# [1980] 3 S.C.R. 1253 - **Citation:** [1980] 3 S.C.R. 1253 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1980-05-09 - **Bench:** A. C. Gupta, S. Mvrtaza Fazal Ali, P. S. Kailasa.'11 - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/1980-3-s-c-r-1253-7960 - **Pages:** 18 ## Headnote Selecrion t>f candidates admitted to the: G01•ernment Medical College, Jan1mu-Whe1her the notifications issued by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir indicating different categories under clause (2) and earmiirking seats arbitrary and unconstitutional-Articles 14 and· 15 of the Consti~ution--lnter view method of selection whether a valid test. The selection of ca.ndidates admitted to the Government Medical College, J ammu are to be made in accordance with the manner and procedure laid down in the various· orders issued by the Government of J ammu; and Kashmir from time to time. The earliest order made on July 9, 1973 concerns admission t6 technical institutions which include medical colleges and says that ''the man power requirements of various parts, of the State have not received unifc-nn and equal treatment with the result that there has been imbalance in the· development of human resources in these parts", and "since the admissions to technical institutions also lead to the development of human resources'~, it had, therefore, "become necessary to provide equal opportunities· to the permanent residen~ candidates of all parts of the State and all sections of the. society,'. Asi per this order 50% of the seats were eMmarked for selection on open competition, 25% of the seats were reserved for candidates belonging to the categories specified in clause (2) of the order according to the percentage indicated against each. It was further provided in the order that after selection, as above,,: the remaining 25 % of the seats "should be filled on the basis: of inter se merit to ensure rectification of imbalance in the admissions for various parts of the State, if any~ so as to give equitabler and uniform treatment to those parts". In case there. was no ''visible imbalance" or where no candidates were available under a particular category mentioned in clause (2) above the seats earmarked under these two heads "shall be added to the percentage under [clause] I above". The annexure to the order contained instructions concerning the "idenUfication of th.e persons claiming benefit" under cJause 2 of the order and "the procedure connected therewith". The instructions defined the different categories men· tioned in clause (2) : "Areas adjoining actual line of control-Candidates permanently A B c D E F residing in any village of the' State specified in Appendix I to these' G instructions''. "Bad pockets-Candidates permanently residing in any village of the State specified in Appendix Il to these instructions". "Social Castes-Candidates of the State belonging to any of the castes indicated in Appendix Ill to these instructions". The instructions also provided for the issue of a certificate by tho concerned authority stating that a candidate fell under any of the categories. H A B c D E F G 1254 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 3 s.c.R. on June 27, 1974 another order was issued refixing the percentage of seats reserved for the different categories "with a view to affording more accommo-o dation for open merit". Open merit perc.entage was increased to 60, by reducing by 5 % the percentage of seats allotted for children of freedom fighters and by reducing the percentage of seats of 25% earmarked to ensure "rectification of imbalance" from 25% to 20%. 3% of seats reserved for candidates from areas known as. bad pockets which included Ladakh under the category "socially and educationally backward classes" was reduced to 1 t;O and the resultant diff~ rence of 2% was earmarked to candidates from Ladakh which was excluded from the above category. By another order dated April 21, 1976, the existing reservation of 20% for meeting regional imbalance \Vf candidates admitted to the: G01•ernment Medical College, Jan1mu-Whe1her the notifications issued by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir indicating different categories under clause (2) and earmiirking seats arbitrary and unconstitutional-Articles 14 and· 15 of the Consti~ution--lnter view method of selection whether a valid test. The selection of ca.ndidates admitted to the Government Medical College, J ammu are to be made in accordance with the manner and procedure laid down in the various· orders issued by the Government of J ammu; and Kashmir from time to time. The earliest order made on July 9, 1973 concerns admission t6 technical institutions which include medical colleges and says that ''the man power requirements of various parts, of the State have not received unifc-nn and equal treatment with the result that there has been imbalance in the· development of