D. Peter Francis vs The Government of Tamilnadu and Others

Bakthavatsalam, J.—The above two writ petitions are disposed of together since the issues involved are common and submissions have also been made by the Learned Counsel appearing on either side in common.

W.P. 13096 of 1993 has been filed by the Petitioner, a member of the Bar, as party-in-per-son. The relief sought for is a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the Prospectus issued by the second Respondent-University for the year 1993-94, quash the method of selection prescribed by the second Respondent for selecting the First year students for M.B.B.S./B.D.S. Course by conducting separate Entrance Examination as well as the provision for interview of 30 marks, reservation of seven seats for the special category in violation of the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Unni Krishnan, J.P. and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others etc. etc., and for consequential mandamus, forbearing the second Respondent- University from collecting capitation fee or any other fee except the one fixed u/s 4 of the Tamil Nadu Act 57 of 1992.

W.P. No. 14458 of 1993 has been filed seeking the relief of a writ of mandamus, directing the second Respondent to forward the answer papers in the Entrance Examination for the professional courses in M.B.B.S., B.D.S., etc., 1993 to the fourth Respondent in the said writ petition (The Tamil Nadu Professional Courses Entrance Examination 1993) to be valued by them and to publish the results thereof. It is claimed that the Petitioner who is a practising Advocate has filed these writ petitions as a public interest litigation to vindicate the rights of the student community in Tamil Nadu, though in W.P. No. 13096 of 1993 the Petitioner projected the case of his daughter to illustrate the grievance.

The Petitioner''s daughter appears to have failed in her attempts to secure admission to M.B.B.S. Course for the year 1992-93 but improved her academic performance by writing an improvement Examination in September, 1992 and in the light of the marks, she had to her credit 92-5 academic marks. It is stated that the Entrance Examination was proposed to be held on 17.7.1993 and the interview on 21.7.1993. While referring to the filing of W.P. 12830 of 1993 by the University claiming that the amount fixed by the Tamil Nadu State Government for admission into seats earmarked under the category of Payment Seats will have no application to the Annamalai University, the Petitioner has challenged in the affidavits filed that the second Respondent-University has no right to prescribe 30 marks for interview and thereby avoid merit being the only criterion for selection of the candidates and that the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 57 of 1992 applies to the 2nd Respondent-University also. It is also contended that the decision of the Supreme Court in Unnikrishnan''s case and the scheme formulated therein not only applied to the second Respondent-University but also precluded the said University from operating or acting independently with its own method of selections or claiming their own rates of payment for such admission to professional courses, particularly medicine, in the second Respondent-University. In addition thereto, while adverting to the constitution of the said University under Tamil Nadu Act 1 of 1929, it is contended that it answers the definition of State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, could not act arbitrarily or unreasonably or in contravention of the decision of the Supreme Court. That apart, the reservation made of 13 seats for children of those who have contributed for the development of ''Iyal'', ''Isai'' and ''Natakam'' and one seat reserved for the children of Annamalai University Staff is beyond the powers of the Annamalai University and said to be contrary to the scheme framed by the Supreme Court. It is also stated that the second Respondent has no right to conduct a separate entrance examination other than the one conducted by the Government of Tamil Nadu.

W.P. No. 14458 of 1993, it is stated that the Petitioner and his daughter went for the interview and the servants of the second Respondent-University has informed the Petitioner that admissions could be obtained only if the Pro-Chancellor is approached through his Private Secretary one P. Rajendran and negotiate with him and make a payment of Rs. 8 to 10 Lakhs per cent. It is also stated in this Writ Petition for the Petitioner that the second Respondent University gets funds from the Government of Tamil Nadu and discharges public functions and therefore is ''State'' for the purposes of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Finally, it is stated that the fourth Respondent Selection Committee alone conducts Entrance Examination for all other Universities in the State and therefore the answer papers in the Entrance Examination held by the second Respondent must be sent to the fourth Respondent with a direction to the said fourth Respondent to value the same and announce the results.

The State Government (first Respondent) had filed a counter affidavit in W.P. No. 1 3096 of 1993 and though some of the averments give an impression that it was with reference to the writ petition filed by the Annamalai University, which though initially heard together was separately disposed of with reference to certain subsequent developments, the stand of the State Government on the issues involved in the writ petition is found broadly stated therein. It is seen from the said counter affidavit that the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Collection of Capitation Fee) Act, 1992, Tamil Nadu Act 57/1992, overrides even the provisions of the Annamalai University Act, 1929 Tamil Nadu Act 1/1929 and that therefore the fee structure stipulated by the State Government under Act 57 of 1992 would squarely apply and govern the Institutions run by the Annamalai University also. It is really admitted by the first Respondent that the Annamalai University is the competent Authority in respect of admissions to colleges under the said University and though the power to prescribe the fee was also vested with the said University, having regard to Section 12 of Tamil Nadu Act 57/1992 the fixation under the said Act by the Government would prevail over and above that fixed by the Annamalai University. It is also not disputed by the first Respondent State Government that as per the scheme framed by the Supreme Court in Unnikrishnan''s case the said scheme does not apply to University Colleges. Further, the Government acknowledges the receipt of a communication from the Vice-Chancellor, Annamalai University in reply to the Government''s Letter No. 33237/Desk/93-1, Health, issued to all Private Educational Institutions, contending that the Raja Muthiah Institute of Medical Sciences and the colleges run by the them are University Colleges established and run by the Annamalai University u/s 3 of Act 1/1929 and not only the Scheme framed in Unnikrishnan''s case will have no application to run colleges run by Government or Universities, but so far as the "appropriate authority" defined in the judgment is concerned, the second Respondent is an appropriate authority itself to select students on the basis of merit determined on the basis of Entrance Examination or by such criteria as may be fixed and consequently the second Respondent cannot be prevented from admitting students unlike other private professional colleges for the academic year 1993-94.

