AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Kanakaraj, J.—All these writ petitions have been filed by unsuccessful applicants to the first year M.B.B.S. course for the academic year
1996-97 for consideration under Paragraph 3.5 (ii) of the Prospectus issued in respect of the Medical Colleges. Since the entire case of the
petitioners rests on the claim under the said paragraph I proceed to quote the said paragraph.
3.5 (ii) Seats reserved for children whose parents worked for the enrichment, Propagation and Development of Tamil Language and significant
contribution made to Tamil Society culture and Literature.
No. of Seats reserved in M.B.B.S. 6
A Committee of Tamil scholars constituted by the Government will examine the claims of the parents whose children have applied for admission
under this special category and offer their recommendations regarding their eligibility for consideration under this special category.
The candidates should submit a Certificate from an Officer of the revenue Department not below the rank of Tahsildar of the respective area or a
Member of Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu or a Member of Parliament of Tamil Nadu, in support of their claim for admission on the above
mentioned grounds along with the application for consideration of their application under this Category"".
This is nothing but a repetition of the Government direction contained in G.O.Ms.No. 186, Health & Family Welfare (MCA) Department, dated
26.3.1996. All the petitioners claim that their parents have contributed to the enrichment, propagation and development of Tamil Language or they
had made significant contribution to the Tamil Society Culture and Literature. It is not necessary to indicate the manner and method in which the
petitioners claim to come under the said category. The fact remains that the claim of all the petitioners were rejected and six other persons had
been selected under the category on 17.8.1996. According to the petitioners, the selection of six others ignoring the claim of the petitioners is
illegal and unconstitutional. All the petitioners therefore, seek admission to the first year M.B.B.S. Course 1996-97 under the said reserved
category.
After hearing all the petitioners I find that the following question arise for consideration in this batch of writ petitions:-
(a) Is the selection liable to be set aside because the Government Order or the prospectus has not prescribed the necessary guidelines under which
eligibility was decided? The Applicants had been kept in the dark about the necessary guidelines which would qualify them for consideration under
the said special category.
(b) The Committee of Tamil Scholars, constituted by the Government has jurisdictionally to recommend the eligible candidates out of the total
applicants. In other words, the Committee has no jurisdiction to select the best of the parents on the basis of their contribution to Tamil
Development.
(c) The respondents should have followed the directions of the Supreme Court in the matter of filling up the seats in the special category, as
reported in Khalid Hussin v. Commr. & Secretary. Govt. of Tamil Nadu, Health Dept., AIR 1978 SC 2074.
(d) Some of the petitioners, who have been found ineligible under the category have been found eligible under the very same category in respect of
Siddha Medical course or the Engineering Course. Therefore, the selection by the respondents is purely arbitrary.
Some other arguments were also advanced and in my opinion, they do not merit consideration. For instance, it is argued that the choice of the
Committee Members itself is irregular. Secondly the criteria or the guidelines framed by the Committee itself shows arbitrariness and lack of nexus
to the objects sought to be achieved by the reservation under the Special Category. It is also contended that the Committee did not award marks
in respect of the parents, so that they could be considered for selection in accordance with their rank. In my opinion, these points cannot be
accepted because the Court has no basis on which they can nullify the selection of the Committee Members. Similarly, it is for the Committee of
Tamil Scholars to frame the guidelines and this Court cannot find fault with the guidelines themselves. Similarly, the allegation that marks should
have been granted, cannot be accepted, because the Committee is concerned only with the recommendation of the eligible candidates.
Having set out the issues for consideration I will now refer to the counter-affidavit of the third respondent, Selection Committee. After setting out
the prospectus, the third respondents says that the Government of Tamil Nadu constituted a Two Member Committee of Tamil Scholars to
examine and assess the claims of the parents and to offer their recommendations regarding the eligibility for consideration under the Special
Category. The names of the two Professors are given and they are highly qualified to consider the claims of the applicants under the Special
Category. The said committee is said to have framed the following guidelines for the first round of Selection:-
Guidelines
I Round
Literary contribution excellence like Poetries, Poems, Short Stories, Novels, Drama etc. Tamil Development by Standard research Works in
literature.
Tamil Development by writing Books in Medicine, Agriculture, Veterinary Sciences, Engineer, Law, Economics, Commerce and other
Biological Branches.