human resources in these parts", and "since the admissions to technical institutions also lead to the development of human resources'~, it had, therefore, "become necessary to provide equal opportunities· to the permanent residen~ candidates of all parts of the State and all sections of the. society,'. Asi per this order 50% of the seats were eMmarked for selection on open competition, 25% of the seats were reserved for candidates belonging to the categories specified in clause (2) of the order according to the percentage indicated against each. It was further provided in the order that after selection, as above,,: the remaining 25 % of the seats "should be filled on the basis: of inter se merit to ensure rectification of imbalance in the admissions for various parts of the State, if any~ so as to give equitabler and uniform treatment to those parts". In case there. was no ''visible imbalance" or where no candidates were available under a particular category mentioned in clause (2) above the seats earmarked under these two heads "shall be added to the percentage under [clause] I above". The annexure to the order contained instructions concerning the "idenUfication of th.e persons claiming benefit" under cJause 2 of the order and "the procedure connected therewith". The instructions defined the different categories men· tioned in clause (2) : "Areas adjoining actual line of control-Candidates permanently A B c D E F residing in any village of the' State specified in Appendix I to these' G instructions''. "Bad pockets-Candidates permanently residing in any village of the State specified in Appendix Il to these instructions". "Social Castes-Candidates of the State belonging to any of the castes indicated in Appendix Ill to these instructions". The instructions also provided for the issue of a certificate by tho concerned authority stating that a candidate fell under any of the categories. H A B c D E F G 1254 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 3 s.c.R. on June 27, 1974 another order was issued refixing the percentage of seats reserved for the different categories "with a view to affording more accommo-o dation for open merit". Open merit perc.entage was increased to 60, by reducing by 5 % the percentage of seats allotted for children of freedom fighters and by reducing the percentage of seats of 25% earmarked to ensure "rectification of imbalance" from 25% to 20%. 3% of seats reserved for candidates from areas known as. bad pockets which included Ladakh under the category "socially and educationally backward classes" was reduced to 1 t;O and the resultant diff~ rence of 2% was earmarked to candidates from Ladakh which was excluded from the above category. By another order dated April 21, 1976, the existing reservation of 20% for meeting regional imbalance \V of the. State which has resulted in certain areas being ba.ck\var~ as compared with the rest. In order therefore to rectify the distinction which inevitably would other- D wise creep in to the selection, the State Government has reserved 18% of seats for rectification of such imbalance". Even with thiS explanation~ the affidavi~ does not identify the area of imbalarice. There was thus no objective standard to guide the selection committee. [1261 E~H, 1262 A] (ii) Even in the supplementary affidavit it is not claimed that the area of imbalance is only another name for the areas adjoining the actual tine of con- E trol and the bad pockets, as contended on behalf of the State. What is said in the affidavit is that the areas of imbalance are similar to thei aforesaid areas in being equally backward. But this does not mean that these categories a·re all identical and co-extensive in all respects. Further in spite of similarity, even areas adjoining the actual line of control· and the bad pockets. have been put under different categories; and [1262 B-DJ (iii) The contention was that the classification was justified on the report of the Anand Committee. The Selection Committee was required to follow not the Anand Committee report but what was provided in the orders passed by the Government. There is no order containing any reference to the Anand Committee Report. Neither the Government adopted the Anand Committee's report nor did the Selection Committee; proceeded on the basis of that report. Though tlie Anand Committee did not accept "social castes" as a category indicative of backwardness, the Selection Coinmittee has selected one candidate under this category which clearly shows that the Selection Committee was not guided by the Anand Committee Report, the selection made was not and could not be on the basis of that report. [1263 A-CJ 2. In Janki Prii.sad Parimoo and Ors. etc. etc. v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors., [1973] 3 SCR p. 236, the Supreme Court did not approve 4 out of 23 "low social castes" mentioned in the Wazir Committee Report "as