pre-conceived notions and
idiosyncrasies and it is also capable of abuse because it leaves scope
104 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1981] 2 S.C.R.

A for discrimination, manipulation and nepotism which can remain
undetected nnder the cover of an interview and moreover it is not
possible to assess the capacity and calibre of a candidate in the course
of an interview lasting only for a few minutes and, therefore, selec-
tions made on the basis of oral interview must be regarded as arbit-
rary and hence voilative of Art. 14. Now this criticism cannot be
B said to be wholly unfounded and it reflects a point of view which has
certainly some validity. We may quote the following passage from
the book on "Public Administration in Theory and Practice" by M. P.
Sharma which voices a far and balanced criticism of the oral interview
method
c "The oral test of the interview has been much criticised
on the ground of its subjectivity and uncertainty. Differ-
ent interviews have their own notions of good personality.
Far some, it consists more in attractive physical appearance
and dress rather than anything else, and with them the breezy
and shiny type of candidate scores highly while the rough
D uncut diamonds may go unappreciated. The atmosphere of
the interview is artificial and prevents some candidates from
appearing at their best. Its duration is short, the few ques-
tions of the hit-or-miss type, which are put, may fail to re-
veal the real worth of the candidate. It has been said that
E Gad takes a whole life time to judge a man's worth while
interviewers have to do it in a quarter of an hour. Even at
it's best, the common sort of interview reveals but the
superficial aspects of the candidate's personality like appear-
ance, speaking power, and general address. Deeper traits of
leadership, tact, forcefulness, etc. go largely undetected. The
F Interview is often in the nature of desullory conversation.
Marking differs greatly from examiner to examiner. An
anal¥sis of the interview results show that the marks award-
ed to candidates who competed more than once for the
same service vary surprisingly. All this shows that there
is a great clement of chance in the interview test. This be-
G comes a serious matter when the marks assigned to oral
test constitute a high proportion of the total marks in the
competition.

01 Glenn Stahl points out in his book on "Public Personnel Adminis-
tration" that there are three disadvantages from which the oral test
II method suffers, namely, "{1) the difficulty of developing valid and
reliable oral tests; (2) the difficulty of securing a reviewable record
on an oral test; and (3) public suspicion of the oral test as a channel
AJAY IIASIA v. KIIALID MUJl1' (Bhagwati, J.) 105

for the exertion of political influence" and we may add, other corrupt, A
nepotistic or extraneous considerations. The learned author then
proceeds to add in a highly perceptive and critical passage :

"The oral examination has failed in the past in direct
proportion to the extent of its misuse. It is a delicate
inst_r:ument and, in inexpert hands, a dangerous one. The B
first condition of its successful use is the full recognition
of its limitations. One of the most P.rolific sources of error
in the oral has been the failure on the part of examiners to
understand the nature of evidence and to discrimina.te
between that which _was relevant, material and reliable and
that which was not. It also must be remembered tll'at the c
best oral interview provides opportunity for analysis of
only a very small part of a person's total behaviour. Gene-
ralizations from a single interview regarding an individual's
total personality pattern -have been proved repeatedly to be
wrong."
D

But, despite all this cnt1c1sm, the oral interview method continues
to be very much in vogue as a supplementary test for assessing the
suitability of candidates wherever test of personal traits is considered
essential. Its relevance as a test for determining suitability based
on personal cl:raracteristics has been recognised in a number of deci- E
sions of this Court which are binding upon us. In the first case on
the point which came before this Court, namely, R. Chitra Lekha
and Others v. State of Mysore and Others(') this Court pointed out :

"In the field of education there are diver_gent views as
regards the mode of testing the capacity and calibre of stu- F
dents in the matter of admissions to colleges. Orthodox edu-
cationists stand by the marks obtained by a student in the
annual examination. The modem trend of opinion insists
• upon other additional tests, such as interview, performance
in extra-curricular activities, personality test, psychiatric
tests e\c. Obviously we are not in a position to judge which G
method is preferable or which test is the correc:t one ..... .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The scheme of selec-
... tion, however, perf~t it may be on paper, may be abused
in practice. That it is capable of abuse is not a ground for
quashing it. So long as the order lays down relevant objec-
H
tive criteria and entrusts the business of selection to quali-
(1) [1964] 6 S.C.R. 368.

-.;--~
106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (198!] 2 S.C.R.