Persistent effort in the Tamil Protection and Tamil Development.
Tamil Development by organising Seminars, Tamil Committees and conducting Conferences and Research Works in Tamil.
Service to Tamil by way of Mass Communication, Information and Education through Journalism and educative materials and informative
Books, etc.,
It is further stated that by further scrutiny of the applicants, the best of the parents of the candidates were selected on the following three
guidelines:-
The research works and Dissertations submitted for the Ph.D., and M. Phill.,
The Supplementary Books, Illustrations, Hand Books, Notices and Books published for Adult Education, and
The Tamil productions as a Co-author"".
The counter-affidavit proceeds to say that the policy of the Government is to reserve six seats for the children of parents who have contributed
towards Tamil Development and therefore, academic performance is not the sole criteria for selection under this category. There are as many as
147 applications under this Category. The Committee examined the applications between 12th and 14th July, 1996. In the first round of selection
35 candidates were found to be eligible by the Committee. In second round of selection, the said list of 35 candidates was short listed and only 21
candidates were found to be eligible for consideration. Thereafter, the Selection Committee arranged the 21 candidates in accordance with the
academic marks obtained by them being the marks in the academic examination plus the Entrance Examination. On the basis of the marks the
following candidates were selected.
____________________________________________________________
1 6121263 (E.E.No.) Muthalagan, N. 280.75
2 6133996 Semesh, B. 276.33
3 8131942 Ramachandran, V.V. 275.33
4 6533706 Anand Ponniraivan 272.84
5 6121029 Gurubharathi, I 267.66
6 4131152 Thiruvalluva Thentral 265.92.
____________________________________________________________
According to the respondents, the selection has been made in accordance with the prospectus and there was no irregularity or arbitrariness in
the selection of the candidates.
I have called for the original applications of the selected candidates as well as the applications of the petitioners. I have also called for the
records of the Committee of Tamil Scholars and their proceedings for recommendation of 21 candidates. Writ Petition W.P.No. 12252 of 1996
will be dealt with by me separately, because it relates to the grandson of a Tamil Scholar.
I will now take up the issues framed by me for considerations. Taking up the first issue complaining that neither the Government nor the
Selection Committee framed guidelines for finding out the eligibility of the candidate, it is true that the Government and the Selection Committee
have not framed guidelines on which the Committee was expected to act. Equally, the applicants were kept in the dark about the guidelines which
would be applied for the selection of the candidates. All the same, I am of the opinion that heading under Clause 3.5 (ii) of the prospectus itself
indicates the consideration for eligibility. The Committee was only expected to frame the procedure and the modality for finding out the
requirements. As seen from the said heading I do not therefore find fault with the respondents in allowing the Committee to have its own method of
rinding out the eligible candidates. I have already set out the guidelines framed by the Committee and to this extent I must hold that the Committee
had not acted arbitrarily, but has proceeded on the basis of certain norms. I therefore, reject the first contention that the selections vitiated because
the Government itself or the 3rd respondent did not frame the guidelines.
The second and third points can be conveniently dealt with together. I would first refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court, so that we can
proceed on the right path to find out whether the respondents have erred in any manner in applying the correct method of selection under the
Special Category. In Khalid Hussain (Minor), Represented by Father Dr. Akthar Hussain Vs. Commissioner and Secretary to Government of
Tamil Nadu, Health Department, Madras and Ors, the Supreme Court was concerned with the selection of candidates to the M.B.B.S. Course
under the category reserved for ""eminent sportsmen"". Observed the Supreme Court.
There are no guidelines provided by which comparative eminence can be judged as between candidates belonging to the same class e.g. at
National level, as here. Nor does it provide for any guidelines by which the choice has to be made as between the candidates who have excelled in
a particular field of sports e.g. aquatics. The real difficulty arises when there are more than one candidates who have excelled in their respective
fields of sports e.g. cricket, football, hockey etc. and the number of seats reserved are less than the candidates found eligible. All of them being
more or less equal, the best method is to be by marks obtained at the qualifying examination. In such a case, the selection must necessarily depend
upon their academic merits.