educationally and economically .extremely backward'', as having no basis for incluF G H. 1256 SlJPRE:VIE COURT REPORTS [1980] 3 s.c.R. A sion in the List. In Appendix III, 19 of these castes have been retained which were not disapproved in Parimoo's case. Chapter XIlI of the Wazir Committee report makes it clear that the classification is with reference to the nature of occupations which the people belonging to this category pursue. That being so, the classification does not offend Article 14 or Article 15 of the Constitu· tion. The selection of Edwin Khakkar, a Christian is in order since he falls under one such category listed and since the category is based on occupation B and not on caste as such. [1263 G-H, 1264 A-BJ c 3. The areas adjoining actua1 line of control and bad pockets are rea.lly backward areas and the residents of these areas are indisputably socially and educationally backward. Reservations made for such candidates from such back\vard classes cannot be said to offend Article 14 of the Constitution. [1264C-D] Janaki Prasad Parimoo and Ors. etc. v. State of Jammu & Kashmir and Ors., [1973] 3 SCR p. 236; followed. 4. Though the contention that "interviewing candidates to judge their sullability was not a reliable test as many uncertain factors were likely to affect the result of the interview" reflects a legitimate point of view, but it is a point of view only and cannot be taken as the last word on the subject. D However, it is impossible within allotted span of time (4 minutes) to make a fair estimate of a candidate's suitability on a consideration of the five specified factors which are not capable of easy determination such as physical fitness, persooolity, aptitude, general knowledge and general intelligence. By merely looking at a candidate, the selection committee could not come to a conclusion about on.p's physical fitness. Therefore, the fact that the allotment of marks is in accordance with a policy decision may not conclude E the matter in all circumstances; if that· decision is found to be arbitrary and infringing Article 14. of the Constitution it cannot claim immunity from challenge. [1264 E-H, 1265 G-H, 1266 AJ F R. Chitralekha and anr. v. State of Mysore and Ors. [1964] 6 SCR 368; A. Peeriakaruppan etc. v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors., [1971] 2 SCR 430; distinguished and held inapplicable to the facts of the instant case. 5. The selection under the category "wards of Medical College Staff" is invalid as such a category does not find place in any of the orders. [1266 G-H] j 6. Reservation for students from other States on reciprocal basis, as seen from Anita Jain's case bas not worked in practice· and she is entitled to a seat. Nor did the two clauses 17 and 18 of the notification dated June 21, G 1979 apply to Kulbbusban Gupta since be was not selected or nominated by the Government of J ammu and Kashmir for admission to the Engineering College nor was he selected by any selection committee constituted by the Government of fammu and Kashmir. [1267 E-H, 1268 G-H] ORIGINAL JUR1smcnoN: Writ Petition Nos. 1488-89, 1556-57, H 1571/79 and 29, 201, 222, 249, 260-263, 267, 268-271, 278, 279, 304, 305. 309, 310 and 326 of 1980. (Under Article 32 of the Constitution) , 1 41 't~ • • Ii Iii ll • .I .. ~-- NISHI MAGHU v. :r. tit 'K. (Gupta, !.) 1257 ' Anil Dev Singh, S. s. Jauhar and Lalit Kumar Gupta for the PetiA tioners in WP Nos. 148~-89, 1571/79 and 304, 309-310/80. A nil Dev Singh and S. K. Sabharwal for the Petitioners in WP Nos. JI,., 201, 249, 267, 278, 279 and 326/80. • • .y Naunlt Lal for the Petitioners in WP Nos. 1556-57 /79, 29, 222, 260-63, 268-271 and 305/80. B S. N. Kackar for the Respondent in WP Nos. 1488-1489/79 . Y. S. Chitale and.Mukul Mudgal for the Respondent in WP Nos. 1556-1557 /79. Alta/ Ahmed for Respondent Nos. 1-3 in WP 1488 and RR. 1-6 in WP 1489 /79 and in all the matters. ATM Sampath and P. N. Ramalingam for RR. 7 in WP No. 1488/79 and 1551-1557 /79. C.S.S. Rao for RR. 12 in WP No. 1488/79. S. P. Gupta, V. K. Pandita, R. Satish and E. C. Agarwala and c Dwarka Nath Gupta for the Intervener i:n WP Nos. 1556-1557 /79. D A. K. Sen, V. K. Pandita, R. Satish, S. P. Gupta, Dwarka Nath Gupta and E. C. Agarwala for the Intervener in WP Nos. 1488-1489/ 79. L. M. Singhvi (Dr.), L. K. Pandey and Mr. Naunit Lal for the I Petitioner in WP No. 29/80. E The Judgment of the Court was deilvered by GUPTA, J.