Supreme Court of India
JAVED RASOOL BHAT & ORS. ETCversusSTATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND ORS.
- Citation
- 1984 INSC 35
- Decided
- 16 February 1984
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- O CHINNAPPA REDDY
Holding
The selection procedure, including the recusal of the concerned member and the viva‑voce test with a 15% weightage, was not vitiated and did not violate natural justice or statutory requirements.
Summary
The State of Jammu & Kashmir advertised admission to its two medical colleges, requiring a written test (85 points) and a viva‑voce interview (15 points). A selection committee comprising the Chairman of the Public Service Commission and the principals of the two colleges was formed. One principal disclosed that his daughter was a candidate and asked to be excused from the written test and not be present at her interview; the committee accepted this without appointing a substitute. Petitioners challenged the selection on grounds of violation of natural justice, arbitrariness of the viva‑voce test, exclusion of qualifying‑exam marks, and non‑compliance with Indian Medical Council regulations. The Supreme Court held that the committee’s practice of allowing the concerned member to recuse himself was a recognized procedure, that the viva‑voce test is a permissible supplementary test and its 15% weightage is not excessive, and that there was no arbitrariness or breach of natural justice. Consequently, the writ petitions were dismissed.
Issues considered
- The presence of a candidate's father (principal) on the selection committee violates natural justice.
- The allocation of marks between the written test and viva‑voce interview is arbitrary.
- The viva‑voce test is an improper method for assessing general knowledge and intelligence.
- The delay in announcing results renders the selection suspect.
- The Indian Medical Council regulations requiring consideration of qualifying‑exam marks are mandatory.
Subjects
admissionmedical collegesselection committeeviva vocenatural justicearbitrarinesswritten testqualifying examinationIndian Medical Council regulationsArticle 32writ petition
Judgment
'
I
A 582 ....
JA:VfD RASOOL- BHAT & ORS; ETC.
"' . v.' :
-·
- STATE OF JAMMU &'KAS!-lMJR AND ORS.
B February 16, 1984 '·
"
(0. CH!NNAPPA REDD¥, E.S. VEN](AJ:ARAMIAH AND R:B. MJSRA,JJ.].
. .
EducationaJ. lnstitutions-Adniisston to .
.-.
. M;dical. Colleges-AJn1ission to-Viva vote ·1est-W!ieti1er Court Could io .into
---- . c relewu.1cy of q~iestions ·pu1'o candidates.
. -~ .
··
-
· .
. .
Nat,ura/justice: .Medical Col/eges-Ad111ission·to_:_Ca11did.tte ~elated to M~rnber
.
of Selection Com11litee-SeleCtlo11 whethei vitia(ed. • .
The' State Governtnent issued an adveitiS111ent _inviting. application for ac!mis·
sion -to t)le fir.st year MBBS- course in the two medical· colleges in'.the State. Jt
·.Was nlentio'ned therein that the candidates would have to appear in- a written'tcst
which would be followed by a ViYa·voce test and that 85 points were _allowed for
D. thewritten test 'and 15 pOints -were Viva·voce test. The 'SeleCtion co·n1mittec for
the selection. was constitut.cd t_o conSist of the Chah·n1p.n of the State. Public, Servi-
ce Co1nmissi'on as Chainnan; and two members. vii., the Principals of the two
-Medicil Colleges .. The quorun1 for a nJeeting of the Cori1111ittee was stipulated as
the ·chair.man and .one me1nber. When the Selection Corrimittce held its· -first n1eet·
i.ng Orle Or the· 1n~nbJrs, thC Principal of the College inforn1cd the~ Com'1nittee that
as his daughti::r was one of the cartdidates con1peting for adn1ission, it' would nOt
· be desirabl~ for him to bC associated, at ~ny stage, with the wrlttcn test, arid that
he, would not like to be preseht when liis.dauli~htcr \Vas· interviewed>The Com1nittce
took'note of ih_e inform<j.tiorl and agreed with the suggeStion ...
. The petitioners in their writ petitions under Article 32, questioned the seleCt·
· ion'ofcani:lidates for admission: It -was .. contendcd·oi1 their behalf that.: (l)~the
entire selection_ was vitiated by th(: prescrice ·on the Comi:nittee· of the father of a
F ·caddida.t~, and this was a 'gross violatiOn of one the .principles of najural Justice :
(2) the entire procedure was ~ad as the marks obtained by the candidates at the
qualifying examination (T.DC.:_~art I Medical group) were not taken into account
and 'not giVen any We_ight3.ge; (3) the· viva.....:.....voce test· provided for 1- points for
. general kno"'.ledge and general 'inteIIi£-ei:iSe whereas it \\{ould have been_ mOre appro-
. priate to test general knowlege· ail((general ii,telligencc' of t;andidate ·by holding..·
a written instead of a viva-voce· test;. (4f gerieral knowledge and general ·intelli-
. -G gence ~ere not matters to be tested in a written exaininatiOn; ·(5) there .w_as delay in
the-annOuncement of the results and the delay made the seICction suspect, and (6)
the · regulaiionS made by the ,Indian Medical' Councii prescribed .thilt the marks
obtained· in the -qualifying examination Should be taken in to Conside1ation. .
. . . '
:DismiSsing the writ petition ;
. -
HELD: 1. I{ is not unusual for Candidates.related to inembers ·ofthCService
Commissiou. or othe'r Selecticin Committee t~ se~k . elnp~~yrneu~ .. -_Whenever St1ch a
'· '
. . ~ \
I.AVID RASOOL.V._J & K S~ATE (Chinnappa Rei/4y,_J.) 583 .
.}
\' situ~tion arises, the' praCtice genreally is for,the' n1en1ber concerned io.·ex~use himstlf
A
~- <. .wlreii'thc parti'cular candjdate·is interVieWed.
,.
Iri iristant cas~, .the Pri~cipa[ of th~·. Medic~l ·college, wf1osc d~Ughter
the
Was a canOfctai~ for adffiission ·to the Medical College .informed the Selection
• Committee at the very outset about fhis f<Lct 3.nct told theQl that · h~ woUJd 'not·
··have anything to do ·with the written·test and woul.i not be present When his
daughter ~as inierviewect.-." The other members' -of ·the Selection COmtrtittee
~cepted th'C sugges'tion Of the PrinciPal\ and did not addrc;:ss · the G.overnm~nt B
'to appoint a sllbstitute ·member of the Selection. Committee, since ihc Govern-'
.4.. ment had :(ixcid ·the ·quor um -for a meeting of t~e Selection Committee, as_tbe
· 1. Chairman and one o1her member and it was possible to have a qudru_m ·
-{ without ihe Pfincipal. · The procedure adopted by the SeleetiOn · Cornri::iitteC aod ·
~
. . . - ' the. !member' eonCerned was -m.
accord with. the quite well-known.and generally ', -
accepted procedure adoptCd by the Public- Service Coihmissions 'everywhere.