Therefore, the accepted principle by which selection should be made in respect of candidates falling under particular category is to proceed on
the basis of the marks obtained in the academic qualifications. In other words, if candidates are found to be eligible to be brought under a particular
special Category then selection among the eligible persons shall be only by the marks obtained by them. In the instant case, the prospectus itself
makes it clear than the Committee of Tamil Scholars can offer their recommendations only regarding the eligibility of candidates. While so, certain
passages in the counter-affidavit indicates that the respondents have committed breach of the said well accepted principle. For instance the
following sentence in the counter-affidavit shows that the correct approach was not made in the impugned selection:-
I respectfully submit that inasmuch as it is policy decision of the Government to reserve 6 seats under this category for the children whose parents
have contributed for Tamil Development, academic performance is not the sole criteria for selection under this category"".
Secondly, the Committee had also made a mistake in having two rounds of selection. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that the second round of
selection was for the following purpose:-
By further scrutiny of the above qualified applications the best of the above were accepted as qualified.
In my opinion, the above method adopted by the Committee is itself irregular and contrary to the directions of the Supreme Court of India. Having
stated that at the first round of selection, 35 candidates were found eligible, there was no warrant for a second round and the short listing of the
candidates to 21. It may be that the Committee was right in selecting the best of the parents on the basis of their contribution of Tamil Language. I
am not quarreling with the views expressed by the Committee regarding the merit of the parents of the selected candidates. The Committee being
experts in Tamil Language, are entitled to have their own views on the quality of the books written by the respective parents and their own...
assessment of the merits of the parents who had contributed for Tamil Development. But the question is whether from among eligible candidates
the Committee or the third respondent has jurisdiction to select only the candidates whose parents ran first in the matter of Tamil Development. We
have to remember that the selection is for the M.B.B.S. course. The selection is not for any course relating to Tamil development. It is only by way
of a special reservation that a few candidates are being selected to encourage persons who had contributed to the Tamil Development. Such
reservation has always been upheld by Courts of law. But the question is, if there are more persons eligible to be considered, should the Selection
Committee go by the academic marks or should the section committee go by the excellence of the parents regarding Tamil Development. This
question, in my opinion, is no longer res integral and the Apex Court has held that as among eligible candidates the Selection Committee should go
only by the academic marks.
I have already demonstrated that the respondents have proceeded on an incorrect basis. To further illustrate my point, I have carefully perused
the proceedings and records of the Expert Committee. A list of 35 candidates was selected on 13.7.1996 from among 147 applicants. On the
docket sheet of the applications in respect of all the 35 eligible candidates, it is only recorded that the candidate is eligible. There is no indication as
to why the others were found ineligible. There is another list dated 14.7.1996 wherein only 21 candidates are shown as having been declared
eligible by the Special committee. This is in accordance with the averments in the counter-affidavit of the respondents, in respect of the 35
candidates found eligible at the end of the first round. There is a second endorsement in the docket indicating why only 21 persons were selected
and the others rejected. Some of these endorsements are beyond the comprehension of any reasonable person. As I said the endorsement may be
right so far as the development of Tamil is concerned. But with reference to the selection to the M.B.B.S. course in my opinion, the Committee
should have stopped with the first round of selection. I will refer to some of the endorsements made in the second round. So far as the selected
candidates are concerned, no doubt, some of their parents had contributed much to the development of Tamil in the Medical Science. But some
others have no such qualifications. For instance, in respect of one Muthalagan, a selected candidate, his parent''s contribution to Tamil is accepted
on the following endorsement:-
The above endorsement means that the candidate''s parents have written books in beautiful Tamil language. A perusal of the entire application
shows that the candidate was sponsored more as the grandson of a freedom fighter, rather than as the child of a parent who has contributed to the
Tamil Development. Most of his articles related to the subject of economics. In the case of one V.V. Ramachandran, a selected candidate, his
father had written books, small stories and stories for the All India Radio and the cinema field. As against this candidate the endorsement in Tamil
is as follows:-
The above endorsements means that the works of the parent were of good quality.