-The selection of candidates admitted to the Government Medical College, Jam.mu, for the academic year 1979-80 is challenged in these petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution by some of the candidates who were not selected. By notification published in the Jam.mu and Kaslunir Government Gazette on June 21, 1979 appliF ' cations were invited for admission to the M.B.B.S. course in the aforer said college. Only those candidates who had passed the Pre-Medical or Inter-SCience or First Year T.D.C. (Medical Group) examination from the University of Jam.mu or any other equivalent examination and had secured not less than 50 per cent marks in science subjects in aggregate (theory and practical) were eligible to apply for admission; however, for scheduled castes,, scheduled tribes, Bakarwal and Gujjar candi- ·dates and candidates from Ladakh district and 'Bad Pockets' the. qualifying marks was 45 per cent· Candidates who had been selected or nominated by.the Government of Jammu and Kashmir or had been already selected by a selection committee constituted by the Government for any training course in or outside the State were not eligible to apply c;>r to appear for interview for admission to this cOllege. The notification 21-610 SCI/80 G H A 1258. SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1980] 3 S.C.R. added : "Comparative merit of the candidates will be adjudged with respect to physical fitness, aptitude, personality, general knowledge and general intelligence in the interview,. for which warks will be awarded. according to the performance of the candidates". It was further provided that the selection would be made in accordance with the manner and procedure laid down in the various orders issued by the GovernB . ment from time to time. The total number of seats filled by selection in this college for the year 1979-80 was 52. The candidates numbered 526, out of which 4 73 actually appeared for interview. In addition 10 seats were filled by candidates nominated by the Government. It appears from the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the State of c Jannnu and Kashmir that the nominations had to be made only from two sources : wards of non-resident Defence personnel, and students from other States. D E Before we proceed to .consider the grounds on which the selection is challenged, it will be necessary to refer to the contents of the orders issued by the Government of J ammu and Kashmir to regulate the selection. The earliest order which is relev~nt in this context was made on July 9, 1973. This concerns adntission to technical institutions which include medical colleges. The order starts by saying that ''the man power requirements of various parts of the State have not received uniform and equal treatment with the result that there has been imbalance in the development of human resources in these parts", and ''since the admissions to technical institutions also lead to the development of human resources", it had therefore "become necessary to provide equal opportunities to the permanent resident c~ndidates of all parts of the State and all sections of society". The order then lays down the following rules for admission until further orders, it is said, with the aforesaid F object in view : G II ( 1) 50 per cent of the seats "should be straightaway earmarked for being filled upon the basis of open merit in accordance with the criteria to be adopted by the concerned selection committee constituted by the Government in this behalf''. (2) Of the remaining seats, 25 per cent is reserved for candidates falling under the categories specified below to the extent indicated against each, to be filled on the basis of merit in each category : · (a) Scheduled castes. (b) Children of freedom fighters. { c) Children of permane!lt resident Defence personnel. 8% 7% ..It ' .. • · • • y i f I ·~ .. .. y / NIS!ll MAGHU v. J. & K. (Gupta, /.) 1259 ( d) Candidates belonging to the following socially and educationally back.ward classes at recommended by the Backward Classes Committee; · (i) Areas adjoining actual line of control (ii) Areas known as bad pockets including Ladakb.. (iii) Social castes 3% 39'o 1% It is further provided in the order that after selection as indicated in clauses (1) and (2) above had beeu made, the remaining 25 per cent of the seats "should be filled on the basis of inteHe merit to ensure rectification of imbalance in the admissions for various parts of the State, if any, so as to give equitable and uniform treatment to those parts". It is added that in case there is no ''visvble imbalance"· or where no candidates are available under a particular category mentioned in' clause 2 above the seats earmarked under these two heads "shall be added to the percentage under 1 above". The selection committee while making selections is required by the ord~ to indicate separately the category under which a candidate falls. There is an annexure to the order contauung instructions concerning the "identification of the persons claiming benefit" under clause 2 of the order and the "procedure connected therewith". The instructions define the different categories mentioned in clause (2). For the present purpose it will be necessary to refer to the definitions of "Areas adjoiming actual line of control", "Bad pockets'', and "Social castes". "Areas adjoining actual line of