The second Respondent had filed two separate counter affidavits in the two writ petitions. In W.P. No. 13096 of 1993, it is contended that the Annamalai University is entitled to devise its own method of selection for admission of students into various courses including Medicine that for the Academic year 1993-94 the University devised the method of selecting candidates by which 200 marks mere earmarked for the academic or qualifying examination of the respective candidates, 100 marks earmarked for entrance examination conducted by the University and 30 marks for the interviews or aptitude test and the ranking will be made on the basis of the aggregate marks obtained out of 230 and selection made. So far as the interview is concerned, it is claimed that three expert members were nominated and that they interviewed the candidates in the following area:

(i)Knowledge in the subjects (Physics, Chemistry and Bidlogy);

(ii) Their General Knowledge;

(iii) Their aptitude to the profession;

(iv) Whether they are well versed in Extra-curricular activities; and

(v) To verify medical witness such as eye sight, hearing eligibility, etc.,

It is also stated that the committee fixed the dates of interview for four days viz., 18th to 21st July, 1993 and though the entrance examination was held on 17.7.1993, the interview was commenced immediately after the holding of the entrance examination so that the candidates may avoid another trip for interview, that about 1810 candidates responded to the interview, that the three expert members remained in the same hall and separately interviewed the candidates earmarked to them, that it was decided to put 6 to 10 questions depending upon their performance, that on an average the candidates were interviewed approximately for five minutes or so, that interviews were commenced from 8 A.M. and proceeded upto 10 P.M. except on 21st July, 1993 when it was extended upto 11.15 P.M. since on that day about 535 candidates took part in the interview, the interview and marks provided therefor was not to favour any one or few and that it was well within the powers of the University and it is futile to contend that the interview marks predominated over the other qualifying marks. According to the second Respondent, the selection was on a scientific basis and in accordance with the norms laid down by the Supreme Court, that the allegations made were borne out of vested and private interest rather than public interest.

So far as W.P. No. 14458 of 1993 is concerned, the counter affidavit of the second Respondent stated that the writ petition cannot be styled a public interest litigation, the main motivating fact being the admission of Petitioner''s daughter, that the allegations about the need to contact the Pro Chancellor through his Private Secretary with the offer of payment of heavy sums was totally vague and remain unsubstantiated, that none of them have any control over the actual selection for admissions, that the second Respondent is the Competent Authority to decide about the method and manner of selection, that the Annamalai University has its own reputation of having rendered selfless service to the country, that it is not open to the Petitioner to dictate that the interview should be held only after the results of the entrance examination was announced. Since, the second Respondent-University which awards degrees and Diplomas, it alone has a duty to admit students or conduct examinations and it would be unlawful as well as ridiculous if answer papers are to be corrected by or under the supervision of the fourth Respondent. The further contention is that the Petitioner is stopped from challenging the Prospectus since his daughter has applied and participated in the Examination. Consequently, the second Respondent prays that the writ petitions should be dismissed. The second Respondent also traversed in detail the claims made in the supporting affidavit filed by the fourth Respondent about the manner in which the interviews were con-ducted and more particularly with reference to the candidate one B. Lakshmi, daughter of J. Balakrishnan. The claim made in the supporting affidavit of the fourth Respondent that no candidate was tested either with reference to their aptitude, calibre or merit but the whole interview was nothing but a farce was denied. The further claim that the interview was an ingenuous method adopted to pick and choose and that the real intention was to achieve a collateral purpose by accommodating those from whom substantial amounts were collected was also refuted by the second Respondent;

The Petitioner in W.P. No. 14458 of 1993 has filed W.M.P. No. 26899 of 1993 praying for amending the prayer in the main W.P. so as to seek for the relief of a writ of mandamus, forbearing the second Respondent from calling for application to the professional course, conduct examination/interviews for the professional course and direct the Government of Tamil Nadu, the first Respondent, to select candidates for the professional courses for the second Respondent for the second Respondent as well for the academic year 1993-94.