- ' - ' . . .
Nagarajan v. State of Mysore, Jl966J3- S.C.R. 682, . referr. d. to .. [5%A-CJ
c
2. It is no't for.the Court ·tCI ··sit'.!. in judgmcµt. ·Over t~c nature of the
...... ·- questiol1s t? be put' by, the membefs ~of. the_ Selection' Committee.
'f'F _'It is for the, members' of the. Seleqtion Committee, to dec_i~e what
they should ask and so ~ong as the questions arc not·Such as to indicate-that
the intefvicw' \Vas nothing· but. a ~ake--belicve, 'the matter mUSt be allov.ed" to rest ·n
io
. there. It ·i~ not the function ofthe·Coµrt to weigh e:aCh questioll find out the extent
·to which it is ·~\.:.lated- to aptitude,·. general knowledge_ or gerieraJ ~ntclligencc. If tl1e
. question is riot fJ.ipparit, it is not for the cOurt to say that the question was irreleVant
and ShO'qld not have beeti. asked. at any -inierview. Perhaps. irrelcv.allt questiolls ,
may also~ be asked to explore the candid3.te's capacity' tO detect: .irrelcyancies. lt is
j..... not for the Court to clain1 to hself the task of determining the na,ture of the questions
· _ ./to be pi.it to candidates., apPearing ~t an i1:1terview.., The persons consti.tuting the
_; . ?" Selection Co111fQ.ittect who. may generally be assumed _to be n1en i of experience. and E
...--t~. _ knowledgCable in regar4 to men and nlaiters may st1rely be ·expe-ctCd to pu~ the fight '
questio~s.. In th absence of rnalafidcS, th~ mitter, is be~t left t~ the-n1. [58.9E'.·GJ
. ' ":3{i)Th· qu~ti~n
a-S to· the subjects in wl~ic~· ~~ entran~
test may be heI~
is hardly a n~atter fof the Court, unless, of course, ihe subjects arq_ sO arbitrarily
chosen as to.\.ave not. the· slightest-c~nneciion witli the objeC~ of ,th~ exami1~a1ion.
/
Such a ;ituation is Uot likely to ·arise B.s:the authO}itieS rllay· be expects:ci" tO .act F
reasonably. ·Again it.is 1;ot fof ·the COurt· to lay .down whether ·an interview test
• sliould~be held .at 'all or how illany marks -~hould be allOted for ·the intei-v:ieW test.
Of coufse,. the~rnai:-ks n1ust-be. mini_mal so as .to :H.void charges of arbitrarinCss bllt
not necessarily al\vayS. There may be. posts and appoihtrrients whefe. the only proper
·method of selection may be· by an interview test Even ·iii the case of admission to
higher degrees courses, it may sOnietimes be necessary to allot a fairly high percentage. ' . G
of nlarks for the interview test. -That'is why rigid iules cannot bC laid down in these.
~atters, ahd.· not by -~purts ..The ,experts a~e generally the -best.judges:. The·Courts
~: duty IieS in pretenting arbitrariness and. denial ofeqUal opportunity. [592C-E,592B]
. -3ii) , · s interfere when the risk of arbitiariness 'is so high that" arbitra-
finess is inevitable .. AgaifJ. the· Court is not the best judge of.what questi9ns :ffiay
be asked at .the inter-view. All that is' 'nc6ssary is that the questions should not be H.
_.. . · amere pretence. [592F] ·· ·
,..
'_,.
. '•
584 'SUPREME COURT REPORTS. ;'
' [1984] 2 s.c.R.
'
A Ajay Hasia's case, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 7.9 ;' Chitra 1i"ekha a1!d Ors. 11. State of Mysore
and Or_s.. [1964) 6 S.C.R. 368; A. Peeriakaruppan v. State of Tamil Nadu &
Ors., [1971] 2 S.C.R.' 4_30; and Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan; [1982] 1 B.C.R.
320 referred· to. · I '
· 4(i) Tl~e Selccti~n Co1n1nittee appa:rentl;r ''~bought .it would be better .to
v-
have
a comrµon entrance test. It appears to· be a perfectly reasonable procedure. Even •
otherwise it is always open to a Selection Co1nn1ittee to insist on taking into con-
B sideration marks Obtained at the exan1ination held by it and eXcluding from Consi-
dera'.'tion 1narks obtained in examinations held by Other bodies. There is nothing-'
wrong in this procedure, [595C-D]
4(ii) It wa's a matter for .the Selection. Conm1ittce to decide whether .,gfneral
kno\Vledge and general intelligence could be more appropriately .tested in the viva-
voce tCst or in the written test. That is not a matier 'for the court to decide: [595F].
·~
'
c 5. There ,.was in fact no delay in The announcement of results and the suspi-
cion, if.anY, was u~ounded. [595G]
' . '
- 6. 'The regulation of the-Indian Mddical Council prescribing tha.t the marks
otbiained, at the qualifyipg examination should be taken into consideration has no
application becatise,ithere are two Medical colleges .in the sta'.te. Though only one
Board conducted . the qualifying· exan1ination, the examinations ~ere conducted.
D separately for Jamr'nU and Srinagar areas· ·and. on tv-io different occasions.
Moreover, 'the-regulations of the Council haYe ·been held to be ·directory and ilot
mandatory by this Court. [597 D-E) .
' Madhya Pr~desh. ;_ Kr. Nivedita Jain [1981] 4 S.C.C. 296, referred to.
- ,_ ,,------
·-
OmGINA'L JumsmcTION : WRIT PETITION (C1v11)Nos. 13325-37.
E 13366, 13683 to 13687 ef 1983, 256-260 & 579-81 of 1984 (Under
article 32 of the Constitution of India).
. .__,_ '
__,.
-
~
Ani/ Dev' Singh, As/wk S.en and S.B. Bhasme R. Satish; S.S. Gupta,
• J.b. Kotidhar 11nd S.S. Khanduja, for the Petitioner's.
r Y.S. Chitale, G.L. Sanghi, S.N. Kacker •and V.M. Tarkunde.