control-Candidates permanently· residing in any village of the State specified in Appendix I to these illlstructions." "Bad pocket8-eandidates permanently residing in any village of the State specified in Appendix II to these instructions." · · "Social castes-eandidates of the State belonging to any of the castes indicated in Appendix III to these instructions." A. B c D E F G I The instructions also provide for the issue of a certificate by tlie B concetnecl authority stating that· a candidate falls under any of ' the categories. • 1260 SIJPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 3 s.c.R. A On June 2 7, 197 4 anoμier order was issued refuting the percentage of seats reserved for the different categories "with a view to affording more accommodation for open merit". c D E F The following changes were made to the earlier order: ( 1) Instead of 50 per cent, 60 per cent of the seats is now earmarked for admission on the basis of "open merit". (2) (3) ' Instead of 25 per cent, 20 per cent is earmarked for admission under the categories mentioned in clause 2 of the order dated July 9, 1973. The percentage · of seats allotted for children of freedom fighters is reduced from 7 per cent to 2 per cent. Under the category "socially and educationally backward classes" the earlier order had reserved 3 per cent of the seats for candidates belonging to areas known as bad pockets including Ladakh, by this order Ladakh is excluded from that category reducing the percentage of seats from 3 per cent to 1 per cent and a separate category has .been made for candidates from the Ladakh district allotting 2 per cent of the seats to' them. Whereas in .the earlier order 25 per cent of the seats was earmarked to ensure rectification of imbalance, here the figure is reduced to 20 per cent. About two years later, on April 21, 1976 another order was issued reducing the existing reservation of 20 per cent for meeting regional imbalance to 18 per cent and allotting "the resultant 2% vacancies" for candhlates "possessing outstanding proficiency in sports". It is necessary to refer to two more orders. An order made on April 16, 197 6 provides that 10 seats at the Government Medical College, J ammu, shall be earmarked for girl students "subject to G enough girl students being found otherwise suitable". The order also lays down the procedure to be followed by the selection committee in selecting candidates for admission to technical traimng courses. By this order, comparative performance of the candidate.s at an interview to be conducted for the purpose by the selection committee is made the only basis of selection. The order adds that the H marks obtained by a . candidate in the qualifying university examination shall be taken into consideration only to determine the initial eligibility to compete for selection. This order was modified by a _1 f • .. • ' ' \ ~~ ; ,,,_ . '.if~k~-- •\ NISHI MAGHU v. J. & K. (Gupta, J.) 1261 subsequent order issued on April 3, 1978. Instead of the marlcs obtiiined by a candidate in the qualifying university examination be- . ing treated as relevant only to determine eligibiJ.ity, the subsequent order provides: "there will lie 100 marks for academic merit which shall be allotted to each candidate in accordance with the percentage of marks secured by him/her fo the basic qualifying examination or its equivalent". This order further provides that 50 marks will be allotted for interview, 10 marks for each of the five factors; physical fitness, personality, aptitude, general knowledge and general intelligence. Some of the categories mentioned in these orders have been challenge9 as arbitrary and unconstitutional. We may begin witli the classification made for 'rectification or regional imbalance' for which B c 18 per cent of the seats is reserved. The ·crilicism is that the order creating this category does not identify the . areas which suffer from imbalance nor does it S'UQPly any guidelines for the selection committee. It appears that the selection committee has admitted· 9 candidates under this head whose names appear at serial Nos. 43 to 51 D of the list of selected candidates annexed to .the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent, State of Jammu and Kashmir. How exactly the selection committee understood what regional imbalance was and on what basis they accepted certain areas of the State as suffering from imbalance is not known. The supplementary affidavit seeks to explain the category as follows : " .... the State Government has found that for peculiar. historical, geographical and topographical reasons there prevails an imbalance m the matter of development of the various parts of the State which has resulted i!ll certain areas being backwarl! as compared with the rest. In order therefore to rectify the distortion which inevitably would otherwise creep into the selection, the State Government has reserved 18% of