On the above pleadings, Mr. Peter Francis, as party-in-person, Mr. Mohan Parasaran, Learned Counsel for the Annamalai University, Mr. P. Shanmugham, Special Government Pleader and Mr. K. Chandru, Learned Counsel for the Student Federation of India made submissions to espouse their respective stand, to which reference will be made hereinafter. Mr. Peter Francis contended that Annamalai University had no right to conduct separate Entrance Examinations and the examination for selection for admission should be common along with the others as conducted by the State Government. According to the Petitioner, though under the scheme evolved by the Supreme Court of India in Unnikrishnan''s case (supra) is not rendered applicable to colleges by government or to university colleges (vide para 210) because Annamalai University is recipient of grants and aid from the State Government and University Grants Commission, the Institution run by Annamalai University must be treated as aided institutions. Strong reliance is placed upon para 195 of the above referred Supreme Court decision. It is also contended for the Petitioner that in any event, Annamalai University will fall within the definition of ''State'' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and therefore should act reasonably and in conformity with the mandates of the Constitution of India. Reliance is also placed upon the provisions of Sections 6, 23, 28, 41, 42, 43 of the Annamalai University Act, 1928 (Act 1/1929) in support of the above submission. The Petitioner also challenges the reservation of six seats for candidates who are children/nominees of those who have contributedto the development of Muthamizh (''IyaP, isai'' and ''Natakam'') and another one seat reserved for. the children of the Annamalai University Staff. The provisions for an interview and allocation of 30 marks for the same is also challenged as arbitrary and as one with an oblique purpose of picking up candidates of then-choice on monetary considerations de hors the merit of the candidates. It is also contended that Annamalai University had no right to select or admit candidates to the Medical Course in the Medical College run by it and that therefore the relief as prayed for may be granted. The Petitioner, even at the outset, stated in unmistakable terms that his daughter is not keen on joining the Annamalai University though she had applied for M.B.B.S. Course and that the Petitioner therefore is since interested in pursuing these proceedings as Public interest litigation.

Mr. K. Chandru, Learned Counsel for the Student Federation of India, contended that the interview conducted by the second Respondent University smacks of ulterior motive and even if the 30 marks earmarked is considered to be reasonable the slipshod manner of the interview for about 2 or 3 minutes without any standard norms cannot help to assess the merits of the candidates. The Learned Counsel also reiterated that the State Government is the Competent Authority'' and the second Respondent University cannot be considered to be the Competent Authority so as to entitle it to conduct the entrance examination or selection. The reservations in respect of seven seals has been questioned also by the Learned Counsel.

The learned Special Government Pleader adopted a passive role in respect of the right of the Annamalai University to conduct its own entrance examination and make its own selection of candidates. He evinced interest only in pleading for the applicability of the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 57/1992 and the binding force of the fee structure formulated by the State Government.

Mr. Mohan Parasaran, Learned Counsel for the Annamalai University, contended that under Sections 3 and 6 and Chapter 36 of Tamil Nadu Act 1/1929 the University have the required power and that the decision reported in 1987 Writ Law Reporter 343 State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. v. Hariprasad and Ors. (Division Bench) squarely helps to maintain the individuality of this University. It is also the contention of the Learned Counsel that the decision in Unnikrishnan''s case (supra) applied only to private colleges as defined in the judgment itself and being University run colleges, it can devise its own method of selection. It is stated that the second Respondent is neither a private nor professional College, as defined in the scheme. While contending that the 30 marks provided for interview is neither arbitrary nor without sinister object or aim it is stated that the entire interview was held in a most scientific and foolproof manner having in aim only the assessment of merits. The reservations made, it is contended in favour of ''lyal, ''Isai'' and ''Nataka'' Mandram Employees and one seat for the wards of the employees of the University is just and reasonable and not arbitrary or unlawful. It is further contended that the mere and separate name of the institution imparting Medical education does not detract from the position that it is a University run or maintained college. According, to the Learned Counsel for the Annamalai University the Medical College run by it cannot be said to be an aided institution and the contentions to the contrary on behalf of the Petitioner are devoid of merit.

Before actually taking up the issues for consideration, we consider it necessary to refer to the various decisions of the Courts relied upon by the counsel appearing on either side. The decision reported in Unni Krishnan, J.P. and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others etc. etc., was referred to by both sides. The Supreme Court held therein that Private Educational Institutions may be aided as well as unaided and aid given by the Government may be cent per cent or partial and that so far as aided institutions are concerned, they have to abide by all the rules and regulations as may be framed by the Government and/or recognising/affiliating authorities in the matter of recruitment of teachers and staff, their conditions of service, syllabus, standard of teaching and so on and have to follow the rule of merit and merit alone in the matter of admission of students subject to any reservations made under Article 15 of the Constitution of India. It has also been held that such aided institutions shall not be entitled to charge any fees higher than what is charged in Government Institution. So far as unaided institutions are concerned, it was held that they cannot be compelled to charge the same fee as is charged in Governmental institutions and such institutions called self-financing educational institutions provided cost based education without at the same time commercialising education. The cost of education was considered to vary even within the same faculty, from institution to institution since the facilities provided, equipment, infrastructure, standard and quality of education obtaining may also vary from institution to institution. The Supreme Court further held that as the State cannot claim immunity from the obligations arising from Articles 14 and 15 it cannot also confer such immunity, upon its affiliates and with the said object in view framed the scheme. The scheme formulated was confined, for the present, only to professional colleges" as defined in paragraph 207. For purposes of implementing the scheme the expression appropriate authority was defined as the Government, University or other authority as is competent to grant permission to establish or to grant recognition to a professional college and the expression ''competent authority" was defined to mean the Government/University or other authority as may be designated by the Government / University or By-law, as is competent to allot students for admission to. various professional col leges in a State. It was also further made clear that only those institutions which seek permission to establish and/or recognition and/or affiliation from the appropriate authority shall alone be bound by the scheme framed and that the scheme is not applicable to colleges run by Government or to University colleges.