'Alta/ Ahmad for Respondents.
The Judgment of .the Court was deiivered by •
CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. Writ petitions questioning admissions
..
to the medical colleges at Srinagar. and Jammu appear to have become
an annual feature in this court. In the previous years, there was some" \
justification. It does not appear to be so this year. In these writ peti-
.JI
tions, the selection of candidates for. admission to the two medical.
colleges at Srinagar and Jammu as well as the _nominations by the
H Government- of Jammu & Kashmir to medical colleges outside the
State are in qu~stio\l· On Max 24, 1983, the Governmen.t of·Jammu
...
' . . ~-·
>...
I
.
...
JAVID RASOOL v, J & K s:rATE (Chinnappa Reddy, J.) ·.' 585
.· & Kashmir iss~ed ·an advertisement inviting applications from per- A ..
manent residents of Jammu &
Kashm'r··State 'for admission to• the
first year MBBS in the medical colleges it Jammu & · Srinagar. One
of the conditions of eligibility was that a candidate should have passed
the "First toe
(Medical Group) ~xainination from Jammu & Kashmir
. Board·of School Eduction wi!h ·~at less than 50'.Y., oft.he total marks'
in English ,and Science subjects taken. together"... There w&s some re: · ·B
laxation in favour candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, etc.
with 'which we are not no\;; coricern~d, We are also riot concerned in
these. wiit petitions with the 'reservations' made in favour of various
{ -
I•~• , ~lasses. We are only concerned with· the ·sea!s or. places available for '
'
open competition. The
adve.ftisement expressly .mentioned, that the .
1
· ·candidates would have to appear in a wriiien test of 'TDC-Part I Stan- . C
. dard' comprising of two papern," one' paper consisting of .the subjects, .·
Physics and Chemistry' and the other, .Biology -and English, It wao; -
also·mentioned in'the advertisment that the candidates would be requ-
, ired to appear at a' Viva-voce examination.. _on 7th July, 1983, the
. Government of Jammu & Kashmir.published a notification called the
· · Jammu & Kashmir •"
Government MediCal Colleges (S~iection. of Candi-. ,D
•' _ _,)
dates for Admission tb First Year MBBS _Course) Procedure Order
1983, Paragraph 4 of the . order which is relevant is as follows:. - .
·I
"4. Merit :-:-:The inter-se•merit of the candid~tes shall , be· ..
determined·
. . on the basis of the following:-
. - . ·
'. E
.. ..
,_,:
'(i) Written test
(ii) Viva voce
., 85 Points
.. 15 Points
:..----:<.,...-..
..
• ' ' Total · 100 Points ' F
' .
The points earmarked for ..viva-voce will .further· be sub- .
· divided into the following· factors:
. ' ' '
.
. ' '
~' .,. . ,.
(a) Apptitude 8 Points.· G.
\·
'(b)G.K.GI •·
. ; . 7 Points ':1'
. ~~~~-'--~~~~~
Total.'
,, .. 15 Points"
• '
\
'i86 [l 984] 2 s.c.R.
A : 011· 26th August 1983. a Selection Committee was constituted
·consisting of the, Chairman of the Jainmu and Kashmir Public._Se1'~ice
' Commission as Chairman ~nd two members, namely, the Principals
t of the two, Government Medical C~Ilegcs at Srinagar and Jammu.
The quorum for a meeting· of the Committee was• stipula,ied as the
Chairman··and one.member .. On the. same day by another notification
B it was directed that the Selection Committee should ·arrange and con-
duct the written test and·evo\ve its own procedure for appointing exa-
miners and for.. the yonduct of. the examination, etc: ·n.e Selectio1;
'Commiitee held its first meeting ,on September 2, 1983 when one of
· t]1e members~ the Principal of the Government Medical College; Sri-
nagar informed the Committee'that his daughter was one of the candi-
c dates and that it would not be desirable for him to be associated, at
·any'stage, with the written.test to be conducted by the Corrimittee and
further that he would not like to be pfesenr when his daughter was
interviewed. The Committee took note of the information and agreed
with the supgestion. As tlic.Gov~rnment had also fixe(L1 quorum for
·a rrteeting of the Committee, it was not conside.red necessary to have
D a substitute member appointed. Thereafter a &tailed' procedure was
evolved for the written test and intcrviews.'_The Charirman wa~autho
Tised to consult the Chairman of the Jan:unu & Kashmir Board of
School Eduction and select the required number of cxainihcrs and
paper-settors. The written test was conduct~d simultaneousiy at
Jammu & Kashmir on Septembe_r 22, 1983. The written test was follow-
- E ed by. interviews from September 26, 1983 to October 11, 1983. One
F
important factor wl\ich requires to be.mentione.d here is that the marks ·
secured in the written test by the respective cari~.idates was not available•
to the Selection1Committee when the Committee interviewed the candi-
dates .. The1 Committee met again on October- 25, 1983 by 'which -
the results of the written test were also available. The Selection Com-
time
mittee proceeded. with the task'or'finalising the selection. Jhe selected
,
-
candidates were sent indiviudal intimations and on December 3. 1983,
a notification was published by tlie Government of :rammu & Kashmir •
informing the public that the.result of the written test/Viva Voce:held
f~r admission to the First year of the_ MBBS Course for the Medical
Colleges of the State was available in the offices of the Principals of
G the Government Medical Colleges atJamtnu and Srinagar. Candidates
were also told that marks card would be issued on payment of a fee
. of Rs. ~/- and that any candidate interested in seeing his/lier answer
book could do so on payment _of Rs. 20/- as fee for each paper. Some
of the facts mentioned above were taken by us from the counter affida-
H vits filed on behalf of th<> Government of Jarrrrnu & Kashniir and were
ncit admitted by the petitioners. Wedo not however have the slightest · .
._
.'
. JAVID RASOOL v. J &KSTATE (\hinnappa .Reddy, J.) 587,
. .· . . ; ' .' ·, '
,doubt about the coriectness of these facts, as they are fully supp0rted . A
.l)y tonte~praneous official records,,
:. The. petitifj~ers,'have fil,ed these writ. petitons inipunging .the :
se/ection made 'by the Committee .on various grounds. Jn their-peti~.
!ions, they have inc1.ulged in serveral ,allegati.Ons and insinuations for
whic there is no basis whatsoever. Shri Anil Dev Singh, .learned coun·. B
. sel for some of the petitioners· raised .th'.ee tonteptions: The first was ·
'that the entire selection was vitiatecl~ by the. prese,iJce o_n the C_ommji- .
