Holding

The Court held that the State's procedures for identifying backward areas, allocating test points, and selecting candidates were valid and not arbitrary, and that reservations could be claimed despite temporary urban residence, while nominations outside the State must conform to the Suman Qipta guidelines.

Summary

The petitioners challenged the selection of candidates for MBBS, BDS and engineering courses in Jammu & Kashmir, alleging that the State's addition of villages to the backward‑area list was arbitrary, that temporary urban residence disqualified reservation claims, that the 85‑point written test and 15‑point viva voce allocation gave undue weight to the viva, that no minimum qualifying marks were prescribed for reserved categories, and that the Selection Committee failed to preserve viva‑voce worksheets. The Supreme Court examined the State Government Orders (SRO 272, 334, 335, 412, 380) and found that the list of backward villages could be enlarged based on changing conditions and that the Tehsildar certificates were sufficient proof of eligibility. It held that temporary residence in a city does not defeat a candidate's claim to a backward‑area reservation and that the 85/15 point split does not create an unreasonable imbalance. The Court also ruled that the absence of a minimum qualifying standard for reserved categories does not render the selection arbitrary, and that while the Committee should have retained worksheets, no malafide intent was shown. Consequently, the writ petitions and the special leave petition were dismissed, and the State’s nominations to colleges outside the State were upheld only where they complied with the earlier Suman Qipta judgment.

Issues considered

The legality of adding villages to the backward‑area list after the original SRO 272 notification
Whether temporary residence in an urban area defeats eligibility for reservation under the backward‑area category
Whether the allocation of 85 points to the written test and 15 points to the viva voce gives undue weight to the viva and is unreasonable
Whether the absence of a minimum qualifying percentage for candidates from reserved categories renders the selection arbitrary
Whether the Selection Committee was required to preserve viva‑voce worksheets and the impact of their destruction
Validity of nominations to medical and engineering colleges outside the State under the Suman Qipta precedent
Whether candidates with inferior merit can be selected over those with higher merit in the select list

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 32

Subjects

reservationbackward areasadmissionmedical collegesengineering collegesviva vocewritten testselection proceduremeritnominationJammu and Kashmir

Judgment

560

A1UL KHllLLAR & ORS. ETC. ETC.
A
v.
STATE OF J & KAND ORS. ETC. ETC.

APRIL 15, 1986

[R.S. PATHAK, O. CHINNAPPA REDDY AND R.B. MISRA, JJ.]
B
Professional Colleges Admission to Medical~
Engineering Colleges - Selection of candidates from backward
areas/classes - Validity of. Selection Procedure - Allocation
of only 85 points to written test and 15 points to viva voce -
Whether gives weightage to viva voce over written test. Viva
voce test - Reference of components - Behaviour, physical:-t"
c bearing and power of oral expression - Worksheets of
individual members of Selection Committee - Need to maintain~
Selection/Nomination of candidates - Relevance of merit in the
Select List.

The petitioners challenged the selection of candidates
D
for admission to the first year of the MBBS and BOS degrees in
the Government Medical Colleges at Srinagar and Jallllll, the
B.E. First Year Course in the Regional Engineering College!.I..
Srinagar, and the nominations made by the State Government to"!"
the Medical and Engineering Colleges outside the State for the
academic year 1984-85.
E
Admission to these courses was through entrance
examinations consisting of a written test and a viva vocej....
test, conducted separately for the medical and engineering
courses. Under the procedure laid down in the Jamnn &Kashmir-y
Government Medical Colleges (Selection of Candidates for
F
Admission to the First Year MBBS Course) Procedure Order,
1983, the written test carried 85 points and the viva voce
test 15 points, making a total of 100 points. The points
reserved for the viva voce test were sub-divided into 8 points
for "Aptitude" andJpoints for "General Knowledge and General
Intelligence". A similar procedure was prescribed for
G
admission to the Regional Engineering College, Srinagar. The.... ._
entire pro~eedings during the interviews were to be recorde~
on a tape recorder. Fifty per cent of the toi:al admissions
were to be affected on the basis of open merit and the

H
ATUL KRULi.AR v. STATE 561

~-ining fifty per cent on the basis of merit from llllODgst A
~rved categories including the Scheduled Castes, socially
and educationally backward cl88ses 88 well 88 residents of
backward areas, Nominations to the institutions outside the
State were to be 1l8de on the basis of merit in the select
list.
B
Annexure 1 to SRO 272 issued by the State Government on
iuly 3, 1982 enumerated 1153 villages short of the Actual Line
of Control Zone as backward areas of the State. SRO 334 dated
June 13, 1983, raised this figure to 1754 villages. Thereafter
SRO 335 dated June 14, 1983 added 25 villages and SRO 412
dated August 27, 1984 another 14 villages with the result that
_,,!793 villages constituted the backward areas of the State. In c
I regard to the Actual Line of Control Zone, SRO 335 added 9
jillages to the 347 villages identified earlier. Candidates
Clailling consideration under the backward areas category were
required to enclose a certificate by the Tehsildar in support
of their claim to that benefit.
D
It was contended for the petitioners that the selection
of several candidates from the backward areas categories,
including areas near the Actual Line of Control Zone, was
tnvalid as the category includes areas which were not
~riginally included in Annex. 1 to SRO 272 but have been added
subsequently, that candidates shown as residing in urban E
areas of cities cannot be regarded as candidates from the
backward areas category even though their respective families
hailed from such areas, that the absence of minilllllll qualifying
~tandard renders the selection of candidates from reserved
areas categories arbitrary and invalid, that the allocation of
)-only 85 points to the written test and as many as 15 points to F
the viva ~ tes~ ont of a total of 100 points givea a
weightage to the viva ~ test over the written test which
was unreasonable, that the merks assigned to the candidates
during the viva voce test had been manipulated in order to
ensure that the number of candidates selected from the Valley
of Kashmir corresponded in proportion to the respective G
strengths of the collllllnities in Kashllir, that notwithstanding
""' J!e specific order made by the Court on March 19, 1985 the
respondent State had failed to produce ·the worksheets of the
individual members of the Selection Committee, that the
Selection Conaittee by taking into account the behaviour,
H
562 SUPRF.ME COURT REPORTS [19861 2 s.c.R.