In the scheme framed by the Supreme Court, among other things, it was provided that in professional colleges run by Private Educational institutions 50% of the seats shall be filed by the nominees of the Government or University, referred to by them as ''Free Seats'' and the remaining 50% known as ''Payment seats'' shall be filled by those candidates who are prepared to pay the fee prescribed therefor and who have complied with the instruction regarding deposit and furnishing of cash security/bank guarantees for the balance of the amount. In the scheme framed, it was categorically stipulated that the students shall be selected on the basis of merit determined on the basis of a common entrance examination or in the absence of the same, by such criteria as may be determined by the competent or appropriate authority and the criteria eligibility and all other conditions shall be the same in respect of both free and payment seats, the only distinction being the difference the payment of higher fee by the payment students. The scheme also prohibited from having any quota reserved for the management or for any family, caste, or community which may have established the college except providing for reservation of seats for constitutionally permissible classes with the approval of the affiliating University. The scheme was held to be applicable to and govern the admissions to professional colleges from the academic year 1993-94.

In the decision reported in 1987 Writ Law Reporter, 343 (supra), a Division Bench of this Court upheld the plea of the Annamalai University that they do not require any permission from the State Government to start or commence a course as part of its teaching activities having regard to the provisions contained in Annamalai University Act, 1928. The relevant consideration and conclusions of the Division Bench are as hereunder:

The contention of the Government must fall, in our view, on the argument of the learned Government Pleader himself. If the reference to the University in Section 2(8) was intended to be restricted only to the Madras University and the Madurai University and such of the Universities which would be established later, then that intention will have to be given effect to. The definition of ''Private College'' when it refers to a University in Section 2(8), must be read only as a reference to Madras or Madurai Universities. The teaching activity of the Annamalai University for the M.B.B.S. Course has nothing to do with Madras or Madurai Universities or to any other University and the Annamalai University cannot be brought in within the definition of a private college. In our view, therefore, the conditions in accordance with which the Tamil Nadu Government purported to exercise control over the Annamalai University on the basis of what was in effect a request for good wishes and blessings made by the University and by virtue of which the Government claim the power to have seats reserved for its own nominees must be held to be void, unauthorised and unenforceable. As no permission was ever asked for by the University, the conditions do not bind the Annamalai University.

The plea on behalf of the State based on Section 52 of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976 was also repelled by the Division Bench in the following manner:

On a consideration of the arguments of the learned Government Pleader, we are not at all satisfied that the Medical College of the Annamalai University; is a private medical college as contemplated by the Regulation Act. No doubt, the learned Government Pleader has referred us to the overriding provision in Section 52 of the Regulation Act which says. The provisions of this Act shall have the effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force including any regulation or statute of any University.

The only effect of this overriding provision is that if an institution falls within the definition of the Regulation Act. then it is the Regulation Act that alone will govern and no other Act. The basic requirement for this overriding provision to be effective is that the concerned institution has first to be a private college. If the institution is not a private college within the meaning of the Act, then the overriding provision in Section 52 will itself be inapplicable in the case of such an institution.

Another Division Bench of this Court in a decision reported in 100 L.W. 968 (R.R. Dalavai v. The Government of Tamil Nadu had an occasion to consider the issue as to the right of a college to have its own rules relating to admission and observed as hereunder:

From the point of view of the right of every college to have its own rules relating to admission, it is not possible for us to interfere with, the same. In Chitralekha v. Stale of Mysore, considering a similar question relating to the right to prescribe rules for admission, the Supreme Court observed:

The Government runs most of the Medical and Engineering Colleges. Excluding the State aided colleges for a moment, the position is as follows: The colleges run by the Government having regard to financial commitments and other relevant considerations can only admit a specific number of students to the said colleges. They cannot obviously admit all the applicants who have secured the marks prescribed by the University. It had necessarily to screen the publicants on some reasonable basis. The aforesaid orders of the Government only prescribed criteria for making admissions to colleges from among students who secured the minimum qualifying marks prescribed by the University. Once it is conceded, and it is not disputed before us, that the State Government can run medical and engineering Colleges, it cannot be denied the power to admit such qualified students as pass the reasonable tests laid down by it. This is a power which every private owner of a College will have, and the government which runs its own Colleges cannot be denied that power. (The emphasis is ours).

In the decision reported in Chairman/Director, Combined Entrance Examination (CEE) 1990 v. Osiris Das, (1992) 3 SCC 543 , the Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the legality of a provision reserving 5% of seats for the sons and wards of employees of G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology. It was held therein that

the reservation of seats for admission to the B. Tech course in favour of the sons and wards of the employees of the University is violative of the doctrine of equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution. There is no rationale for the reservation of the seats in favour of the sons and wards of the employees of the University nor any such reservation has any reasonable nexus with the object which is sought to be achieved by the University.