, 'tee (if the father of a candidate.' The second contention was th2t tho
~ntire. procedure was.·bad ciS the .tnarks ·0b!.aii1ed by the- Candidates
··~·· at the qualifying examination (TDC,PartfMedicai Group) were not
'' taken into.account and not given ,any, weightage whatever; The third c
contention was that the viva-voce test provided for 7 points for general
knowledge 'and general intelligence wher.eas it would have ·been more.
appropriate to t,est:the general knowledge and general intelligence of
candidates by holding a written test i,nstead of a viva voce. test. Shri
''l"' Anil Dev Singh also general 'y submitted that the viva voce , test was
a rnere manoeuvr~·designed to bring in candidates who had.fared badly D
iii the written test Shri A.K. Sen, le.arned counsel who appca;ed for
... .'some of the other petitioners made only 'one 5ubmi~sionand it '..Jas.that .
. 'the viva voce ~est . Iiad wofked in· an unreasdnal;Jc 'arid arbiti·r:fy n-·: n-
ner; ir{Jact and as a matter of principle'. -He i:-
1
aboraTfd tf:r subnds-
siori by arguing that though the two papers in. the writt•:n te~V curried
550 marks, they were reduced to 85 points as against 15 points for the E
·\;viva voce test. The .result, according to him, was ihat candidates who
. ... ~ dates . who got a lead .
;'i.. got a lead of 20-?5 marks in the written·tes1 had to'bow dc\\n f3ndi,
. . of 3 or 4 points in the viva vcce test as the marks.
' '- '
obtained in the written test were reduced· to points in the ratio of 550
to 85. ·Sh.ri Sen also 'submitted that the questions put lo the candidates
.at .the iliterview were not designed to(test.~ithH aptitude or general
'
to
F
' '
hnow!edge or general intelligence and for that reason, the selection"
was vitiated, He suggested that the final results bcre 'c!c c;uont lesti.C
'inony t? t~e i~j_ustice dQne tO t_he_ mi~ority_com~unity in -t~e State.~·
\ ~-
We ·find no subst~nce whatever in any .of tlie subm'issions made
by Shri Anii Dev Singh and Shr,i A.K,. Se11. We may straightway G
~observ.e t~at the .insinuatio1i that the interviews were so c~n,duct~d as
to do injustice to 'the minority community appears to us to be unchari-
··~
. table and impetuous. We find that there ai;e candidates belonging
to both the majority and the minority communities among the c~ndi-·
dates who were able, to' secure admi.s'sion because of the points sco~ed
by them in the viva voce ,test, as.also amongst the candid~tes who
'' '.
' \
' '
..----·
•.
-.
588 SUPREME COURT REPORTS. [1984] 2 s.c.R. ·
A · failed to secure admission because of their low score in the viva voce
test. The inconsiderateness of the all~gatioif is evident from the fact
that the marks obtained by the candidates in the writien test were not
even available to the Selection ·Committee when, they conducted the
viva v.oce· test. This circumstance is sufficient· to repudiate the broad
allegation freely made by Shri' Anil Dev Singh that the viva voce test
B was designed to facilitate tlie selection of candidates who had fared
badly in the written test.
The submission· that the questions put ti:> the candidates at the
intervie\v were not designed to test either the aptitude, general hno\'{-
ledge·or gerieral .intelligence of the candidates is equally without sub-·
c stance. In the writ petitions, no such averment was made ~nd no·
instances ·were given. In the petition a general allegation was made
thaUhe viva voc;e test had been abused to dilute the otherwise high
merit of the. petitioners. On behalf of the respondents, one of the
members of the Selection Committee;· Dr. S.L. Verma, Principal of
the Government Medical College, Jammu filed a counter-affidavit
D in which, he stated'. ....... Notless than six minutes were. spent on
0
each candidate though in certain cases interview lasted for more than.
ten minutes. All the candidates were. fully and fairly assessed and it
is denied that .the candidates. were interviewed only to mainpulate the
results. The candidates were questioned by the members ,of ·seJectfon
Corµmittee only in respect of factors of interview prescribed in SR0-380
E dated 7-7-1783 and the entire process was above board and extremely
fair. I submit that. the result of the written test· became available to
.the members of the selection committee only after. the interviews had .
been completed", After this couhter-affidavit had been filed, some ·
of the petitioners chose to file 'rejoinder affidavits' to suggest that
their 'interviews lasted for about two to three minutes only and that
F · questions relating to the aptitude, general knowledge or. general in-
telligence of the candidates were not asked. It was .stated· that some
some of the candidates were asked the ·names and occuptions of their /
. '' ' .
parents or brothers, and some were asked why he or she wanted to
0
1
becbme a doctor and so on.·Aarti Kaul stated in her affidavit that
G she was also asked to give an example of Collard (?) of the human'
· body, that she replied that it was blood and she was then asked what
the constitution of blood was, to which s\le replied "Plasma Haemoglo-
bin RBC Serum''. Rajesh Gupta,.another cano.idate, stated that his
interview lasted for .two or. three minutes and apatt from questions
'relating to the name and oocupati~n of his father and· brothers, h~'was
also asked to define 'absolute zero' and 'international ampere': He
answered both the questions. He claimed that he was asked no que-
. ' .
. '
..
0
\-
00
JAVID RASOOE v. J & K STATE (Chinnappa
-
Reddy,
.
J.) 589
sti~n relatillg to aptitude, generaJ.kno:.vledg~ or general Intelligence.· A-
. . .
'
'
~.' . '
. ,
-
.
'
-·
' '
We are of theveiw'that·there is no genuine basis for any compfaint
in regard to the nature of .the questions which the can4idates were
asked in the. viva voce test. We accept. the statement ofD.'V~rma that
the Selection Committee·put relevant qriestion to the candidates to
test their aptitude, general knowledge ,and general intelljgence .. Anyo~e B
who has served on· a·Selection Con1mit(ee and interviewed candidate.s ·
knows that ·a large number of candidates are nervous and inorder to
"... put them at ease.'it is wcessary to' ask thenito·start with, innocuous
. _4-, . questions, such: as what is vour father's occupation'? whi@h part of
the country do yo~ cbme · f;;m ?, 'what is your m'other-tongue? and ..
so on.' .Such qu~stions are intended to enable the candidate, to fec;l
at ease and get over his nervousness. No complaint can surely to made
.\.
that' candidates were put .such questions. We also fail to see. h'ow any .