A
physical bearing and power of oral expresdon of t~
candidates under the "general ~ntelligence" during the ~
voce test, bad given importance to considerations which were
hardly relevant for asae1sing the intelligence and suitability
of the candidates, that candidates with inferior merit in the
select list were adllitted over the head of those with superior
merit, and that the notination1 of candidates ude by the
B
State Governant to colleges outside the State were invalid
inasmch as they violated tbe criteria laid down by thi~
Court.
The special leave petition bad been filed by the
candidates against the order of the High Court setting aside
...
c
their selection because of their inferior merit in the ,
select list. ""f

Dismissing the writ petitions and the special leave
petition, the Court, --
D
llltD : 1. The State Govet'llEnt could not be said to have
acted arbitrarily and without reason in identifying and adding
more backward villages .to the DWlber ellUlll!rated in SRO 272
dated July 3, 1982, That list was open to further
enlugement, and so was the case with subsequent.
E notifications. It is perfectly possible for the conditions olf
a village to change during the years, and it is quite
conceivable that a village considered suitably developed at
one time should deteriorate thereafter to the point of
becoming backward. [570 C-E)
~
F 2, Temporary residence in an urban area cannot deny a
candidate the right of admission on the basis· of a reserveci-f
category if in fact he belongs permanently to a village in a '
backward area, Because of the lack of · higher educational
facilities a candidate belonging to a village in the backward
area may have to reside temporarily in a city where such
G
edueation is available, It uy also be that a parent of the
candidate uy pursuant to his employment, have taken up
residence in an urban area. That in itself does not snap the
bond between the candidate's family and their village, so lo~ !f,--
as the assumption of residence in the city is occasioned by
temporary necessity. The candidates who claimed the benefit of
H pel'll&Dent residence in backward areas have filed a certificate
ATUL KHULLAR v, STATE 563

frOlll the Tehsildar in the prescribed fora in support of their A
• ---· clai11, and there is nothing on record ex facie to doubt the
correctness of that certificate. [571 F; S72 A-<:; 571 B-C)

3. lbe advertisenent calling for applications for
adllission prescribed the·minillllJI percentage of marks required
in the specified examinations as a condition of eligibility B
for candidates generally, while laying down a lower minillUll
i percentage for candidates belonging to reserved categories.
That ensured not only that candidates with sufficiently
suitable academic level were alone permitted to apply but also
that the minillllll percentage of marks attained by candidates
from the several categories in the entrance examination would
not fall below a reasonable level, Though no minillllll has been c
'"t prescribed as the bottom line for selecting candidates fro11
the reserved categories, no such minilllllll has been prescribed
,i; for selecting candidates from the general category either, lbe
rule 1111St be that candidates are selected for admission from
the different categories according to the order of nerit,
[572 F-H; 573 A-C) D

4, lbe allocation of only 85 points to the written test
and as many as 15 points to the viva voce test out of 100
,... points does not give a weightage to the viva ~ test over
· the written test. It cannot be said to create an unreasonable
imbalance in the evaluation of a candidate's ability. E
[573 F-G)

Kosbal Ktmar Gupta & Ors. v. State of J & K & Ors.,
~ [1984] 3 S.C,R. 407 referred to.

y 5. Unless there was clear evidence to show that there F
was a conscious attempt to ensure that the selection of
candidates from different commmities corresponded to the
strengh of those co=ities in the Valley of Kashmir, it
cannot be said that there was any deliberate connection
between the number of candidates selected and the strength of
the respective co111111nities from which they hail. [574 C-E) G

...,. "- Triloki lfath & Anr. y, State of J - & Kashmir & On.,
[1969) 1 S.C.R. 103 referred to,

6. A Selection Collllittee conducting the !!!!, ~ test
should maintain. the entire record, including the original H
worksheets on which the marks have been recorded by each
564 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986) 2 s.c.R.

member separately, for a minimllll period of one year after the ,
A
examination. Failure to do so could strengthen an allegation '., •
of malafides against the Selection Coamittee. [575 F-G)

7. Where a viva voce test is permissible for the purpose
of adjudging the general intelligence of the candidates, its
three components-behaviour, physical bearing and the power of
oral expression become relevant. The presence of mind display-
B
ed by a candidate in answering a question in an index of~
general intelligence, and his power of oral expression is
evidence of his ability to co~cate intelligently. The
third component-physical bearing, possesses a somewhat remote
connection with general intelligence. It denotes the physical
manner in which the candidate responds to the stress and _,
c
tension experienced by him during the interview. Though I
tenuous, this component is not so unrelated to general ~
intelligence that it could be said to be an unreasonable
element in deciding on a candidate's suitability. [577 F-H;
578 A-BJ
D
8. The admission of candidates is liable to be quashe4
unless they have been selected by virtue of their merit in the
select list. If a candidate not holding a position of merit
has been erroneously selected, the candidate who is qualified .>
by virtue of his position in order of merit is entitled to be
admitted in his place. [579 G-H]
E
9. Nominations to medical and engineering colleges
outside the State shall be made strictly on the basis of ~rit
in the select list. The State Government 1111st nominate )
candidates in place of the vacancies arising thereafter in
accordance with the merit list which was in force in the -f
F
State. [579 F]

SllMll Gupta & Ors. v. State of J & It & Ors., [1983] 3
s.c.R. 985 followed.