In the decision reported in 1986 Writ L.R. 342 Sayariiha Magadalin v. The Chief Secretary, Govt. of Tamil Nadu, a learned single Judge of this Court while repelling the claim of a person who was said to have suffered by participation in the Anti- Hindi agitation to be brought under the category of persons whose parent or parents have suffered for the cause of Tamil and contributed towards the protection of Tamil. It was opined by the learned Judge that those who suffered for the cause of development of Tamil or who had contributed towards the protection of Tamil alone can come under the provisions made for reservation under Annexure I (vii) to Rule 16.

In the decision reported in D.N. Chanchala Ors. Vs. The State of Mysore and Others, , the Supreme Court while sustaining the validity of a Rule relating to selection for admission into Mysore Medical Colleges providing for reservation for children of Political sufferers held as follows:

Once the power to lay down classifications or categories of persons from whom admission is to be given is granted, the only question which would remain for consideration would be whether such categorisation has an intelligible criteria and whether it has a reasonable relation with the object for which the rules for admission arc made. Rules for admission are inevitable so long as the demand of every candidate seeking admission cannot be complied with in view of the paucity of institutions imparting training in such subjects as medicine. The definition of a ''political sufferer'' being a detailed one and in certain terms, it would be easily possible to distinguish children of such political sufferers from the rest as possessing the criteria laid down by the definition. The object of the rules for admission can obviously be to secure a fair and equitable distribution of seats amongst those seeking admission and who are eligible under the University Regulations. Such distribution can be on the principle that admission should be available to the best and the most meritorious. But an equally fair and equitable principle would also be that which secures admission in a just proportion to those who are handicapped and who, but for the preferential treatment given to them, would not stand a chance against those who are not so handicapped and are, therefore, in a superior position. The principle underlying Article 15(4) is that a preferential treatment can validly be given because the socially and educationally backward classes need it, so that in course of time they stand in equal position with the more advanced sections of the society. It would not in any way be improper if that principle were also to be applied to those who are handicapped but do not fall under Article 15(4). it is on such a principle that reservation for children of Defence personnel and Ex-Defence personnel appears to have been upheld. The criteria for such reservation is that those serving in the Defence forces or those who had so served are and were at a disadvantage in giving education to their children since they had to live, while discharging their duties, in difficult places where normal facilities available elsewhere are and were not available. In our view, it is not unreasonable to extend that principle to the children of political sufferers who in consequence of their participation in the emancipation struggle became unsettled in life; in some cases economically ruined, and were therefore, not in a position to make available to their children that class of education which would place them in fair competition with the children of those who did not suffer from that disadvantage. If that be so, it must follow that the definition of ''political sufferer'' not only makes the children of such sufferers distinguishable from the rest but such a classification has a reasonable nexus with the object of the rules which can be nothing else than a fair and just distribution of seats. In our view, neither of the two contentions raised by counsel for the Petitioner can be accepted, with the result that the writ petition fails and is dismissed.

In the decision reported in Rajashri Yeshwant Jadhav and etc. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, , a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court upheld the rule providing for awarding additional marks on grounds of being children of Political sufferer, being sportsman of a particular level, on grounds of family planning, participation in Voluntary Health Services, participation in N.C.C., while rejecting at the same time the provision of such additional marks in favour of students affected by defence or irrigation projects. In the decision reported in Koshal Kumar Gupta and Others Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir and Others, , the Supreme Court upheld the allocation of 15 marks for viva voce test and also considered and approved the method of interview conducted on the view that merit had been ascertained by the most scientific method that can be applied for selecting candidates on merits leaving no room for any arbitrary choice. In the decision reported in R. Karuppan Vs. Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi and Others, a Division Bench of this Court upheld as not arbitrary the allocation of 45 marks for viva voce and extra-curricular activities and observed that reasonableness of the interview marks have to be tested with reference to the total marks allocated for written examination. The Division Bench further held:

The next submission of the Appellant was that one lump of 40 marks has been allocated by the Selection Committee and there is no knowing as to what factors will have to be taken into account in awarding these 40 marks and that they have not sub-divided the marks under various heads so as to prevent any arbitrary awarding of marks. He further contended that only a few questions on Constitutional Law and International Law were put to him and he had answered correctly all those questions and that the Committee by itself also had not allocated the interview marks under various heads and questioned the candidates on all those aspects. In the circumstances, according to the Appellant the awarding of lump marks for interview is not valid. In this connection, he relied on the decision in Minor A. Peeriakaruppan and Sobha Joseph Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, . This decision does not in any way help the Appellant. That was a case where the rules required the Selection Committee to allot the marks under different heads. But the Selection Committee did not follow and awarded lump marks and that was held to be not valid by the Supreme Court. On the other hand, the Supreme Court in Lila Dhar Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, , held that awarding such lump marks was not invalid and observed (at page 1781)

The Rules themselves do not provide for the allocation of marks under different heads at the interview test. The criteria for the interview test has been laid down by the Rules. It is for the interviewing body to take a general decision whether to allocate marks under different heads or to award marks in a single lot. The award of marks under different heads may lead to a distorted picture of the candidate on occasions. On the other hand, the totality of the impression created by the candidate on the interviewing body may give a more accurate picture of the candidates personality. It is for the interviewing body to choose the appropriate method of marking at the selection of each service. There cannot be any magic for mulae in these matters and courts cannot sit in judgment over the methods of marking employed by interviewing bodies unless, as we said, it is proved or obvious that the method of 1 marking was chosen with oblique motive.