. complaint can be made of the fact thai questions t>n science subjects .
_·~ of
were asked candidates seeJdng admission to medical colleges, Surely
. such questions are at .least as good as questions about the name ofthe ....
'capital of ~n obscure Latin American State or .who captained India · D
, in the SeconU test ma,tch·agaii1st Pakistan.in I?SO, W~ entertain on'
~doubt that the questions asked .were proper and relevant. We add that
it is not for the co.urt to sit ·in judgment over the nature. of the ques-
tions to be put by the members· of the Selection Committee. It is
~· for 'the members of. the . Selection Co1nmittee . to' decide what
questions they should ask and so lo~g 'as the q;i-estions are not EI'
_. &uch as to. indicate' that the i;\erview was nothing but a make-believe.
.. to
-"'-~we ~rnst allow the matter rest ther~ .• It 'is not the function of the ·
'°Cburt to weigh eacl; question to find out the extent to whcih it is related
~o aptitude, general knowledge or gep.enral intelligence. ff the question
is not flippant, it is not for the court to say.that the question was iire- ·"
·\
,_
Jevant and should riot have been asked an interview. Perhaps irrele' at '~
:,- . vant questions !nay also be asked to_explo're the 'candidate's capacity·
!> to detect irrdevancies~ It is n~t for the court to·~laimto.itselfthe task ·.:
'r . of determining tlie nature 9f the questions to be put to carididates
appearing at· an interview: The persons constituting. the Selection
. Coin'mittee who may generally be assu!"ed to be. men ofle,W~rience, •
and knowledgeable rn regard to men and matters m~y surely be expe- G
cted to put the right questions. 'Jn the absence of malafides, the maatter
· is best'left to them." ; · · ·
-~
. .. . .
'
.. .
. /
. / .. '
Mr. Sen made a complaint that \he m~rks obtained in the writ' '·'
ten 1:est :.vere reducec to pomts and this -hail ·-resulted in ca11didate• :·H-·
. •
who had fared well in the interview stealing a march over •oine candi-
'
. ;--, / ,_,
-·
590 SUPREME COURT R!Sl'ORTS [1984] 2 S.C.R.
'
A dates whn had fared well .in the wriUen test. The rules require that
85 points should be awarded for the written test and 15 points for the
viva· voco test. Therefore, although the written tests carried· a total
of 5~'.) m irks, the marks obtained by each candidate had to be neces-
sarily reduced to points on·the basi's that 85 points equalled 550 markS
The gr.ievance is plainly imaginary. ·. • · ''
B ' "
Both.Mr.. Anil Dev Singh and Mr. A.K. Sen invited our atten-
tiOn to the observations of this courl'•in Ajay Hasia 's' 11 case in regard
to the desireability of holding viva voce test !Cl) select candidates for
ad1nission to p'rofessional colleges and· in regard to the manner of
conducting sucht~sts. The Qourt after referring to the criticism level-
c led against viva voce test observed:. "Now this criticism cannot be
said to be whoHy. unfounded and it reflects a point of view whi'ch has
certainly some validity'.' The court then quoted M.P. Sharma· on
·Public Administration'. in 'Theory and Practice'. and Gle1\n Stahl
on •Public P 'Cs Jnnel Admi'nistration' a.nd observed "But, despite all
I this criticism, ihe oral interview mef~od con1inues to be' very. much
n: ;in vogue as l suppelmentary test for assessing the suitabi!jty of candi-
dates wherpver test pf personal traits is con;;idered essential. Its rele-
vance as' a .test for determ'ning suitabilty based on personal characte-
ristics h3.S been recognis6d ih a number of decisions of this court which·.
1 are1Jinding Up Jn us". The Court then quoted from rhitra Lakita and
Others v. Slate' of My.iore and Others"> and A. Pseriakarupfan v.
E State of Tamil Nadu & Others<a> and observed: .
/ . ' . ·,
-
".ft is therefore, not possible to accept the contentions of .J
the .Petitioners that the oral interview test is so defective that
~eJ.ecting candidates for admission on the basis of oral intervciw
·in addition to written test must be regarded as arbitrary. The'
F oral interview test is und<mbtedly not a very satisfactory test
for assessing and eva]u;1ting the capacity and calibre of candi-
' ' '
da teS, ~'ut in the absenc2 of any better test for measurin,g perisonal ,
·, ch,iracterLstics .and traits, the oral iTiterviev.1 test '.must, at the
,pNsent stage be regarded as 11ot irrational ·or irrelevant though
\ ' ' . '
_it is subjective and based on first i.mprcssion_; its result is jf!~ue:-i-
G ced by m1ny uncertain factprs and it is capable of abuse. We
would, however, Ji ke to point out th,it in the matter of admis,
sion to college or even in the matter of public employment, the
• \ I ' • 0 ' '
(I) [1981] 2 S.C.R. 79.
.H (2) [1964] 6 S.C.R. 368.
(3) {1971) 2 S.C.R. 430.
.. .
•
•. JAV!D RASO()L v. J & K STATJJ' (Chimz~ppa Reddy, J.) . 591.
· oral inte;view test as presently held should not be_ relied upon A.
• as an exclusive
.. -
test,
.
but it .
niay be resorted to
. e
only as a·1i
. .-
additfo-
.
· nal or supplementary test and, m·oreover; great care must. be·
be taken tci see that persons who are appointed iO_ conduct the·_ ·
ornl in,rview test are inen of high integrity, calibre and qualifi-
cation' . . .
. . .. . .. .• . e·
. _The Court the_n pro.cceded to consider whether the allocation of
•.. as _high percentage as 331/3 of t)je .total marks for the viva voce test
did: .not render the-· admissio_n procedure arbitra~y. Jt was held• that
...., ·· .it did make the s~kctiori procedure arbitrary but even so theselec.tio"n
_.I . ·was_ not _set .. aside _as 18m_onths had 'elapsed since the selection and.
-'!:;' no rr,iala fid~s had· bee1iestablished. _The court finally considered the C.
"argument that each candidate wa:S not in-tervhved for· more than two
~r three minutes and rele_vant questions were .not a·sked. Taking·
. note. of the cii'cunisfahce ,that .no ·affidavii had been filed either
by a member pf the Seection Committee ·or by any other officer who_
was• present
.• -.
at' ihe interview,
' '. '
ihvas
>'-· '
thought 'that the· 'allegations
- '
of tne.