I will now refer to the endorsement made in the case of the writ petitioner W.P.No. 12345 of 1996. She was rejected in the first round itself
with the following endorsement:-
Her parents also had written several books and has produced several certificates, in support of her parent''s claim. But unfortunately in the first
round itself she was found ineligible. In the case of the petitioner in W.P.No. 13773 of 1996, she was found eligible in the first round. In the
second round, she is rejected with the following endorsement:-
The above endorsement only means that her parent''s contribution was not towards Tail Development. Similarly, in the case of the petitioner in
W.P.No. 11735 of 1996 (Gayathri Malathi), she was found eligible in the first round and in the second round she was rejected with the following
endorsement:-
In the case of petitioner in W.P.No. 12084 of 1996, she was also found eligible in the first round and rejected in the second round with the
following endorsement:-
In the case of petitioner in W.P.No. 13772 of 1996, he was found eligible in the first round and he was rejected in the second round with the
following endorsement:-
The petitioner in W.P.No. 12583 of 1996, was also found eligible in the first round but was rejected in the second round. But the endorsement for
rejection is not immediately available.
I have taken pains to examine the reasons given by the Special committee, especially at the second round only to show that such endorsement
are made purely on subjective criteria. There is no objective method by which some of the candidates found eligible at the end of the first round
were rejected in the second round. At the risk of repetition I do agree that the Special Committee might have had good reasons and their estimates
might also be correct. But the question is whether they were justified in going for the second round and Short-listing the candidates who were
already found eligible at the first round. In my opinion, they were not so justified. In fact the counter affidavit, makes it clear that in the second
round, the Special Committee was only trying to select the best of the candidates found eligible in the first list. It is not certainly open to the special
committee to make such selection of best candidates who had contributed to the Tamil Language. That list was made on 13.7.1996 itself and it is
that list which should have been sent to the third respondent. On the basis of the first list of 35 candidates, the third respondent should have
proceeded to select the candidates on the basis of the academic marks. If that had been done certainly some of the petitioners would have been
selected in the place of the selected candidates because they had scored higher marks in the academic examination. For instance, the petitioner in
W.P.No. 11735 of 1996 had scored 279.34 the petitioner in W.P.No. 12084 of 1996 had scored 281.84 marks, the petitioner in W.P.No.
13772 of 1996 has scored 274.74 marks, and the petitioner in W.P.No. 13773 of 19% had scored 279.41 marks.
I have therefore, no doubt, in holding that the non- selection of the petitioners above mentioned, is certainly, vitiated.
The last argument that some of the candidates had been selected under the same category of Tamil Development in the Siddha Medical
Course or in the Engineering Course, cannot be accepted because we do not know the number of applicants to those courses and the comparative
merits of the applicants. Therefore, on that score alone, the court cannot nullify the selection to the first year M.B.B.S. course.
What remains is to consider the argument of learned Additional Government Pleader in support of the selection. Reliance is placed on Lila
Dhar Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, . The following passage is relied on:-
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 candidate''s personality, It is for the
interviewing body to choose the appropriate method of marking at the selection to each service. There cannot by any magic formulae in these
matters and courts cannot sit in judgment over the methods of marking employed by interviewing bodies unless, as we said, it is proven or obvious
that the method of marking was chosen with oblique motive.
It is no doubt, true that the court cannot sit in judgment over the views expressed by an Expert Body. It is even open to the Expert Body to refuse
to give reasons for their decision. But where reasons are given, it is open to the Court to find out whether such reasons are arbitrary or
unreasonable. This is what has happened in this case. In fact in National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences Vs. Dr. K. Kalyana Raman
and others, the Supreme Court says:
Administrative authority is under no legal obligation to record reasons in support of its decision. Indeed, even the principles of natural justice do
not require an administative authority or a Selection Committee or an examiner to record reasons for the Selection or non-Selection of a person in
the absence of statutory requirement"".
The Supreme Court however, observed that the Selection Committee must adopt a fair procedure and must take decision reasonably avoiding
arbitrariness and whimsicality. In Rathnaswamy. Dr.A. v. Director of Medical Education, 1986 W.L.R. 207 a Division Bench of this Court has
held as follows:-
A prospectus issued with regard to admissions to educational courses is a declaration to the candidates that a field for development of educational
potentialities is available for exploration and that there could be a chance of success. It is a piece of information. But at the same time, we shall not
belittle the significance of the need to set out in the prospectus itself a summary or an essence of the norms and rules which should guide and which
will be adopted for selection the competitors in the field of exploration in educational development or at least indicate in the prospectus that there
are norms and rules which shall govern. It is highly desirable that a summary or an essence of the relevant norms and rules governing such
admissions are set out in the prospectus themselves or their existence at least is indicated therein. But an omission to do so shall not be taken
advantage of by any on to negate and ignore the very norms and rules.