In the decision reported in Ajay Hasia and Others Vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and Others, , the Supreme Court held that allocation of more than 15% of the total marks for the oral interview would be arbitrary and unreasonable and would be liable to be struck down as constitutionally invalid. In the decision reported in 1990 Writ L.R. 404 Lizzie Grade Rani (Minor) v. Director of Medical Education one of us (K.S. Bakthavatsalam, J.) held that when an applicant accepted the rules and conditions prescribed for admissions in the Prospectus while applying for admission, it is not open to the said candidate to turn round and question the method of reservation in order to obtain an admission. In the said decision, among other things, reliance was placed upon the view expressed by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in Om Prakash Shukla Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla and Others, as hereunder:

Moreover, this is a case where the Petitioner in the writ petition should not have been granted any relief. He had appeared for the examination without protest. He filed the petition only after he had perhaps realised that he would not succeed in the examination.

In the decision reported in St. Stephen''s College etc., etc. Vs. The University of Delhi Etc., Etc., a constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court had an occasion to deal with the right of the college to prescribe a viva voce interview and take into account the performance in the interview also for selection to admission into the various courses. While repelling the allegation that the interview is a device to manipulate the merits, the Supreme Court took note of the fact that the interview was conducted by men of integrity, calibre and qualification and who are really men who deal with education and the students and that in the inter- view questions were asked to test the candidate''s knowledge of the subject, his general awareness of the current problems and aptitude and consequently judging the performance by grading is a well known method followed in Education. The Court was also of the view that the oral interview as a supplementary test and not as exclusive test for assessing the suitability of the candidates for college admission has been recognised by the Supreme Court with only safeguard that in order to avoid arbitrariness in the selection there shall not be allocation of high percentage of marks for such oral interview. The Supreme Court also reiterated that the importance attached to the interview should be minimal and the marks allocated for the purpose should not be more than 15 per cent of the total marks.

We have carefully considered the submissions of the Learned Counsel appearing on either side. We consider it wholly unnecessary to deal with the issue relating to the binding nature of the fee structure formulated by the State Government in respect of what is known as ''payment seats'' in these cases. The said point was mainly argued by the Learned Counsel in W.P. 12830 of 1993 filed by the Annamalai University to forbear the Respondents in the said W.P. from interfering with the fee structure determined by the Annamalai University and also to quash G.O. Ms. No. 973. Health and Family Welfare dated 30.6.1993, passed by the Government in this regard. Our reason for not adverting to the said point in these cases are that we have held while disposing of W.P. No. 12830 of 1993, that prima facie the provisions of Tamil Nadu Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Collection of Capitation Fee) Act, 1992, Tamil Nadu Act 57 of 1992 would apply to the Annamalai University also and in the light of the orders of the Supreme Court and this Court made on the undertaking to refix and revise the fee structure after giving due opportunity to the individual Educational Institutions, it became wholly unnecessary to enter into an adjudication of the other issues, including the validity of the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act, 57 of 1992. In view of our orders in W.P. No. 12830 of 1993, the issues have not been separately argued or decided in these writ petitions.

The main issue that was argued at length by the counsel was about the right or authority of the Annamalai University to conduct separate entrance examinations and have its own method of selection of candidates for admission into the various professional courses of the University and whether as contended for the Petitioner in these cases the entrance examination and selection should be common to this University along with the others conducted by the State Government through its nominee. In Unnikrishnan''s case (supra), the Supreme Court of India made it clear at paragraph 210 that only those institutions which seek permission to establish and/or recognition and/or affiliation from the appropriate authority, as defined under Paragraph 208 of the same judgment, alone were held to be bound by the scheme formulated in that decision. It was again reiterated therein that the scheme formulated in the decision was not applicable to colleges run by the Government or to University colleges. In the light of the very specific declaration contained in the said judgment itself, it would be futile for the Petitioner or any one to contend that Annamalai University or the courses commenced and run by them in its various university institutions would have to abide by the various provisions envisaged in the scheme formulated in Unnikrishnan''s case (supra). The idea or stipulation of common selecting Agency or entrance examination or common selection process based upon a common eligibility criteria or condition of selection for selection for admission into all colleges is one envisaged under the scheme and since the scheme itself has been excluded from its applicability to Government or University run institutions there is no rhyme or reason at any rate in the contention that the Annamalai University cannot have its own selection in respect of even the University run institutions, as a teaching university, and that the Slate Government alone should select candidates for admission alongwith the common entrance examination and selection made by the State Government for the colleges for which the State Government happens to be the appropriate authority or competent authority, as defined under the scheme.