seats for rectification of such imbafance" . . The affidavit refers to the disadvantages suffered by areas which adjoin the actuai line of control and the bad pockets and states: "likewise there are other areas in the. State which have recived lesser att- . ention in the past in the matter of economic development These areas, inter alia, are either inaccessible on account of difficult geographical terrain or suffer from difficult climatic condition .... Naturally therefore the human resources from those areas have also not developed". It may be recalled that the notification dated June 21, 1979 by which applications were invited for admission to the medical college provided that the selection of candidates would be made in · accordance with the manner and procedure laid down in the various orders issued by the Government from time to time, but none F G n , . ' 1262 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1980] 3- $.C.R. of these orders contains an explanation as the one now offered .in the supplementary affidavit. Even with this explanation the affidaVit does not identify the, areas of imbalance. There was thus no objecJ. tive standard tel guide the selection committee. Mr. Kacker appearing for the State of J ammu and Kashmir sought to argue that by area of imbalance what was meant was really the same thing as areas adjoinll ing actual line of control and bad pockets. But in all the orders issued by the Government from time to time the area of imbalance has been treated as a distinct category. Even in the supplementary affidavit it is not claimed that the area of imbalance is only another name for the areas ~djoining the actual line of control and the bad pockets, what is C said is that these are similar in being equally backward. But this does· ....... . not mean that these categories are all identical and co-extensive in all •. respects. It will be noticed that, in spite of the similarity, even areas adjoining the actual line of control and the bad pockets have been put l!lilder different categories. D E F Mr. Kacker also urged that as the areas suffering from imbalance were backward areas, constituting a separate category for candidates coming from such backward areas was in accordance with . the report of a committee headed by Mr. Justice Anand of Ja.mmu and Kashmir High Court. The Anand Committee w:is appointed on August 24, 1976 to examine and remove defects in the Jammu and Kashmir Soheduled Castes $d Backward · ClasSes (Rese1'Va6on) Rules, 1970 and the Jammu and Kashmir Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointment by Promotion) Rules 1970. These rules were framed on the basis of the recommendations of a committee, called the Wazir Committee, set up in 1969 for drawing up a list ol' back.ward classes in the State. Mr. Justice J.N. Wazir, a former Chief Justice of Jammu and Kashmir High Court, was the Chairman of this Committee. The Wazir Committee submitted its report in November 1969 recommending several classes of citizens to be clisrufied as backward classes. The validity of these Rules came up for .scrutiny before this Court in Janki Prasad Parimoo G and others etc. ef(:. v. State of Jamrnu and Kashmir and others.('} In Parimoo's case certain defects in the 1970 Rules were pointed out and the Anand Committee was constituted, as stated already, "with a view , to examine removal of. defects" in the 1970 Rules. The Anand Committee s~bmitted its report in September 1~77. Mr. Kacker drew our attention to the fact that the report was debated on the fibor of both H houses of the Jammu and Kashmir !egislatilre which resolve.I as (1) [1973] 3 S. C. R. 236 j ' .j ' 1 NISHI MAGHU v. J.&K. (Gupta, J.) 1263 follows : "The report need to be adopted by the Government as .quickly as po5sible and rules made so that the backward classes could -Oerive benefits quickly''. It is no! necessary to examine whether the ' Anand Commitree report identifies the areas of imbalance in the State .because the selection committee was required to follow not the Anand • Committee report but what was provided in the orders passed by the Government. There is no order containing any reference to the Anand .Committee report. There iSi also nothing to show that the Government had adopted the report of that the selection committee proceeded on the basis of tliat report. It appears from page 59 of the Anand ,r • • Committee report that the Committee did not accept "social castes" Y as a category indicative of backwardness, but the selection committee · has selected one candidate under this category which plajnly shows that the selection committee was not guided by the Arland Committee report. There can be no doubt that the selections made were not mid could not be on the basis d that report. It must therefore be held that the classification made for rectification of regional imbalance without identifying the areas suffering from imbalance