,. ..
petitioners had to·be accepted: ·It was then said that "if that be so, the D
.' oialo iuter~iew test must be hCld to be. vitiated and the selection made
on the basis ot such test must be hold to b~ -~rbiirary". However,
for the reason that IS months had already elapse;i., it was not thought
proper to strike down the' :selections alr.ady made. Threafter ·the.
folloWing ob~ervation,s. \ve~e. mad~: ··
. ,. ··. E
. "Vie may point out. that, in our opinion, if 'the marks
,J. .. ·allocated for the. oral interview do not exceed J5% of the total
. marks a~d the candidates ·. are properly interviewed . and
... - ~-'-:
· .. releva1\t questions are a~ked with a view to _assessi1ig their .suit- ·
ability.with reference to the factor~ ~equired tci ·.be taken into
·F· .·
,. consid,ration, .the oral interview test would satisfy the crit~r
ion of reasona_bleness an_d non-arbitrariness. • We thii1k that
it wottld. also be desirable .if the interview of-the candidates
is tape-reeorded, for" in that eventhere will _be · conteinpo, .
• .r~~cous·evid~11ce to. s~()w. wl1at''were ·the C}_ueStions asked to
ihe candidates by the interviewing committee and what were .
. the answers give11 ·and _that will eliminate _a lot of unnecessary · ·G
..
•· contraversy besides acting as a clieck on· the possible_. arbitr-
.. ·~rine_ss of. the· ·intervieWing· ·co!llmittee". . ·
• It wo~ld be noticed tha_t niost of the observations were. made
. with a vie_; to enable the Government to ·devise a selection prncedure H
, which would he above r.eproach, H: was never intended to lay down· .
:. .
.•·--'
592 ' SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19S4] ~ S.C.R.
any hard and fast rules; In the very nature ofthihgs it would not .b~ .
within the proviric.e or even the competence of the Couri and the.court
would not venture ;into such exclusive thickets to discover ways out,
. when the matte{$ ate mere appropriately kft to the. wise expertise of
medica 1academicians intllres!ed in the quality and inte~ty of medjcal · ·•
. education and public administrators conversant with various ad~ini.'
strative ~nd socio-economic problems.".,needs and requirements. ·The
· Court's duty'iil's in preventing arbitrarines.s and denial of equal opporc ·
tun.ity. The question as to the subjects in which an entrance test may · · · ·
be held ishardly a matter for' the cou;t, unless; 'or course, the subjects ' . . .::
are so arbitrarily c!iosen as to have not the slightest connection with·
·, the object of the examination.' S.uch a situation· is not likely to arise : -j. .
· as the aut)iorities ·may be expected to. act reasonably. Again it is not 1
for the court to lay down whether.an interview test should be. held at
.all or how many marks should .be allotted for the invefview test.
Of course, the marks must. be mininiaPso as.to avoid charges'ofarbi-
trariness but not necessarily always. There may be posts and appoint- ..
ments where the only proper method pf selection may be by an inter-
D v~ew test. Even in the case of admission to higher degree courses, it
may some .times be ·necessary to allot afrurly high percentag~ of nlllrks ·
.. for·the interview test; ·For'admission tq a Ph. D course, for example, · :' ·
· ·.candidates niay have to be consumn1ately interviewed, each of them
:for a few hours;. perhaps; ~efore any decision can be taken a.s to 'who.
inay ·be admitted_. That. is why we say ·rigid rules cannot be_ laid in .•. t
E t]lese matters, and not by Courts~· The ~xpert bodies are generaliy the
bestjudges, 'An that we may say is that allocation ofa high percentage·
of marks ·for admission to.under-Graduate courses should be avoided
as the~e isa risk of a ·certain amount of arbitrariness which may lead·
_y
to frustration of the very object of t_he selection. ai1d disrepute. of the .
svstem.· Courts interfrre when the rlsk of arbitrarine.ss is so high· that
.F a~bitrariness is in~vitable. Again the. court is i1pt the best judge of .
what questions may. be asked at the interview. As mentiol'led by' us ._.
oatUer; all that is nece'ssary is that the questions should nvt be a ri\ere· ,.
pretence.
. .. . . . . ,•
AU thit we lia ve said above i~ o~ly to supplement w~at has been
G
said in Ajay Hasia"s case ai\d in the case .of Lila Dhar -vs. State of Raja'
sthan'". In the. latter .case after refefring to the K_othari Committee's
..
report on Recruitment Policy a_nd Selection Methods, we said: .
H
. .
. (I) [1982] l S.C.R. 320.
. .- ' - . .. . . -. ; . .~,· . . . . .
J AVID RASOOL V. J &.
.
KSTATE (Chinnappa Reddy, J.)
. . . - ~
593
.· · ·. ''It is now well recognised that while a written examina~ . 'A
tion assesses it caJfdidate'sknowledge and· intellectual ability; ·· ·
. ari interview test is valuable io assess a candidate's o~erail .
· · inteliectual and perional.qualitie~: whil~~ writtenexaminqtiori
has. certain- distinct ~dvantage . over the: inter~;ew test ti1ere
·are yet rio writteri tests. whiCh ,<:an· evaluate a· candidatcs's
initiative, alertness, r~sourcefulness; dependableness, coope-
. ·. · rativeness, capaciil' for clear and logical' presentation, cffecti' .
· 'VMess, in discussi_on: elfe~tiveness in IJleetingand dealing with
_,_._. others,"adaptability,. judgment, ability . to· make decision, ·
"ability to lead, fotellectual arid moral integrity:. Sbme of. the.se
qualities may be.evaluated, perhaps ;vith· soine .. degree . of
error,. by. ap interview fest, much depe.nding ·on the·coristitu- .
ti oh of ·iJie ·.interview Board." · ··
c
We then .re!erred to CJl~rtn
Stahl on .'Ptibli~ Pers~nneF Ad~lnis-
·.
. .tration and the United Nations Hanel.book ~ri Civil.Sorvice Law and
Pfactice". We furt1i"er said: - • ·
.·.,.
D.
"Thus, the written examinatio~ ·assesses .ihe Jna~'s inieliect
a.nd theintervi~w te.stthe man himself and "the twain shall njeet"
a
· .• for proper s~kction.: ifbpth written e·xainination ancHnterview .
. test are to be esseritjal feiturcs of proper.selecti~n, .the question
. may aris.e as to. ihe weight to be attached respectively. to them ..