Further, as rightly contended for the Annamalai University that being a Teaching University, empowered to issue and confer upon its own Degrees in various disciplines in professional and other courses it had its own powers of regulating selections and admissions into su.ch courses in view of Sections 6 and 31 of the Annamalai University Act, 1928. The rights of the Annamalai University duly protected under the Statutory enactment cannot be whittled down or denied to them either on the basis or analogy of the scheme formulated in Unnikrishnan''s case (supra). Further, the fact, that the University may get certain grants from the State Government or the University Grants Commission or the Central Government would not have the consequence of making the Annamalai University, a Private Educational or Professional college within the meaning of the Scheme. The grants they get cannot also be equated to the aid normally given to meet the entire expenditure, teaching and non-teaching to a Private Educational Institutions, to imprint the recipient institution with the character of an aided institution. The Annamalai University has further, while admitting that their Engineering Colleges, receive aid contended that the medical colleges run by them do not receive any aid from the State for being run and administered. It is necessary at this stage to notice that the above two writ petitions have relevance only in respect of the professional courses in M.B.B.S./B.D.S. run by the Annamalai University. Even the fact that the Annamalai University may fall within the definition of ''State'' within the meaning of Article 12 cannot deprive the said University of laying down its own guidelines, criteria for selection for admission into courses of its right to conduct examinations, award its own degrees etc. of course subject to any other statutory enactment rendered applicable or governing even such matters.

The next submission on behalf of the Petitioner was that, in any event, the Annamalai University will fall within the definition of State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and as such should not reasonably and in conformity with the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution and its actions could not be arbitrary or against reason. There can be no serious dispute about this claim that the Annamalai University answers the definition of ''State'' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court of India, in its decision reported in Chairman/Director, Combined Entrance Examination (CEE) 1990 v. Osiris Das, (1992) 3 SCC 543 while dealing with the status of G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology in U.P. State, held the University concerned to be ''State'' being itself an instrumentality of the State. The Annamalai University is an authority incorporated and constituted as such under an Act of the Tamil Nadu State Legislature known as ''The Annamalai University Act, 1928'', amended subsequently from time to time. Apart from the Chancellor of this University being His Excellency The Governor of Tamil Nadu, and its Vice-Chancellors are being appointed by the Chancellor, the grant of a portion of the permanent Endowment Fund by the Local Government and other grants from time to time to such fund by the various Governments, the annual fixed grant by the Slate Government to the General Fund, the Slate Government has a right to cause an inspection or an enquiry in respect of any matter pertaining to my institution or property connected with the University and take consequential follow up action, as it thinks fit. That apart, the University discharges public duties by supplementing State function of imparting Education and conferring degrees. Consequently, even de hors the fact that an institution may not be receiving aid as such, it would be other authority so as to fall within the definition of ''State'' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the actions of the University has to conform to the provisions contained under Part III of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the public character attached to this institution obliges it to observe fair conduct in all respects consistent with the constitutional mandate of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India.

The next question that need be considered is the challenge made to the reservation of six seats for candidates who are children/nominees of those who have contributed to the development of Muthamizh (Iyal, Isai and Natakam) and one seat reserved for the children of the Annamalai University Staff. The Founder of the University cherished a desire to establish a Teaching and Residential University for the encouragement of higher education and research in the Tamil Districts of the State and has initially established and maintained colleges at and near Chidambaram imparting higher education in English, Tamil and Sanskrit studies. Tamil is the State Official language in this State. It is in keeping with this and the need for continuous development of this language even considered to be of Divine and ancient origin, the State Government has also provided for reservation of seats in all their professional colleges to children who either suffered or contributed to the cause of development of Tamil. Judicial notice can also be taken of the fact that etymologically the word ''Tamil'' comprises in it the three facets, ''Iyal'', isai'' and ''Natakam'' and they are part and parcel of the hoary past development of Tamil, in stages from time to time. The preservation as well as the perpetuation of the cause of Tamil and its Development is indisputably in public interest and welfare. The reservation in this regard is almost akin to and on par with the policy and programme of the State Government. As a matter of fact, such reservation in respect of colleges under the administration and control of the State Government had the recognition of courts all along. Consequently, we are unable to see anything pernicious or vulnerable in such provision vis-a-vis Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India so as to justify our interference. The reservation in this regard does not have the effect of doing away or dispensing with the merit altogether. On the other hand, it only helps to assist a class of candidates whose parents contributed their time and energy in the cause of the development of Tamil, the official language of the State and the glorious heritage of Tamilians, unmindful of their family and children and their welfare. The reservation only helps them to some extent from competing with their unequals who are well placed in life and in a commanding and advantageous position with better scope, opportunities and facilities as well as resources to otherwise, effectively compete. We are also of the view that the reservation in question in favour of Children/nominees of those who contributed to the development of Tamil has reasonable nexus to public interest and welfare and the object of securing Higher Education to the children of those who suffered by contributing their time to a public cause. Nothing substantial has been said on behalf of the Petitioner to substantiate any constitutional or legal infirmity in the said provisions. Consequently, we are of the view that the reservation of six seats under the above category is not illegal or invalid and therefore do not call for our interference.

So far as the reservation of one seat in favour of the children of the employees is concerned, we are unable to appreciate the wisdom of it or its reasonableness when compared to the object underlying the same. The Supreme Court has also frowned upon such a reservation in the decision reported in Chairman/Director, Combined Entrance Examination (CEE) 1990 v. Osiris Das, (1992) 3 SCC 543 on the ground that there is no rationale for such reservation of seats in favour of the sons and wards of the employees of the University or that it had any nexus with the object which is sought to be achieved by the University concerned. In our view, the ratio of the said decision squarely applies to this case and the reservation of one seat in favour of the children of the Annamalai University staff will be bad as being arbitrary and unreasonable and consequently violative of Articles 14 of the Constitution of India.