is vague and the selections made under this head are accordjngly invalid. In support of this contention tha_t area of imbalance was only anothec name for bad pocketSi or areas adjoining actual line of control, Mr. Kacker claimed that the 9 candidates selected for 'rectification of imbalance' an came from either bad pockets or froin areas adjoining actuail line of control The claim was questioned by the petitioners who sought to disprove it by reference .to the material on record. We do not consider it necessary to examine the individual cases here. . It may be that some of these candidates really came from areas adjoining actual line of control or bad pockets, yet they cannot be accommodated unless the percentage d seats reserved for these two categories was raised. Another category under challenge is "social castes''. Included in A B c D B F this category are candidates of the State belonging to any of the castes indicated in appendix m to the instructpns forming part of the order G dat!ld, JUiy 9, 1973 to which reference has already been made. The Wazir Committee in their rep9rt mentioned 23 low social castes "as educationally and economically extremely backward" ·but 4 of them have been held 'by this Court in Parinwo' s case as having no basis for inclusion in the list. In appendix m 19 of these castes have been retained which were not disapproved in Parinwo's case. Chapter XIII R , of the Wazir Committee report makes it cleiμ- that the classification is with reference to the nature of occupations which the people belong- A B D E F G B 1264 SUPREME COUR.T REEORTS [1980] 3 $.C.R. ing to this category pursue. That being so we find no substance in. the challenge that the classification offends Article 14 or Article 15 of the Constitution. Under this category only one candidate has been selected whose name, Edwin Khokkar, appears at serial No. 33 in the list of selected candidates annexed to the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. An objection was raised against his selection that he being a Christian, as his name s;hows, could not belong to any of the castes mentioned in appendix III. But as the category is based on occupation and not on caste as such, the objection must be overruled. The classifications based on areas adjOiJiliig actual line of control ( ., and bad pockets are also challenged as violative of Article 14 of the 1 Constitution. These are really backward areas and the residents of these areas are indisputably socially and educationally backward. Reservations made for candidates from such backward classes cannot be said to offend Article 14. In fact in Parimoo's case the rese,rvation made for residents of bad pockets which were identified in the report of the Wazir Committee, was accepted .'llS valid. We therefore hold. that the challenge to these two categories is not justified. Apart from the challenge to some of the categories mentioned in the Government orders, the validity of interview as a test for selection has also been questioned, not only in principle but also 'in regard to the manner in which it was conducted. It was contended that interviewing candidates to judge their suitability w:i.s not a reliable test as many uncertain factors were likely to affect the result of the interview. The criticism reflects ~ legitimate point of view but it is a point of view only and cannot be mken as the last word on the subject. In this connection we may refer to the observations of this Court in R. Chitralekhd and another v. State of Mysore and others : (') "In the· f. field of education there are divergent views as regard the mode of tesir ing the capacity and calibre of students in the matter of admissions to· colleges. Orthodox educationists stand by the marks obtained by a: ' " student in the annual examination. The modern trend of opinion ..[ insists upon other additional tests, such as interview, performance in extra-curricular activities, personality test, psychiatric test etc. Obviously we are not in a position to judge which method is preferable ~l or which test is .the correct one". In A. Periakaruppan, etc. v. State of Tamil Nadu awl others(') this Court said : "In most cases the first impression need not necessarily be the best impression. But under tlte (!) (19641 6 S. C. R. 368. (2) (1971] 2 S. C. R. 430. NISHI MAGHU v. J. & K. (Gupta, /.) 