A lied persons, this Court cannot obviously have any say in
the matter.

and on this view refused to hold the oral interview test as irrelevant
or arbitrary. It was also pointed out by this Court in A. Peeriakaruppan
v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors:(')
B "In most cases, the first impression need not necessarily
be the past impression, but under the existing conditions,
we are unable to accede to the .contentions of the petitioners
that the system of interview as in vogue in this• country is so
defective as to make it useless."

c It is therefore not possible. to accept the contentions of the
petitioners that the oral interview test is so defective that selecting
candidates for admission on the basis of oral interview in addition to
written test must be regarded as arbitrary. The oral interview test is
undoubtedly not a very satisfactory test for assessing and evaluating
the capacity and calibre of candidates, but in the absence of any better
D test for measuring personal characteristics and traits, the oral interview
test must, at the present stage, be regarded as not irrational or irrele-
vant though it is snbjective and based on first impression, its result
is influenced by many uncertain factors and it is capable of abuse.
We would, however, like to point out that in the matter of admission
to college or even in the matter of public employment, the oral inter-
E view test as presently held should not be relied upon as an exclusive
test, but it may be resorted to only as an additional or supplementary
test and, moreover, great care must be taken to see that persons who
are appointed to conduct the oral interview test are men of high inte-
grity, calibre and qualification. ·
So far as the third ground of challenge is concerned, we do not
F
think it can be dismissed as unsubstantial. The argument of the
petitioners under this head of challenge was that even if oral interview
may be regarded in principle as a valid test for selection of candidates
for admission to a college, it was in the present case arbitrary and •
unreasonable since the marks allocated for the oral interview were very
G much on the higher side as compared with the marks allocated for the
written test. The marks allocated for ~ oral interview were 50 as •
against 100 allocated for the written test, so that the mark. allocated
for the oral interview carne to 3 3 1 /3 % of the total number of marks
taken into account for the purpose of making the selection. This,
contended the petitioners, was beyond all reasonable proportion and
H rendered the selection of the candidates arbitrary and violative of the
equality clause of the Constitution. Now there can be no doubt that,
(!) [1971] 2 S.C.R. 430.
AJAY HASIA v. KHALID MUJIB (Bhagwati, !.) 107

having regard to the drawbacks and deficiencies in the oral interview A
test and the conditions prevailing in the country, particularly when
there is deterioration in moral values and corruption and nepotism are
ve1y much on the increase, allocation of a high percentage of marks
for the oral interview as compared to the marks allocated for the
written test, cannot be accepted by the Court as free frorn the vice of
arbitrariness. It may be pointed out that even in Peeriakaruppan's B
case (supra), where 75 marks out of a total of 275 marks were allo-
cated for the oral interview, this Court observed that the marks allo-
cated for interview were on the highside. This Court also observed
in Miss Nishi Maghu's case (supra): "Reserving 50 marks for inter-
view out of a total of 150 ... does seem excessive, especially when
the time spent was not more than 4 minutes on each candidate". There c
can be no doubt that allocating 33 1/3 of the total marks for oral
interview is plainJy arbitrary and unreasonable. It is significant to
note that even for selection of candidates for the Indian Administra-
tive Service, the Indian Foreign Service and the Indian Police Service,
where the personality of the candidate and his perso!J.al characteristics
and traits are extremely relevant for the purpose of se]ection, the marks
D
allocated for oral interview are 250 as against 1800 marks for the
written examination, constituting only 12.2% of the total marks taken
into consideration for the purpose of making the selection. We must,
therefore, regard the allocation of as high a percentage as 33 1/3 of
the total marks for the oral interview as infecting the admission pro- E
cedure with the vice of arbitrariness and selection of candidates made
on the basis of such admission procedure cannot be sustained. But
we do not think we would be justified iri the exercise of our discretion
in setting aside the selections made for the academic year 1979-80
after the lapse of a period of about 18 months, since to do so woul~
be to cause immense hardship to those students in whose case the F
validity of the selection cannot otherwise be questioned and who have
nearly completed three semesters and, moreover, even if the petitioners
are ultimately found to be deserving of selection on Jhe application of
the proper test, it would not be possible to restore them! to the position
as if they were admitted for the academic year 1979-80, which has run
out long since. It is true there is an allegation of mala fides against G
the Committee which interviewed the candidates and we may concede
that if this allegation were established, we might have been inclined to
interfere with the selections even after the lapse of a period of 18
months, because the writ petitions were filed as early as October-
November, 1979 and merely because the Court could not take-up the
a
hearing of the writ petitions for such long time should be no ground H
for denying relief to the petitioners, if they are otherwise so entitled.
But we do not think that on the material placed before us we call
8-1281 SCI/80
108 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1981] 2 S.C.R.