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petitions Nos. 3023-32 of
G
1985 etc.

Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

Dr. Y.S. Chitale, Altaf Ahmad, S.K. Bisaria, S.K.
Bhattacharya, s.c. Patel, Subhash Sharma, L.R. Singh, B.B.
H
ATUL KHULLAR v. STATE [PATHAK, J,] 565

Sawhney, Ms, Indra Sawhney, Mrs, Jaya Mala and K. Bansi Lal A
~ ...,for the Petitioners.

S,N, Kscker, M,H, Baig, E.C. Agarwala, R, Sathish, V.K.
Plllldit, Shabir Ahmed for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by B

. PAl'llAK, J, On May 10, 1985 we delivered an order in
~hese cases disposing of the writ petitions and special leave
petitions. We stated that the reasons for the order would be

- pronounced later. The hearing of these cases had been
completed only a few days before the commencement of the Long
V~tion and as counsel for the parties desired that we
1 deliver the order before the Court closed we did so. We now
c

...set for th the reasons •

The large group of writ petitions and special leave
petition before us fall into two groups. A number of them
challenge the selection of candidates for admission to the D
first year course of the M.B.B.S. Degree and the B.D.S. Degree
in the Government Medical Colleges at Srinagar and Jallllll.l for
the session 1984-85, They also challenge the nominations of
students from Ja= and Ksshmir by the State Government to
.._Medical Colleges outside that State. The other group of cases
challenges the validity of the Select List for admission to E
the B.E. First Year course of studies at the Regional
Engineering College, Srinagar and also assail the validity of
nominations made by the State Government to Engineering
·* Colleges outside the State.
Medical Group F

On June 10, 1984 the Government of Ja111DJ and Ksshmir
published an advertisement inviting applications from
permanent residents of the State for admission to the First
Year M.B.B.S. Course in the Medical Colleges of the State for
the session 1984-85, To be eligible, candidates should have G
passed one of the qualifying examinations mentioned therein
_..,."'and should have studied in the recognised educational
institutions in the State. Fifty per cent of the total
admissions were to be affected on the basis of open merit
while the remaining fifty per cent were to be selected on the
H
566 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1986] 2 s.c.R.

A
basis of their merit from certain reserved categories,
including Scheduled Castes, Socially and Educationally'"- ~
Backward classes comprising weak and under-privileged classes
(Gujjar and Bakarwal and other social castes), as well as
residents of backward areas. Eligible candidates were to
appear in a written entrance test and a viva voce test. The
B backward areas consisted of the areas enumerated in Annexure I
to S.R.O. 272 dated July 3, 1982 issued by the State Govern-
ment and prepared on the basis of the Wazir Committee Report~
and the Anand Committee Report as well as the Census Reports
of 1971. To those villages were added a number of ol!-hers by

c
Notification No. SRO 335 dated June 14, 1983 and S.R.O. 412
dated August 27, 1984. Candidates claiming consideration under
the backward areas category were required to enclose a .
-
certificate by the Tehsildar in support of their claim to that.-r'
benefit.

Thereafter the State Government issued S.R.O. 380 dated
D July 7, 1983 modifying the Notification S.R.O. 272 dated July
3, 1982, and promulgating the Jammu and Kashmir Government
Medical Colleges (Selection of Candidates for Admission to the
First Year M.B.B.S. Course) Procedure Order, 1983. Thereby the
written test was to carry 85 points and the viva voce test was
to carry 15 points, making a total of 100 points. The points.,;.
E earmarked for the viva voce test were further sub-divided into ·
(a) Aptitude, carrying BPoint and (b) General Knowledge and
General Intelligence, carrying 7 points. On August 9, 1984 the
State Government sanctioned the constitution of an Admission
Selection Committee for the selection of candidates for admis-
sion to the two Medical Colleges of the State for the session )'..
.F 1984-85. The Chairman of the Public Service Commission was
appointed Chairman of the Admission Selection Committee, and"''
the Principal, Government Medical College, Srinagar and the_'
Principal Government Medical College, Jammu were to be its two
members. The Committee was empowered to arrange and conduct
the written test and to evolve its own procedure for the
G appointment of Examiners, the setting of papers and the
conduct of the Examination. The Selection Committee decided
that the Principals of the two Medical Colleges, who were
Members of the Committee, would set the question papers and )I, 41
the answer books would be evaluated by a list of Examiners
drawn up by the Committee. The viva voce Examination was to be
H conducted by a procedure which envisaged the preparation of
ATUL KHULIAR v. STATE [PATHAK, J,] 567

A
question cards on each subject, the question cards would be
·- ~ kept in the interview room during the interview and individual
candidates would be asked to draw the question cards of their
choice, each candidate being required to pick up one card from
each group and after reading the question the candidate was
to give his oral answer. The Committee would assess the B
performance of each candidate and allot points in accordance
with the provisions of S. R. O. 380 dated July 7, 1983. The
entire proceeding during the interviews was to be recorded by
j. tape recorders.