1265 existing conditions in ibis country we are unable to accede to the conA. tention of the petitioners that the system of int~rview as in vogue in this country is so defective as to make it useless". In almost all the writ petitions before us the onil test as conducted has been described as a "farce". The criticism is based on the allegation that the time spent on each candidate was between ~ t and 2 minutes within which, it was contended, one could hardly assess the suitability of the candidate on a consideration of the five factors : physical fitness, aptitude, personality, general knowledge and general intelligence, some of which are also difficult to evaluate objectively. B In· an affidavit filed on behalf of the State of J ammu and Kashmir, •C' sworn by Dr. A. H. Fazli, Professor of Pharmacology, Srinagar, who was one of the members. of the selection committee, it is stated that on an average the time spent for interview was "4 minutes per candidate". Mr. Kacker for the State of Jammu and Kashmir submitted that it was a policy decision by the Government to convert the full marks of the qualifying examinations to 100 marks and allot 50 marks for interview for l:he purpose selection. He expl~ined that the conversion was necessary because the candidates had appeared in different qualifying examinations and the total marks in the different examinations varied between 550 and 300. It was pointed out on behalf of the writ petitioners that allotment of 50 marks for interview after reducing the total marks of the written examination, where it was 550 to· 100, amounted to allotting 275 marks for interview as against 550 marks for written examination. It was contended that this was beyond all reasonable proportion especially considering .the fact that only 4 minutes were spent in evaluating a candidate's performance in the intervie,w. Our attention was drawn to Periakaruppan's case where -Olis Court thought "earmarking 75 marks out of 275 marks for intervillW as interview marks prima fade appears to be excessive". However the conclu.ide and it may be appropriate for the Government to re-examine lho question, we are unable to uphold the contention that if was not within the power of the Government to provide such high marks for interview ...... ". Reserving 50 marks for interview out of a total of 150 (100 for written examination and 50 for interview) does seems excessive. especially when the time spent was not more than 4 minute' on each candidaie. It is difficult to see how it is possible within this short span of time to make a fair estimate of a candidate's suitability on a consideration of the five specified factors which are not capable of easy . determination, such as physical fitness, personality· aptitude,. general knowledge and general intelligence. It is also not clear how by1 D' E -.y iA 'Cl E 1266 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 3 s.c.R. merely looking at a candidate the selection committee. could come to a conclusion about his or her physical fitness. The fact that the allotment of marks is in ac;cordance with a policy decision may not conclude the matter in all circumstances; if that decision is found to be arbitrary and infringing Article 14 of the Constitution, it cannot claim immunity from challenge. When we say this we are not unmindfl)l of the observations in Per/akaruppan's case quoted above, . which were made in a somewhat similar but not altogether identical situation. It wiis also contended for the writ petitioners that reserving such high marks for interview leaves room for discrimination and manipulation. It has been held in Chitralekha' s case that the faC! that a system is capable of abuse is not a ground for quashing it. There is y no reliable material before us to prove that there has been discrimiqa- · !ion or manipulation of the interview marks in any of these eoases. That being so, and considering the possible hardship, if the selections were now 'Set aside, to the students in whose case the validity of the selection canuot otherwise be questioned and who have nearly completed two terms, we are not inclined to annul the entire selection, though allotment of 50 marks for interview in the circumstances stated above seem to us excessive. However, we expect the Government of Jamrtm and Kashmir to reconsider the matter in the light of what we have sa.id above and, other things remaining the same, for future years to reduce the percentage of marks allotted for interview to a reasonable proportion of the total marks for the selection test. Counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petitions 1556-57 of 1979 sought ' to make a point that the regulations framed by the Indian Medical Council under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 do not c:ontemplate interview as a selection device regulating admission of students. The position is not so clear from the affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners and in any case these regulations came into effect after the j interviews were concluded in September 1979. The selection of one candidate has been questioned on the ,groundi that he does not fall under any of the categories mentioned in the orders. Shri Sanjay Pathania whose name appears at serial No. 52 in the list of candidates annexed to the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the St&te of .J ammu and Kashmir appears to have been selected under the category "Ward~ of Medical College· Staff".