sustain the allegation of mala fides against the: Committee. It is true,
and this is a rather disturbing feature of the present cases, that a large
number of successful candidates succeeded in obtaining admission to
the college by virtue of very high marks obtained by them at the viva
voce examination tilted the balance in their favour, though _the marks
secured by them at the qualifying examination were much less than
.B those obtaiued by the petitioners and even in the written test, they had
fared much worse than the petitioners. It is clear from the chart sub-
mitted to us on behalf of the petitioners that the marks awarded at the
interview are by and large in inverse proportion to the marks obtained
by the candidates at the qualifying examination and are also, in a
large number of cases, not commensurate with the marks obtained in
c the written test. The chart does create a strong suspicion in our mind
that the marks awarded at the viva voce examination might have been
manipulated with a view to favouring the candidates who ultimately
came to be selected, but suspicion cannot take the place of proof
and we cannot hold the plea of mala fides to be established. We
need much more cogent material before we can hold that the Com-
D mittee deliberately manipulated the marks at the viva voce examination
with a view to favouring certain candidates as aganist the petitioners.
We cannot, however, fail to mention that this is a matter which
required to be looked into very carefully and not only the State Gov-
ernment, but also the Central Government which is equally responsible
for the proper running of the colI~ge, must take care to see that proper
E
persons are appointed on the interviewing committees and there is no
executive interference with their decision-making process. We may also
caution the authorities that though, in the present case, for reasons
which we have already given, we are not interfering with the selection
for the academic year 1979-80, the selections made for the subsequent
F academic years would run the risk of invalidation if such a high per·
centage of marks is allocated for the oral interview. We are of the
view that, under the existing circumstances, allocation of more than
15 % of the total marks for the oral interview would be arbitrary and
unreasonable and would be liable to be struck down as constitutionally •
invalid.
G The petitioners, arguing under the last ground of challenge, urged
that the oral interview as conducted in the present case was a mere
pretence or farce, as it did not last for more than 2 or 3 minutes per
candidate on an average and the questions which were asked were )
formal questions relating to parentage and residence of the candidate
and hardly any question was asked which bad relevance to assessment
H of the suitability of the candidate with reference to any of the four
factors required to be considered by the Committee. When the time
spent on each candidate was not more 2 or 3 minutes on an average,
AJAY RASIA v. KHALID MUJIB (Bhagwati, J.) I 09

t. contended the petitioners, how could the suitability of the candidate A
be assessed on a consideration of the relevant factors by holding such
an interview and how could the Committee possibly judge the merit
of the candidate with reference to these factors when no questions
bearing on these factors were asked to the candidate. Now there can
be no doubt that if the interview did not take more than 2 or 3 minutes
on an average and the questions asked had no bearing on the factors B
required to be taken into account, the oral interview test would be
vitiated, because it would be impossible in such an interview to assess
the merit of a candidate with reference to these factors. This allega-
¥ tion of the petitioners has been denied in the affidavit in reply filed by
H. L. Chowdhury on behalf of the college and it ha~ been stated that
each candidate was interviewed for 6 to 8 minutes and "only the rele-
c
vant questions on the aforesaid subjects were asked". If this state-
ment of H. L. Chowdhury is correct, we cannot find much fault with
the oral interview test held by the Committee. But we do not think
we can act on this staten;ient made by H. L. Chowdhury, because there
is nothing to show that he was present at the interviews and none of D
the three Committee members has come forward to make an affidavit
denying the allegation of the petitioners and stating that each candidate
was interviewed for 6 to 8 minutes and only relevant questions
were asked. We must therefore, proceed on the basis that the inter-
view of each candidate did not last for more than 2 or 3 minutes on
an average and hardly any questions were asked having bearing on the E
relevant factors. If that be so, the oral interview test must be held
to be vitiated and the selection made on the basis of such test must be
held to be arbitrary. We are, however, not inclined for reasons
already given, to set aside the selection made for the academic year
1979-80, though we may caution the State Government and the
Society that for the future academic years, selections may be made on F
-the basis of observation made by us in this judgment lest they might
liln the risk of being struck down. We may point out that, in our
opinion, if the marks allocated for the oral interview do not exceed
15 % of the total marks and the candidates are properly interviewed
and relevant questions are asked with a view to assessing their suitabi-
lity with reference to the factors require<J to be taken into consideration, G
t11e oral interview test would satisfy the criterion of reasonableness and
non-arbitrariness. We think that it would also be desirable if the
interview of the candidates is tape-recorded, for in that event there will
be contemporaneous evidence to show what were the questions asked
to the candidates by the interviewing committee and what were the
answers given and that will eliminate a lot of unnecessary controversy H
besides acting as a check on the possible arbitrariness of the interview-
ing committee.
A
110 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981) 2 S.C.R.

We may point out that the State Government, the Society and the
College have agreed before us that the best fifty students, out of those
who applied for admission for the academic year 1_979-80 and who •
t
have failed to secure admission so far, will be granted admission for
the academic year 1981-82 and· the seats allocated to them will be in
addition to the normal intake of students in the College. We order
B accordingly.
Subject to the above direction, the writ petitions are dismissed, but
having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present cases, we
think that a fair order of costs would be that each party should bear
and pay its own costs of the writ petitions. -'"'-
c
S. R. Petitions dismissed.