The arguments advanced by learned Additional Government Pleader do not in any way persuade me to take a decision contrary to what I
have already indicated while discussing issue Nos. 2 and 3.
In W.P.No. 12345 of 1996, the petitioner was not found eligible in the first round itself. Similarly, in one or two cases also the petitioners were
not found eligible in the first round. Mr. V.T. Gopalan for the petitioner, argues that the reasons for rejecting the petitioner in W.P.No. 12345 of
1996, is totally arbitrary. I have already referred to the endorsement made in the case of the petitioner in W.P.No. 12345 of 1996 which is in the
nature of a subjective assessment. However, I have indicated that the Expert Committee is competent to recommend only eligible candidates. The
Supreme court has pointed out that reasons need not be given for selecting or rejecting a candidate in such circumstances. Therefore, it would be
improper for the Court to go into the case of all the candidates who were rejected at the end of the first round. I have held that the Committee is
competent to recommend the eligible candidates and this is precisely what they did on 13.7.1996 at the end of the first round. To this extent their
recommendation of eligible candidates has to be accepted. As pointed out by the Supreme Court, it would be improper for the Court to interfere
with the selection made by the Expert Committee regarding the eligibility of the candidates. In this view of the matter, the case of all the candidates
who were rejected at the end of the first round do not merit any further consideration. Therefore, the cases of the petitioners who were rejected at
the end of the first round have to fail and they are accordingly, dismissed. In this view of the matter W.P.No. 12345, (S. Punitha) and 12379 of
1996 (R. Kamala) are dismissed.
So far as the petitioner in W.P.No. 12252 of 1996 is concerned, the petitioner is the grandson of one Dr. Ulundurpet Shanmugham who is a
well known Tamil Scholar. His case was not considered because the prospectus only says that seats are reserved for the children of parents who
had contributed to the Tamil Development, the word ""children"" does not include the words ""grand-children."" In fact, on the similar arguments I had
held that the Court cannot expand the reservation and give relief to the grand-children of parents who have contributed for Tamil Development.
That decision was rendered in W.P.No. 16606 of 1994. dated 30.7.1996, relating to the heirs of hereditary Indian Medicines Practitioners. The
argument was that the grandson of an Indian Medicines Practitioner is also eligible for consideration under the Special Category. I had rejected the
said argument. Adopting the ratio of the said judgment, this writ petition fails and accordingly, it is dismissed.
Consequently, I hold the impugned selection under the Special Category is vitiated. However, I am not inclined to direct the selected
candidates under the category to vacate their seats because they are not parties before me and further because they''ve already undergone the
Course for several months. It would be inequitable to ask them to withdraw from the Medical College and join some other course at this stage.
Therefore, the only direction that I am inclined to give is to direct the respondents to accept the first list of 35 candidates as found in the
proceedings of the Special Committee dated 13.7.1996 and arrange them in the order of merits based on the academic marks. This will be done
for all the 35 candidates found in the first list dated 13.7.1996, irrespective of whether they have filed writ petitions or not. On such arrangement,
the first six candidates shall stand selected to the M.B.B.S. course. If out of first six candidates, any of them has not already been admitted to the
course, they shall be admitted subject to their option. To this extent, the respondents are directed to create the necessary additional seats in the
Special Category. In this view of the matter, W.P.Nos. 11735 (Gayathri Malathi, 12084 (R. Sivasankari), 13772 (T. Rawlin) 13773 (S. Sumitra)
and 12583 (A. Arul Selvi) of 1996 shall stand allowed to the above extent, because all these petitioners were found eligible as per the first list of
35 Candidates. The above direction will adequately take care of some of the petitioners who were found eligible in the first list and who have
scored more marks than the selected candidates. The above writ petitions are ordered in the above terms. There will however, be no order as to
costs. This direction shall be complied with in three weeks from today.
In view of the disposal of the writ petitions, no separate orders are necessary in the connected W.M.Ps. and they are closed.