Koshal Kumar Gupta & Ors. v. State Of J. & K. And Ors.

Judgment

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : 7 Writ Petition No. 8964 of 1982. dD. . (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India) 7 2 WITH | Transfer Cases Nos. 13- 15 of 1984,

_ Anil Dev Singh, Subhash Sharma and S.K. Sabharwal for the petitioners. ‘ s

G.L. Sanghi and Altaf Ahmed for the cont

K.R.R. Pillai for the Petitioner’ in Transfer Cases Nos. 13-15 of 84.

\

F. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DESAI, J. At’the conclusion of the hearing of the writ. petition and the transferred cases on Jan.24, 1984, the Court pronounced the order dismissing the writ petition.and the transferred

. cases, reserving that the reasons will follow later on. Here are G ‘the reasons. ~

%

To put into’ focus the controversy, the facts. alleged ‘in Writ Petition No. 8964 of 1982 may be taken as representative of the allegations in all allied cases. °

Nine petitioners in this petition questioned the legality and H correctness of admissions to Bachelor degree course for 1982-83 ° session in Regional Engineering Colleges at Srinagar, simalta-, neously praying for ; quashing the admissions of respondents Nos.

.

as wud

‘*

K. K. GUPTA y. J. AND-K. STATE (Desai, J.)

5 to 13 and seeking a direction that the petitioners be admitted to | the same session. |

A Regional Engineering College- has been set up at Srinagar

~ in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, Third respondent, Principal of the College by a public advertisement dated March 13, 1982 .

invited applications for admission to the Bachelor Degree Engineering Course for 1982-83 session not only in the Regional Engineering College, Srihagar but also in eleven Regional Engineering Colleges set up in different States. Carididates seeking admission had to fulfill the following requirements. They were required to appear at (i) a joint ‘entrance examination in four papers viz. Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics and English; (iiy candidates who qualify: in the written test had to appear ata viva-voce test; “(ili) the selections were to be based on the com-

. bined performance in the written-and viva-voce exd4mination ; and (iv) the seats reserved for specified categories were also shown.

Pursuant to this advertisement, the petitioners applied and were admitted to the. written test and on being found qualified, they were called for viva-voce\ test. The challenge is to the manner, _ the method and the number of marks assigned for the viva-voce test. Broadly stated, the allegations were that reservation of 15 marks for viva-voce test conferred arbitrary, unguided and» uncannalised power on those conducting the viva-voce test and that rescfvation of 15 marks for viva-voce‘test would have the perni-— cious tendency of affecting the merit disclosed -by the marks obtained at written examination. There were other ‘allegations which do not merit examination. .

On rule nisi being issued, respondents Nos. 1 to 3 appeared and one Dr. O.N. Koul, Head of the Mechanical Engineering - ~

.Depattment (Co-ordinator Admissions for session 1982-83),

Regional Engineering College, Srinagar filed an affidavit in - opposition on behalf of the Principal of the College. After - pointing out that 85 marks were assigned for written examination and 15 for viva-voce test, it was further pointed out that in order to.avoid any charge of arbitrariness being levelled against the Selection Committee 15 marks assigned for viva-voce test were further split-up under four heads, namely, (i) Science—~5 marks (ii) General knowledge—4 marks (iii). Curricular Activities—3 marks dnd (iv) personality test—3 marks. It was pointed out that wltimately out ofa total of 100 marks, only 3.marks were assigned for personality test and this isthe area where if at all; discretion can be exercised which may not be reviewable on any r

SUPREME COURT REPORTS © [1984] 3 s.cr.

