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

- **Citation:** [1986] 2 S.C.R. 560
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1986-04-15
- **Case number:** Writ Petitions Nos. 3023-32 of 1985
- **Bench:** R.S. Pathak, O. Chinnappa Reddy, R.B. Misra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/a1ul-khllllar-ors-etc-etc-v-state-of-j-kand-ors-etc-etc-9263
- **Pages:** 21

## Headnote

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"
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
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.
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
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
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
ATUL KRULi.AR v. STATE
561
~-ining fifty per cent on the basis of merit from llllODgst
~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.
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
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.
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
A
B
c
D
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 notw

## Text

_Characters 0–39,988 of 48,975. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39988 for what follows._

A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
560
A1UL KHllLLAR & ORS. ETC. ETC.
v.
STATE OF J & KAND ORS. ETC. ETC.
APRIL 15, 1986
[R.S. PATHAK, O. CHINNAPPA REDDY AND R.B. MISRA, JJ.]
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"
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
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.
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
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
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
ATUL KRULi.AR v. STATE
561
~-ining fifty per cent on the basis of merit from llllODgst
~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.
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
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.
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
A
B
c
D
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
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
562
SUPRF.ME COURT REPORTS
[19861 2 s.c.R.
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
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
their
selection because of their inferior merit in the ,
select list.
""f
--
Dismissing the writ petitions and the special leave
petition, the Court,
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.
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)
~
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
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
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
• ---· 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
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
'"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)
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.
[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
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)
...,. "-
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
worksheets on which the marks have been recorded by each
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
564
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1986) 2 s.c.R.
member separately, for a minimllll period of one year after the ,
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 displayed 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 _,
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
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]
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
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
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.
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
.
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
set for th the reasons •
...
B
c
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
A
B
c
D
E
.F
G
H
566
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1986] 2 s.c.R.
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
backward areas consisted of the areas enumerated in Annexure I
to S.R.O. 272 dated July 3, 1982 issued by the State Government 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
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
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.,;.
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 admission to the two Medical Colleges of the State for the session )'..
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
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
conducted by a procedure which envisaged the preparation of
·-
ATUL KHULIAR v. STATE [PATHAK, J,]
567
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
A
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.
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
"r voce test was conducted at Srinagar from October 8, 1984 to
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
the viva voce test should be further sub-divided as follows
----
Aptitude
...
8 Points
.... 1. l'hysics
... 2 points
2. Chemistry
... 2 points
3. Biology
... 4 points
(Botany)
... 2 points
(Zoology)
... 2 points
~ General Knowledge and General Intelligence
7 Points
1. General Knowledge
... 4 points
'y' 2. General Intelligence
... 3 points
(a) Presence of mind
... 1 point
(b) l'hysical Bearing
... 1 point
(c) Expression
... 1 point
c
D
E
F
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.
c
D
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
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.
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
G
for admission to Medical Colleges outside the State.
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
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.
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
~ 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
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
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
69
o
6
f Coin
1
t
1
rol Zone, the Wiaziri Commihtteeb Rekpordt
ent
e
v
ages as const tut ng t e
ac war
~ areas of the State. The Anand Committee Report enlarged the
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
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
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
570
SUPRllIB COURT REPORTS
(1986] 2 s.c.R.
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
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
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
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
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 •
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
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
"'{
ATUL KHULLAR v. STATE [PATHAK, J.]
571
~
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
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
.,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
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
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
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
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
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
572
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1986] 2 S.C.R.
certificate is entirely without substance. A candidate may,._ -
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,
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
of the candidate Farooq Ahtred (Roll No. 503) who is said to
have been actually awarded. 41.31 points but has been shown asr
having got 44.31 points. We have carefully examined the matter
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.
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
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~
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
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
ATUL KllULIAR V• STATE (PATHAK, J,]
573
~
no doubt that no minimum has been prescribed as the bottom
••
-
f
j
'
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
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
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
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
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
T urged that the allocation of only 85 points to the written
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
J & K & Ors., (1984] 3 S.C.R. 407 •
., ..to
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
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
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
574
SUPR&'!E COURT REPORTS
[1986] 2 S.C.R.
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
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
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
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
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.
-
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
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.
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
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
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
E
F
G
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
_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
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
576
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1986] 2 s.c.R.
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
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,
=
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.,
[ 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"'
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.
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
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
to the written test and the remaining 15 points were allocated
ATUL KllULLAR v. STATE [PATI!AK, J, ]
577
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.