- "r
The written tests were held at. Srinagar and Jammu on
September 12 and 13, 1983, and the answer scripts were
evaluated from October 1, 1984 to October 13, 1984. The viva
voce test was conducted at Srinagar from October 8, 1984 to
c

Al October 17, 1984 and at Janmu from November 19, 1984 to
November 24, 1984. Before the interviews comprising the viva
voce test were conmenced the Admission Selection Committee
decided on October 8, 1984 that the 15 points allocated to D
the viva voce test should be further sub-divided as follows
----
Aptitude ... 8 Points

.... 2.1. Chemistry
l'hysics ... 2 points
... 2 points E
3. Biology ... 4 points
(Botany) ... 2 points
(Zoology) ... 2 points
~ General Knowledge and General Intelligence 7 Points
1. General Knowledge ...
4 points F
'y' 2. General Intelligence ...
3 points
(a) Presence of mind ...
1 point
(b) l'hysical Bearing ...
1 point
(c) Expression ...
1 point

Earlier the State Government had published an advertisement G
dated September 19, 1984 inviting applications from residents
of the State for training in the B. D.S. Course in various
.,.;. ~ Dental Colleges of different States for the session 1984-85,
and on September 21, 1984 the State Government wrote to the
Admission Selection Collllrlttee that while holding interviews of
H
568 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1986) 2 S.C.R.

A
candidates for admission to the M.B.B.S. Course it should give
an option to the candidates to choose whether they would like ~ -
to be considered for training in the B.D.S. Course during the
current session, and that accordingly such candidates should
be interviewed in accordance with the provisions of
Notification S. R. O. 380 dated July 7, 1983. Nine candidates
B were to be selected for that Course.

On January 19, 1985 the State Government published a
list of candidates selected for admission to the First Year ~

-
M.B.B.S. Course in the two Government Medical Colleges of the
State and to the First Year B. D.S. Course in the Government
c Medical College, Srinagar for the session 1984-85. For the
First Year M.B.B.S. Course 76 candidates were selected on the
basis of open merit and 74 candidates were selected from the
reserved categories, making 150 candidates in all. Nine ~
candidates were selected for admission to the First Year
B. D. s. Course.
D
Beside the selection of candidates for admission to the
Medical Colleges of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the State
Government nominated certain candidates for admission to
Medical Colleges outside the State. These included nominations
of candidates for admission to the M. B. B. s. Course and the 41>
E B. D.S. Course in the Medical Colleges of the State of Tamil
Nadu.

The petitioners are candidates who applied for admission
to the First Year M. B. B. s. Course and the First Year B. D. s.
Course in the Government Medical Colleges of the State of ,ii<
F Jammu and Kashmir, but were not included in the Select Ll.st
respecting those Medical Colleges nor were nominated for ·-r
admission to any Medical College outside the State. They
challenge the selection of candidates for admission to the
Medical Colleges of the State as well as the nominations made
for admission to Medical Colleges outside the State.
G
I.earned counsel for the petitioners has taken us through
a historical survey of the various stages of evolution in
Jammu and Kashmir of the procedure for selecting candidates > ,..
for the professional courses of medicine and engineering,
culminating in the procedure employed for the purpose of the
H present selections. The successive decisions of this Court,
ATIJL KHULLAR v. STATE [PATHAK, J.) 569

A
~
from Trilold Nath ' .Anr. V• State of 3-1 ' X.shefr ' Ors.,
(1969) 1 S. C.R. 103 onwards; have been placed before us and
our attention has been invited to the contents of the Wazir
Coumittee Report, the Anand Coumittee Report and other
material which has entered into the formulation of the scheme
for admission. B

It is contended by learned cmmsel for the petitioners
._ that the selection of several candidates from the Backward
Areas category, including areas near the Actual Line of
Control, is invalid inasmuch as the category includes areas
which were not included originally in Annexure I to
Notification S.R.O. 272 dated July 3, 1982 but have been added c
~ subsequently, and that candidates_ not belonging to backward
areas have been selected under the reserved category. The
Jtc first prong of attack proceeds on the assumption that the area
added to those enumerated in Annexure I to Notification S. R. o.
272 dated July 3, 1982 could not have been treated as
backward areas. It is urged that the villages enumerated in D
Annexure I to s.R.O. 272 dated July 3, 1982 had been selected
on the basis of criteria set forth in the Wazir Committee
Report, the Anand Coumi t tee Report and the Census Reports of
1971, and no further areas could be added to that list which
• was completely exhaustive. It is pointed out that the Actual
Line of Control had all along remained unaltered after the E
Simla Agreement and there was no basis for adding to the
villages defined by their proximity to it. We are unable to
accept the suhnission. In regard to the backward areas short
-t ohadf theidActiuafil dLine of Coint rol Zone, the Wiaziri Commihtteeb Rekpordt
69 6 v 11ages as const tut ng t e ac war
ent e
~ areas of the State. The Anand Committee Report enlarged the F
number to 1153 villages. S.R.O. 334 dated June 13, 1983
identified as many as 1754 villages in that category.
Thereafter S.R.O. 335 dated June 14, 1983 added 25 villages
and S.R.O. 412 dated August 27, 1984 added another 14
villages. In the result, 1793 villages constituted the
backward areas of the State. In regard to the Actual Line of G
Control Zone, S.R.O. 335 dated June 14, 1983 added 9 villages
to the 347 villages identified earlier. The additional
--..;. "'- villages added by S.R.O. 335 dated June 14, 1983 and S.R.O.
412 dated August 27, 1984 by the State Government were so
added after the Cabinet of Ministers had considered the
material placed before it and taken a decision thereon. The
H
570 SUPRllIB COURT REPORTS (1986] 2 s.c.R.