» documentary evidence. In respect of the three other heads, it was pointed .out that the Seléttion Committee prepared cards on each of which a question ‘was-typed referable to the 4 subjects, namely, Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics and General Knowledge.

and they were kept in 4 different boxes. .When the candidate . entered the room for interview, he was required to pick-up at. random one card from each of the four boxes, each box

‘containing atleast 150 cards and answer the question. A tape recorder was kept on the table in front of the members of the Selection Committee and the candidate appearing for the inter- view and the two-way dialogue was recorded in full. Marks were

-assigned under‘each head of viva-voce test depending upon the merit of the answere. Thereafter, the merit list was prepared on

‘the basis of the total marks obtained at written tést and the viva- voce test and-it was strictly adhered to save and. except for reserved seats’ where also persons seeking admission to reserved seats “had to stand in queue as in the merit list. —

At the hearing of these petitions, the respondents Nos. | to 3 produced before the Court the cards on which questions were typed, the cassette and atape recorder. They also prodiced the entire merit list with marks obtained by each candidate. The court at randoin directed them to point out which-card was picked-. ”

up by one of the candidates from amongst the petitioners and then play the cassette on which his intetview was taped. Learned counsel for the petitioners and some ‘of the petitioners were present during this demonstration. We are fully satisfied that in this cage merit has bsen ascertained by the most scientific method that can be applied for selecting candidates on merits

; leaving no room for any arbitrary choice, LO ¢ . . :

‘There was no’ challenge to the written ‘test. and 85 marks assigned for the written test. In Asay. Hasia etc. v Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Ors. etc. \') wherein *admission to this very Regional Engineering College for the year 1979-80 was challenged, ‘this Court observed that ‘there can be no doubt. that, having yegard to the drawbacks and deficiencies in the oral interview test andthe conditions prevailing in tle country, nl

“6 () [1981] 2 S.c.R. 79, particularly when there is deterioration in moral values and corruption and nepo- -tism are- véry much on the increase, allocation ofa high per-— centage of marks. for the oral inte: view as compared to the marks allocated for the written test, cannot be accepted by the court as .

nl %,

~y

‘K. K. GUPTA vy J. AND K. STATE (Desai, J.)

free from the vice of atbitrariness. The Court concluded by - observing that in the’ existing circumstances, allocation of more than 15% ofthe total marks for the: oral interview would be arbitrary and unreasonable and would be liable to be struck down ‘as constitutionally invalid.

e

The respondents’ took one from these observations of the:

Court and reduced the marks assigned for. viva-voce. test to 15.

. Not only that but some of the drawbacks and deficiencies pointed out by this Court in the manner of holding of oral interview ahd the marks assigned at it, the respondents split-up the marks under

. four heads and atleast i in respect of three, there is direct evidence as-recorded onthe tape to show howthe sandidate has faired.

_ Andas for the dreaded personality test, the marks assigned are 3 |

‘only. Not a.single case was pointed out to us in the course of the

- hearing in which the candidate otherwise being eligible for ad- - mission on merit, lost the same because of inability to get some marks under the personality test, the maximum being 3 only. It isto the credit of res-ondents Nos. 1 to 3, how they-in order to avoid any charge of arbitrariness reduced the marks assigned to viva-voce test, split them up under different heads and even in

‘fespect of questions. to be put at the viva-voce test prepared the questions in advance, kept them ready. in boxes and the candidate had to pick-up his own question. and answer it. The record of

‘the answer is maintained in candidates own voice. We must - record our appreciation that respondents Nos. 1 to 3 have practically set at naught drawbacks and deficiencies in oral interview as pointed out by this Court. The viva-voce test conducted must be held to be fair, free from the charge of arbitrariness, reasonable and just.

Undoubtedly, the expectation of the Court which frowns upon anything arbitrary or unreasonable has added to the work- Joad of the ‘Selection Committee. But today when there is rush for admission to Engineering’ Colleges like the Ceasar’s wife, the selection must be objective and beyond reproach. That has been scientifically achieved in this case. We hope that bodies charged with the difficult task of ascertaining merits for admission will take cue from.what has been done by respondents Nos. I to 3 and the lead provided by them in this fkzld would restore faith of young aspirantsin the system. Therefor, the Court dismissed the writ petition and the transferred cases.

N. V K. Petitions & Transfer Cases dismissed,

4i1-