The challenge to the method of selection envisaged by the Annamalai University to the courses in Medicine requires to be next considered in these cases. The Prospectus and Instructions to candidates disclose that selection of candidates will be made on the basis of the performance of the candidates in the qualifying examination and the entrance examination, besides an interview, and that the marks in the prescribed subjects in the qualifying examination reduced to 200 will be added to the marks obtained out of 100 in the entrance examination. It is also provided that the marks obtained in the interview out of 30 will also be added and the ranking will be made on the basis of the aggregate marks obtained out of 330 and selection made. One line of submission made for the Petitioner and supplemented by the counsel for the Student Federation of India is that the Entrance Examination itself is in lieu of the Interview hitherto held and that therefore there is no scope for again holding an interview. Reliance was sought to be made on some observations of ours in the unreported decision in W.P. No. 10016 of 1993 etc., dated 26.7.1993, particularly the observations at para 33 of the said decision. We are of the view that the reliance placed upon our earlier decision is inappropriate and the observations in paragraph 33 are sought to be taken out of their context and pressed into service in support of a different plea raised in this case and particularly when the issue like the one now raised was never under our consideration in the earlier case. The plea in the earlier batch of writ petitions was that marks obtained by a candidate in the qualifying examination should be eschewed from consideration and selection of candidates for admission into professional courses, both medicine and engineering should be strictly and only on the basis of the marks secured in the common Entrance Examination conducted. Reliance was placed in this regard on the guidelines formulated by the Indian Medical Council and All India Council of Technical Education. While repelling the said plea of the Petitioners in those cases, we had to hold that the guidelines of those bodies are only minimum guidelines and not the last word on the subject of selection for admission of candidates from out of large number of candidates who satisfied the criteria fixed by those bodies as against the limited number of seats available. In rejecting the plea that Entrance Examination marks alone should be the criteria for selection for admission we had to narrate the historical background of the Entrance Examination, introduced in this State, the purpose and object behind the introduction of the Entrance Examination. The question as to whether de hors the Entrance Examination held whether there could be a further interview and allocation of marks was neither raised or in our contemplation in the earlier batch of cases and, therefore, the mere reference to an obvious among several objects and aims of the entrance examination made in the earlier decision cannot be said to be our authoritative pronouncement or constitute a precedent in this case for the point newly raised.

Coming to the consideration of the merits of the claim, we are of the view, Courts have so far never stated in any absolute terms that there can be no viva voce interview or allocation of marks whenever an entrance examination has been prescribed for making a selection. As a matter of fact, the marks obtained in the qualifying examination would reflect proficiency in subjects and the objective type of questions with which the Entrance Examinations are conducted and the marks secured therein could only disclose the practical knowledge and general knowledge of the candidates. But, that is not the end of all things. The selecting Authorities still may legitimately desire to test the all round competence, aptitude, temperament, involvement in the extracurricular activities and sense of dedication to the profession in which the candidate seeks to join ultimately. The oral interview is designed as a supplementary test and not as an exclusive test or with any other ulterior motive. The interviews have just been over and the results are yet to be announced. There are certain allegations made about the manner in which the interview has been conducted. The University denies those allegations and have come up with their own version of the events and they claim that the persons who were entrusted with the task of conducting such interview are of high repute known for their experience and also have had the experience of serving in similar selection committees appointed by the State Government. Unless and until the results of selection are published and it is demonstrated by any concrete material or illustration or instance of really meritorious candidate arbitrarily being denied of his legitimate claim, in an individual case, it would, in our view, be premature to pronounce upon the futility or utility of the system of interview or on the alleged commission of any patent illegality vitiating the selection. We cannot on mere allegations made on the facts and circumstances of this case, come to any definite conclusion about the practice of any unethical or objectionable means in the matter of selection of candidates for admission, warranting or necessitating our interference. Process of selection or results of selection even after it is made known, cannot be interfered on slander grounds or hypothetical grievances. The number of marks viz. 30 in a matter where the other marks allocated are 300 cannot be said to be either on the unreasonable or high side and the percentage of marks allocated for interview when compared to other marks is on the minimal side and well within, at any rate, the 15% normally held permissible by even the Supreme Court. Conse questioning either the method of selection or the selection process said to have been already undergone by the second Respondent- University.

We do not consider the objection raised by the second Respondent-University regarding the maintainability of the writ petition to be a serious hurdle in our considering these writ petitions on merits. No doubt, the daughter of the Petitioner has applied as a candidate for selection but so long as the daughter of the Petitioner is not claiming now for any relief in her favour or for her admission and inasmuch as the Petitioner has stated that he is pursuing this case only as a public interest litigation and has also filed W.P. No. 14458 of 1993 only as a public interest litigation, the petitions need not be rejected on the ground of any acquiescence or estoppel alone. This objection, therefore, is overruled.

For all the reasons stated above, we hold that the reservation of one seat for the children of the Annamalai University staff is ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India and in all other respects both the above writ petitions fail and shall stand dismissed, but in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Having regard to our conclusions on the powers of the Annamalai University to have their own selections no separate orders need be passed on the relief prayed for amendment of the prayer in W.P. 14458/93. W.M.P. 26899/93 is therefore dismissed.