A material included reports from the District Development ',... ~
Commissioners concerned. It is apparent from the Memorandum
submitted to the Cabinet that the criteria formulated by the
Wazir Committee. Report, the Anand Committee Report and the
data contained in the Census Reports of 1971 were present to
the mind of the Cabinet when the Orders were made. These
comprised the same criteria as formed the basis of identifying
B backward areas in S.R.O. 272 dated July 3, 1982. The District
Development Commissioners of the district concerned had <
already gone into the matter, and after holding meetings of
the District Development Boards they had made the
recommendations responsible for the addition of those
villages. We are not satisfied that the material before the
c State Government was such that the State Government can be ·f'
said to have acted arbitrarily and without reasons. We are of
opinion that S.R.O. 335 dated June 14, 1983 and S.R.O. 412 .._
dated August 27, 1984 cannot be regarded as invalid on that
ground. We are also of the view that the list of villages
enumerated in S.R.O. 272 dated July 3, 1982 cannot be regarded
D as a final and complete list for all time of villages
constituting the backward areas. It is perfectly possible for
the conditions of a village to change during the years, and it
is quite conceivable that a village considered suitably
developed at one time should deteriorate thereafter to the *
point of becoming backward. Therefore we hold that not only
E was the number of villages enumerated in Annexure I to S.R.o.
272 dated July 3, 1982 open to further enlargement, there was.
also good material on the basis of which the particular
villages mentioned by the State Government in the subsequent ~
Notifications could be legitimately added to the list of
backward areas •
F "'{
The second part of the contention set forth earlier is
that candidates not belonging to backward areas have been
selected for admission from the reserved categories. The
petitioners have indicated several names in the Select List
who, they say, should not have been given admission. We have
G gone through the entire list and carefully considered the
facts pertaining to those candidates whose inclusion has been
challenged by the petitioners. We find no sufficient material
for sustaining the challenge made by the petitioners. With the
assistance of counsel for the parties we have considered the
case in respect of each of the candidates selected in the
H
ATUL KHULLAR v. STATE [PATHAK, J.] 571

A
~ backward area categories, the Line of Actual C..ontrol Category
""'and the B. D. s. Course and we find that in each case the
candidate can be said to belong to a village listed as a
backward area either in S.R.O. 272 dated July 3, 1982 as
originally framed or pertaining to s. R. O. 335 dated June 14,
1983 or S.R.O. 412 dated August 27, 1984. In some cases the B
candidates had given an address in Jammu, and it is contended
by the petitioners that such candidates could not be regarded
·µs belonging to a backward area. The candidates who claimed
the benefit have filed a Tehsildar's Certificate in t~e
prescribed Form in support of their claim, and there is
nothing on record ex f acie to doubt the correctness of that
Certificate. Nor is it for the Court in this proceeding to c
.,inquire into the correctness of the Certificates. Annexure II
to Notification S.R.O. 272 dated July 3, 1982 makes provision
A.for the grant of such Certificate, their prescribed Forms, the
authority entrusted with the power to grant them and the
conditions subject to which they can be granted. Even if this
Court could be said to possess jursidiction to enter into an D
inquiry whether the Tehsildar's Certificates are valid and
reliable documents, it appears difficult, having regard to the
state of the record before us, to sustain the challenge to
their validity. A specific submission has been made in regard
• o the selections of Meenakshi Kotwal, Inderjit Singh and
certain other candidates who have been shown as residing in E
the City of Jammu, and it is urged that they cannot be
regarded as candidates from the backward areas category even
though their respective families hail from such areas. It
, appears to us that their residence in the City of Jammu is
•essentially of limited and temporary duration, and to our
· \ mind, temporary residence in an urban area cannot deny those F
Tcandidates the right to admission on the basis of a reserved
category if in fact they belong permanently to a village in a
backward area. Appendix II of Annexure II to S.R.O. 272 dated
July 3, 1982 requires that a candidate claiming to be a
permanent resident in areas adjoining the Actual Line of
Control or in other backward areas should establish the ground G
of his claim before the Tehsildar before he can be issued a
certificate in that behalf. The Tehsildar has granted a
. .,. .tcertificate to the different candidates whose title to
consideration as members of the reserved categories has been
challenged by the petitioners, and there is no satisfactory
material before us to indicate that the basis underlying the
H
572 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] 2 S.C.R.

certificate is entirely without substance. A candidate may,._ -
A
belong to a village in terms of the requiretrent prescribed by
the Anand Conmittee Report and because of the lack of higher
educational facilities he may have to reside temporarily in a
city where such education is available. It may also be that a
parent of the candidate may pursuant to his employirent, have
taken up residence in an urban area. That in itself does not
snap the bond between the candidate's family and the village,
B
so long as the assumption of residence in the city is-11
occasioned by temporary necessity.

A specific challenge has also been made to the selection

c
of the candidate Farooq Ahtred (Roll No. 503) who is said to
have been actually awarded. 41.31 points but has been shown
having got 44.31 points. We have carefully examined the matter
asr
and in our opinion it appears that a mistake had bee~
committed in the original recording of marks, and the mistake
was removed by finally correcting the candidate's tally to
44.31 points.
D
A complaint has been made by the petitioners that in the
case of candidates from reserved area categories no qualifying
minimum has been prescribed and, therefore, no matter what the
marks attained by him the candidate has to be regarded a~
entitled to selection. It is contended that the absence of
E minimum qualifying standard renders the selection of
candidates from reserved area categories arbitrary and
invalid. The contention 1111st fail. In the first place, the
advertisetrent calling for applications for admission to the j.
Medical Colleges clearly prescribes the minimum percentage of
marks required in the specified examinations as a condition of -f~
F eligibility. While a minimum percentage of marks has been ·
prescribed for candidates generally, a lower minimum
percentage has been laid down for candidates belonging to the
categories of Scheduled Castes, Gujjars, Bakarwals and
candidates hailing from the Districts of Leh and Kargil. That
ensures that candidates with a sufficiently suitable academic
level are alone permitted to apply. It can be expected that
G
having regard to the minimum qualifying percentage applied as,li,. ~
a condition of eligibility for the purpose of submitting
applications, the mini1111m percent!lge of marks attained by
candidates from the several categories in the entrance
examination will not fall below a reasonable level. There is
H
ATUL KllULIAR V• STATE (PATHAK, J,] 573