In the case of.admissio11 to 'a college; :for instance, where the E
·candidate's petscinality is yet.to develop ·arid it is ·too' e~rly· to.
· idontify the- personai ·qualities for which greater impo"riance may . ·
have to be attached in later !ifo, gceate(weight· h.as per. for.ce td ·
. ·.be given to .performance in.the written examination. The imper' . '
tantc to be attached to the.interview testmust be mini~al..That
- · w~s what was decided by this Court in Perfakaruppai1 v. State' . . F
of Tamilnadu, Ajay Basia etc. v. Khalid Mujib Seharvardi &
·ors:ctc.; (supra) and other cases. on th.ii other han'd, in the case
of services.to wbkh .recruitmeni has'nccessarily fo·be made"from
.persons• ~f m:;ture personality, interview test may be "the only
way,".stibject'to· basic: and essenti~I acadeinic and professiori 0.l ·
. requirements being satisfied. 'ro.subjecJsuchpersons to a written
examination . may yield unfruitful and·. negative re§ults, apart
fron1 its being an· act of cr11elty to those perso:fis, There a.re/of
·co Urse~ ·many services to WhiCh tecpJit:illerit .is made ffom: yo"unger'.
cimd\dates whos~ personalities are·oihhe threshdld of ct6velopc.
ment ~nd ,who show signs of great pr6Il)ise, ahd the' ·.discerning H
an
may in intervie1~ test, catch a glimpse of.the future personality .. ·
.~·.
'' .•
...
594 - SUPREME com\T' REPORTS
A. . Iri the cas·e of such services, where sound. selection mµst combine
. academic ability with p'ersonality promise, sonie weight has to
- be given, though not much too great weight, t<;> the interview
test. There_ cannot -be-any-rule of thumb regarding the 'precise ·
. weight to be given. It must varylromservice to.service according .
t,0 the requireme~ts of the service, the 1ninimum qualifications
B · .prescribed, the age group from which the selection-iii to be made,
the body to' which the tasl<-of holding th!) interview test is propo-
sed to be entrusted and a host of other.factors.: it'is a matter fer
determinatiori by experts. It is a matter for research. It is not._ ,
4
for Courts to proriou~ce upon it unless exaggerated weight has ·
been given with proven or obvi_ous oblique motives. The Kothari _ ~: .
c Committee also suggpted that in view o( the o_bvjous importanc~ ·· (
of the subject, it may be exami1icd in detail by the Research ,..
Unit of the Union of' Public Service Commission.". ·
. . , At this.juncture while-_,we are quoting froin the earlier decision -..
of the court in Liladhar v. State Of Rajasthan, we may as well refer
D to ·the criticism of. Shri Anil Dev Singh that block marks should not
have been _allocated. for' general knowledge and general intelligence.
Our observationsin Liladhar's case, which we have extracted below,
_. answer this point. alsci: .
'.'The rules 'themselves do not provide for. the allocation ·of .
marks under different heads .at .the in\ervi(:w test. The
ct'ite.ria for the interview test has been laid down by the.
-rules. It is fqr ihe intervie1ving. body to take a geceral ·
decisibn whether. to allocate mark.sunder different heads or
to award marks in a single Jot: The award of marks under
different he~ds ma~J~ad to a distorted· picture of the candidate
on occasions. On the other hand the totality cf the impress-
ion created by· the candidate on the interviewing bcdy may '
give. a more accurate picture of the candidate's personality.· It
is f<;>_r the interviewing body to choose. the appropriate' method •
of marking at the selectjon to each service. There cannot be
any magic formulate"in these matters and courts cannot sit
G it judgment over the, methods C:f marking employed by i1~ter,
viewing bodies unless, as we said, it is proven or obvious that
·the: method of marking was chosen wlth oblique motive.
"It is frue that in Periakafoppah's case the. Coqrt held
H that the n<iri·ail9catioff Of.mar.ks under variolls ·heads in the
interview test was illegal but that was bccau_se the ins!ructions
-, ..
. •
,
. ..
·,
• JAV!D RASOOL v. J .& K STATE·(Chbinappa Reddy; J.)_
. . . '. . . .
.. 595
· to the -Selection Committee . 'provided that marks were to c· ·
•• I
be awarded at the interview on tJie basis of five disti11ct
. tests. H was thought that the failllre to allocate markS.
under each bqd or distihCt te~t~ wa'n illegality''.
• The criticism that·the Selection procedurc~was bad becalis~ the
marks obiained ,by the candidates at the respective qualifying exami- B
:., nations wore not taken into account; but only the niarks in the written
test a1id. the oral test conducted by the Selection Committee, has also
· ·{c-, ·· no force. We we1'e told that the qualifying examination, that is,· the
. , First TDC (M,a,ical Group) exawination was held at diff~rent times
· ih Jamnrn and Srinagar. Naturally the question papers,, etc.···must
have ·been different. The Selection· Committee· aprarently thought . C'
that it would be better to have a :common entrance te'st. It appears to
us to be a .perfectly reasonable procedure. Even otherwise it· is always.·
· open to a Seledon Committee to insist on taking into' c-0nsideration
marks. obtained-at the examin_alion held by it only and excluding from
· c·ansideration marks. obtained ih examinations held· by· other bodies.
We are unable to see anything .\vrong .in this procedure. A similar D
. contention was negatived in Ajay Rasia's case al~o where. 'it was obser-
., ved:
Ji....:
. '~It is diflic.ult to appreciate how a·procedurc for admission w,hich
..· does not. take·· into account the .marks bbtjlineU·at the ·qualifying
.· .J..[_, exa1nination, but prefers fo test th.e comparative merit of the candidates E
·by· insisting on an entrance · hamination can every Ile· said to be arbi:..
~ ~rary"; •.· · · -
. !.:.,.....
Two. other submissiohs which were made in the . course of the ··
'r argument n\ay also be disposed of here. Orie was.th<t_t general knowc
" ·;;.ledge and,gerieral inteHigcnce were not matters to be.Jested in 4:he ~jva F
'· voce·test, but should _have been tested· in a. written examination. That is·
not a. matter for this Court t6 .decide. It was .a matter for the Selection
Committee. to de.cide whether general. knowledge a~d general .intelli-
.. gence· could be more appropriately tested in the viva voce test or in tlie
written test. The other· sµbniissiori was tl;iat there was delay jn the
anno.uricement of results and the delay made the .selection suspect. We · .G •
.... ·,find that there was in fact no delay and.we only add that the.suspicion, ·
if any, was unfounded. _. · ·
di;j _We finally come to the submission on which Shri Anil Dev-Singh ·
laid considerable emphasis, namely, that the entire selection was vitia- · H
ted. by the presence cmthe Selection' Committee of theJather of o~e
_, ,_,
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (19'84] 2. $.C:R.