A
~ no doubt that no minimum has been prescribed as the bottom
•• line for selecting candidates from the reserved categories,
but no such minimum has been prescribed for selecting
candidates from the general category either. lhere is a
limited number of seats, and the allocation of those seats
between candidates from the general category and candidates B
from the reserved categories has been fixed. 1he rule must be
that candidates are selected for admission from the different
·jl,,categories according to the order of merit.

- It was faintly urged that admissions to the B.D.S.
Course within the State has been affected without separate
applications from the candidates. It appears, however, that
, . each candidate was asked whether he was interested in being
c
considered for admission to the B.D.S. Course, and that all,
Jio!lr at least most, of them opted for being so considered in
addition to the M.B.B.S. Course of studies.

Another contention raised by the petitioners is that the D
answers in some of the answer scripts have not been assigned
marks. We examined the answer scripts placed before us and we
could find nothing to substantiate the grievance of the
petitioners •
.... lhere was a general submission that the procedure E
followed in conducting the written test and the viva voce test
by the Selection Committee was invalid. We have examined the
detailed procedure followed in preparing the question papers
and evaluating the answer scripts and have considered other
-'*aspects of the matter. lhe petitioners have not succeeded in
\__establishing that the procedure is materially defective. It is
F
T urged that the allocation of only 85 points to the written
f
j
test and as many as 15 points to the viva voce test out of a
total of 100 points gives a weightagetc;°' the viva voce test

' over the written test which is unreasonable. we----are unable to
agree that the allocation of 15 points to the viva voce test
creates an unreasonable imbalance in the evaluation of a
candidate's ability. See Ioshal Iumar Qipta &Ors. v. State of
G
J &K & Ors., (1984] 3 S.C.R. 407 •
., ..to
1he next contention is that the dates for the written
test and for the viva ~ test were so fixed that it was
possible for the Selection Committee conducting the viva voce
-- H
574 SUPR&'!E COURT REPORTS [1986] 2 S.C.R.

A
test to know before hand what were the marks obtained by each•· •
candidate in the written test. The suggestion is that it was
possible for the Selection Committee to favour sone candidates
at the expen8e of the others during the viva voce test in
order to make good any deficiency in the marks awarded in the
written test. As we have nentioned earlier, the written test
was conducted on September 12 and 13, 1984. The answer books
B were evaluated from October 1, 1984 to October 13, 1984. The
viva voce test comnenced at Srinagar from October 8, 1984. We-II·
are-not satisfied upon the material before us that there is

c
any substance in the allegation levelled by the petitioners.

The main attack by the petitioners has been directed
against the procedure adopted during the viva ~ test. It~
-
was vehenently urged by the petitioners that the marks
assigned to the candidates during the viva voce test had bee~
manipulated in order to ensure that the number of candidates
selected from the communities constituting the population of
the Valley of Kashmir corresponded in proportion to the
D
respective strengths of these collDllUnities in Kashmir. The
submission was made apparently to gain support from the
decision of this Court in Trilok.i Math's case (supra) and the
cases following it. The petitioners have, however, been unabl~
to establish that there is any deliberate connection betweer&
the number of candidates selected and the strength of the
E
respective communities from which they hail. To establish this
allegation sonething more is required. There rust be clear
evidence to show that there was a conscious attempt to ensure
that the selection of candidates from different communities,1'<
corresponded to the strength of those communities.
F It is then urged that individual candidates were·i 1
specially favoured during the viva ~ test because they were
children or relations of senior Professors or teachers of the
Medical Colleges oc of highly placed officers in the State
Govemnent or possessed powerful political connections within
the State. We sent for the cassette tapes which recorded the
G
oral interviews held by the Selection Committee during the
viva voce test. The petitioners placed only a few of these
Ca8Sette tapes before us, and we have carefully heard thenfW ,.
played before us. We are unable to reach the cqnclusion that
the charge levelled by the petitioners is substantiated.
H
ATUL KHULLAR v. STATE [PATHAK, J.] 575

• a Then it is pointed out that notwithstanding the specific A
order made by this Court on March 19, 1985 requiring the
respondent State to produce the work-sheets of the individual
Members of the Selection Committee prepared during the viva
voce test no such document was placed before the Court amidst
the voluminous records brought by the respondent into Court.
When this omission was pointed out during the hearing of these B
cases, learned counsel for the State Government and the
~Selection Committee informed us that the work-sheets had been
destroyed after the marks had been recorded in the final Roll
and before our order was passed. We are not at all happy about
• that statement. The Selection Conmittee can be presumed to
have known that the selections made for admission to the
) Medical Colleges of JalllIIJ.1 and Kashmir would be challenged in C
court, even as they had year after year in the past. Indeed
~some unsuccessful candidates had already filed writ petitions
in the High Court assailing the selection shortly after the
publication of the list of successful candidates. Common sense
and reason required the Selection Committee to preserve the
Work-sheets on which they had recorded the marks awarded to D
individual candidates during the viva ~ test. It is urged
on behalf of the State Government and the Selection Committee
that it was considered appropriate to destroy the work-sheets
It so that candidates would not know the particular marks awarded
by the individual members of the Selection Committee. The plea