. . ...:
A ~ of the candidates.. This was said to be a· gross violation of one ofthe ' '
. principles ot·natural justice. The grivance is not reaL The .Principal .
of ·Medical. College, Srinagar,' whose daughter. was a· caric\idate; for
admission to the Medic:al College informed. ihe Selection Committee
at the very outset aboutthi.cact ·and told them tha·t he would not have' · •
. anything.
to do. with
.
the written
~ . ·,'
test e.11d·. · would · no.t 'be. present
. .
when· . · •
.R his daughter was interviewd; The 9ther members •of the. Selection
Committee accepted the suggestion of · ibe Principal· and did . not
. · think it ne.cessary t~ add;ess the . Governm.ent to appoint a . snbsti- ·
tute •member of the: Selection Coriimittee since the Government· had :·1'
fixed.the quo'rum fot a meeting·of the Selection Co,mmittee· as:th~
Chairman.and' one other member and'it was possible to have a quorum.
'
.
·without the .Principal of the Medical College, Srinagar. The prccedure ·
adopted by the Selection Commit.tee a~d the member .cqncerned .was ·
'.
in accord.with the quite well-known and generaIJy:acceptedyrocedure :
·adopted bi the Public Service Commissions· ·every \\.here. It is not·
umisual for candidatenelated to members of the Service Commission
.. er other Selection Committee t<) seek employment Whenever such
a situation arises, the practice generaJ'Jy is. for the' m<mber concerne.d
to e~cuse. 'himseif .when the pa1:tic~lar candidate is. inter.viewed. We
notice. that such a· 'situation had· also .been noticed by this court in: the ·
case of Nagarjan ~- State of Mysore w where it was polnted out'that .
in ihe absence of mala fides, it would not be' tight to.set aside the s~lec- ~ '*
tfon merely ·because one,of tlie c;andidates happened t" be reiated . ·
E to 'a .me1nber •of the ·Selection Commission who had abstained froin.
parli~ipating-in ~~
the interview of that candidate. Nothing" unusual was
d~ne by 'lhe preseni Selection Committee, The girl's fat]1er wat not
present .when she was interviewed, She was one among several hundre.d
cadidates. The· marks obtained by her. in the written test
. · eveii :kno,;,n: when she was interviewed, And, in fact, ;,.,e .find that as
were· not. · ·
.'f.
-
F · a resu. It of her P.erformance at the "interview, slie l.~st rather.than gainecl ·
I
. .
· so·ine ·.places. · -
. ' .
· · ·· · · •
~· . •
.Great re.liance was. placed by the learned couns.cl 011 A..K,· Kraipak
.·& Ors. v, Union, of india 12.i on "the question of natilral justice. We.
do J;ot .think that . the case is of any assistance to the petitioners. It was .
G a case where one of the person~, who sat as member oLthe Selection
;
Board,. was. himself one of the persons to .be considered for· selection:·
. · He participated in the deliberations of the Selection Boa~d when. the
claims. of bis rivals were.considered. He participated in the·decisions
H ' (1}{1970] I S.C.C, 457,
(2) [1966) 3 S.C,R. 682.
.. .
..
.I. rel~ting to the prdors'.or· preference and s<mioriiy.. He partici~ated at . A
. : . '·every stage" in the . delibeq!.ions of the Selecti.on .Bo.ard·an<l at every
rstage there 1vas ·a cortffict between his'hiterest arid dnty. The court bad1 '
597'
•
.· no hesitation in.coming lo the :tonc!Bsion· that.there was a rea~'9nab!e. ·
.. Iikelihoqd of bias and therefore, ther,e wai a xiolatioii of the principles
of natt:ral justice. Jn the' case ,before us.. the "Principal of the Medical ·
. College~ Srinagar, dissociatedJiimself from the Written test ai{d did. :fl ·
Ir.;. nofpartici.pa te in. the proceedings. when his daughter was interviewe<l.. ., =:·
. ·.When the other candidates were interviewed, he '.·ctid not know 'the·
::~ ; .marks ~bfained .eiiher by .. his dai.lghter .or by ~ny of the candidates. ·
. There ;.va~ no occasion to: suspe~t his. bona ftdes even remotely.. There ..
a
was not eyen ~ suspicfon of bias.leave alone reasonable Jikelih.ood
'of bias. There
',·. .,
was no viola.lion
':", of the principale_s .of natural
,,. _. .
justice. ·. C ·
One last submissio11, which we may ·note: was that there was
f a contravention of one Of the regulations made.by .the Indian Medical
. CounCil._It was. said. that .the regulation p~escrili6d that the marks .
. .. obtained at the qualifying examination should be taken into .conside~·
· fatiori in States l)aviµg only one Medkru College ·and one University/. . D
Board/Examination BJdy . conducling .the ·qualifying examination .. ·.
This .iegi.tfatio,n.,has no. application because ·the<e are two Medical
._ Coilegesfo this ,Sfate. Though olily one Board conductec1 theiqualify~
.. fog ,e~aniination; .the, examinat)ons:•were ·. Conducted. separateiy .'.for,
Jamiriu .·and .Srinagar aroas and· on fwo different' ·occasi6ns; In the •
);...second. place; these regulationshave b~enheld. to be directory and not E
'mariilatory by th.is court ,in State of Madhya Pratfesh v; Kr. Nivediia
. J.ilin; 11 >
-?' ~- \
.. . We hayeconsidered the various ·points 'raised by the petitioners.
r. ··at sonie length, .we have said so· much and we 11ave quateariom ihe . · :F
· previous judg1nents of thisC<iurt in exterise not because we find any ... '
: substance in' any of the ·contentions, but .because these .conten,tionsare '. .
b.iirig re~eatedly. rai,sed in many such cases and .we desire to .discou- .
·.. ·ra.ge, the raising. of un,necessary hope'in th.e minds .cif thC. young:men : .
arid wome~ seeldng the aid' of courts for itdinission into professional.
collegis, ready as t\ley are t~ ch~ich at any straw .. We dismiss all the . G: ·
Writ petitions but in the· circums.tances without costs. · . • . . . . .
' ..
' Petitions dismissed. :
: - ~ I • '
.. '
.'
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "admission"Sign in to search