- is specious and weak and affords no excuse. The work-sheets
should have been kept in a sealed cover for a period of time.
As however the cassette tapes selected by learned counsel for
~the petitioners have been played before us, and we have found
E

nothing there to throw doubt on the marks assigned to the
-.;>articular candidate, we shall ref rain in this case from
) drawing any adverse conclusion against the Selection F
Conmittee. We find it necessary, however, to emphasise that a
Selection Committee conducting the viva voce test should
maintain the entire record, including the original work-sheets
on which the marks have been re.corded by each Member
separately, for a minillllm period .of one year after the
Examination. Failure to do so can strengthen an allegation of G
_malafides against the Selection Committee.
·~ 1
We shall now deal with the challenge made by the
petitioners to the nominations affected by the State
Gove~nt of candidates to Medical Colleges outside the
H
576 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] 2 s.c.R.

A
State. Three candidates, Syed Manzoor Ahmed Bhukari, Raj inder ·I A

Krishan Raina and Monika Verma were nominated to the B. D. s.
Course in the King George's Medical College, lncknow. The
petitioners do not dispute that the first two of these
candidates were rightly nominated. The challenge is confined
to the third candidate, namely, llinika Verma, and the ground
B underlying it is that she does not belong to the reserved
category of "Line of Actual Control". That Monika Verma
belongs to that reserved category is supported by the"
Tehsildar's Certificate in her favour, and we are not
satisfied that the certificate can be successfully assailed.
Besides, the nominations to the King George's Medical College, =
c lucknow, six nominations were made to Medical Colleges in the
State of Tamil Nadu, three to the MBBS Course and three to the~
BDS Course. It is conceded by learned counsel for the State
Government that the six nominations are invalid inasmuch as.+
they violate the criteria laid down by this Court in Suman
Qipta and Ors. etc. v. State of Jmmu and Kashmir & Ors.,
D [1983] 3 S. c. R. 985 as clarified by this Court by its Order
dated September 22, 1983. They are liable to be quashed.

Fngineering Group

The petitioners in these writ petitions challenge the"'
E selection of candidates for admission to the Regional
Engineering College, Srinagar and also challenge the
nominations made by the State Government of candidates to
Regional Engineering colleges and other engineering
institutions outside the State. The State Government~
constituted a Selection Committee consisting of Shri T.R.
F Glpta, a Member of the State Public Service Commission as~··
Chairman of the Committee and Shri A.R. Mir, Chief Engineer,
Public Health Engineering, Kashmir, Professor Ansari,
Professor of Mathematics, Regional Engineering College,
Srinagar and Shri llihd. Amin, Additional Secretary, General
Department (Trainings Branch), Government of Jammu and Kashmir
G as its Members. On March.30, 1984 the State Government issued
a public advertisement inviting applications from candidates
for admission to the four-year Degree Course at the Regional
Englneering College, Srinagar. The Entrance Examination for~ ..,.
the purpose of admission was to consist of a written test and
a viva voce test. Out of 100 points, 85 points were allocated
H to the written test and the remaining 15 points were allocated
ATUL KllULLAR v. STATE [PATI!AK, J, ] 577

A
to the viva voce test. The points reserved for the viva voce
• ,; test were-sub-divided into 8 points for 'Aptitude'and7
points for 'General Knowledge and General Intelligence'. The
written test was held in June 1984 and the viva voce test
followed in July 1984. As in the case of admission to the
Medical Colleges, tape recorders were employed for recording B
the oral interviews held during the viva ~ test. On
September 21, 1984 the State Government issued a Select List
of 212 candidates. The State Government also made nominations
"of a number of candidates to Regional Engineering Colleges and
engineering institutions outside the State •

... And now these writ petitions. Learned counsel for the c
_ petitioners states that the several grounds on which the
')tiedical Group of writ petitions were founded can constitute
+.the basis of these writ petitions also and has adopted the
submissions made by learned counsel in those cases. Those
grounds have already been dealt with earlier by us and we need
not reiterate our observations and findings in respect of ])
them. Learned counsel has in addition taken certain further
grounds in support of the present petitions. He points out
that the Selection Committee took into account the behaviour,
physical bearing and power of oral expression of the
.,. candidates during the viva ~ test for the purpose of
awarding points under the head "General Intelligence". In E
doing so, learned counsel urges, the Selection Committee gave
importance to considerations which were not only vague but
were wholly irrelevant for the selection of candidates to the
Engineering Course. It is contended that the behaviour, physi-
-::> cal bearing and oral expression of a candidate can hardly

r be relevant for assessing his intelligence and suitability for
the Engineering Course. We are unable to agree. In our
; opinion, if a viva voce test is permissible for the purpose of
F

, adjudging the general rntelligence of the candidates, there
can be no doubt that the three components mentioned earlier
would have some relevance. Presence of mind and expression can
be considered as components of general intelligence. The
presence of mind displayed by a candidate in answering a
question is an index of general intelligence, and his power of
, .,, oral expression is evidence of his ability to coDJnunicate
intelligently. The third component, physical bearing,
possesses a somewhat remote connection with general intelli-
gence. But we may suppose that by physical bearing what is H
578 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] 2 s.c.R.

A
meant is the physical manner in which the candidate responds
to the stress and tension experienced by him during the ~ <·

interview. It is a weak component, but even though tenuous it
is not so unrelated to general intelligence that we should
strike it down as unreasonable element in deciding on a
candidate's suitability. We now enter the realm of admissions
B made by learned counsel for the State, who conceded that the
selection of certain specified candidates could not be
supported.

Five candidates, Abdul Rashid Dhobi, Roohi Firdous

c
Adhami, Rais Ahmed Zargar, Shabir furrani and Zahoor Ahmad
Sheikh, were among those selected for admission to the first ...
year B.E. Course in the Regional Engineering College at _
Srinagar for the session commencing in 1984-85. It is appareni1"'
that on the basis of their result during the selection -+
examination they were not entitled to admission. A number of
writ petitions were filed in the High Court of Jammu and
D Kashmir challenging the validity of the selection for
admission to the aforesaid course. furing the hearing of those
writ petitions, counsel who appeared for the State Government
and the Selection Committee, made a statement in Court
conceding that the aforesaid five candidates were not entitled
to admission because of their inferior merit and that an error
E had inadvertently been committed in including their names in -I"
the Select Ll.st. The High Court, by its judgment dated March
20, 1985 took the concession into account and set aside their
selection. The five candidates have filed Special Leave
Petition (Civil) No. 5197 of 85 in this Court, but after
carefully examining the matter we find that the concession :.c:
F made by counsel for the State before the High Court was
perfectly justified. Accordingly, the Special Leave Petition~
is liable to be dismissed. There are thus five vacancies on ,
this account.

Five names were added to the Select Ll.st to fill up the
G aforesaid vacancies. They were candidates who had been
nominated to Engineering Colleges outside the State, but had
been unable to join there because they were late in doing so.
In consequence they were admitted to the Regional Engineering '+
College, Srinagar. These candidates are Abdul Mateen Sherwani,
Parvez Ahmed, Rajinder Kaul, Shanker Singh and Sanjay Razdan.
H
It is not clear whether these five candidates who have now
ATUL KHULIAR v, STATE [PATHAK, J, ] 579

A
been admitted to the Regional Engineering College, Srinagar
• 4 would have been entitled to do so on the basis of their merit
in the Select List. Their admission is liabe to be quashed
unless they have been selected by virtue of their merit in the
Select List and but for the erroneous inclusion of the five
candidates, Abdul Rashid Dhobi and the others, would have been B
included in the Select List. If one or more or such candidates
does not hold a position of merit qualifying him or them for
such selection, the candidates who are qualified by virtue of
._their position in order of merit are entitled to be admitted
to the Regional Engineering College, Srinagar.

The Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir c
_ nominated eight other candidates to seats in Engineering
't·colleges outside the State. They are Ghulam Hassan Mir, Sudhir
... Kumar Tukra, Sahab Ji Kachroo, Niraj Kumar wpta, Mahmood
Ahmed, Avneet Kumar, Mohd. Bashir Khan and Abdul Rehman. As
Abdul Rehman declined the off er his place has been filled by
Maqbool Hussain. There is no dispute that they could not in D
law be nominated by the State Government having regard to what
was laid down by this Court in Suman Qipta & Ors. (supra) (as
clarified by this Court by its Order dated September 22,
1983). Their nominations are liable to be quashed.
'" Additionally, a candidate Arshad lfussain Wani was also
nominated to a seat in an Engineering College outside the E
State. It is conceded by learned counsel for the State that
the nomination of Arshad Hussain Wani cannot be supported.
Accordingly that nomination is also liable to be quashed. In
the circumstances the State Government must nominate
-- candidates in place of the vacancies so arising in accordance
with the law laid down by this Court on the basis of the merit F
list which was in force in the State on the date when the
impuged nominations were made.
,
Eight candidates selected for admission to the Regional
Engineering College, Srinagar did not join or having joined
did not continue there. To fill the eight vacancies so arising
G
eight other candidates were selected for admission to the
Regional Engineering College, Srinagar. The inclusion of those
• .,, names is also liable to be quashed unless the nominations have
been made in accordance with law by virtue of their merit in
the Select List and who, if the eight persons who were
selected but did not join or continue in the Regional
H
580 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19861 2 s.c.R.

A Engineering College, Srinagar had not been selected, would
have been included in the Select List. If one or more of such~
candidates does not hold a position of merit qualifying him or
them for such inclusion the candidates who are qualified by
virtue of their position in order of merit are entitled to
admission to the Regional Engineering College, Srinagar.

B Ten candidates were nominated by the State Government to
Engineering College outside the State on October 27, 1984, but lr
all those ten nominations, as averred in the Counter Affidavit
filed by the Chief Minister, have been cancelled by him
pursuant to the law laid down by this Court in ~ G\Jpta and
Ors., (supra) (as clarified by this Court by its Order dated
c September 22, 1983).

Some candidates were nominated for admission to the Five ...;
Year Engineering Course of Studies. It is apparent that their ·
selection was made arbitrarily and they could not be treated
as constituting a separate category. We are informed that
D other candidates, while applying for admission to the Four
Year Course of Studies, also applied for the Five Year Course
of Studies and their claim was not considered. It is conceded
by learned counsel for the State that the selection of the
candidates to the Five Year Engineering Course of Studies .,,,
cannot be supported. Accordingly the selection of candidates
E for admission to the Five Year Course of Studies in
Engineering Colleges outside the State is liable to be
quashed.

Finally the petitioners, Sanjeev Kumar Handoo, in Civil :i.-
Writ Petitions Nos. 428-32 of 1985, does not press for relief
F inasmuch as he has been admitted to a Medical College, a n d ,
therefore, the Writ Petition filed by him is liable to be
dismissed as withdrawn.

P.s.s. Petitions dismissed.

" .