Subash Mohan Jalali and Others vs Principal Medical College and Others

S. Murtaza Fazl Ali, J.—The Petitioners had applied for admission to, the Medical College at Srinagar for 1966-67 session, but having been

refused admission to the Medical College, they have preferred the writ petitions challenging the Government Order which constituted the

Committee for selecting the candidates as also the selection made by the said Committee on various grounds, which will be discussed in a later part

of the judgment.

The facts giving rise to these petitions may be briefly summarised thus:

By a notification dated 19-5-1966 the Principal Medical College Srinagar invited applications for admission to the First Year of the M.BB.S.

course of the Medical College at Srinagar providing certain basic qualifications in accordance with the prospectus of the College for the admission,

of the candidates to the college in pursuance? of this notification the Respondent candidates and the Petitioners and other candidates who have

also been selected applied. applied for admission the Medical College at Srinagar some time after all the applications were received by the

Principal Medical College they were forwarded to the Government who in pursuance of the Council Decision No. 666 dated 30-4-1966 issued a

Government Order No. 63 dated 22-0-1966, constituting a committee consisting of Raj Kumar Shir Dev Singh and Abashed Ahmed who are

Chairman and Member of the Public Service Commission and gave them the option to co-opt certain persons as advisers in order to assist them in

the selection of the candidates. The Government Order further provided that the candidates were to be interviewed by the Selection Committee at

Srinagar or at Jammu as the case may be and 100 marks were fixed for such an, interview The Government Order further directed that the

Committee should consider personality general knowledge aptitude, and physical fitness under the marks allotted for the inter-view Finally, the

Government, order also gave an option to the Committee to hold a written test on general subjects carrying 100 marks After this was done, the

Committee was to. draw a final list regarding the selection of the candidates in respect of Jammu and Kashmir regions and submit the same to the

Govern meni in order of merit In pursuance of the aforementioned Government order, the Selection Committee co-opted Dr. Naseer Ahmed a

Professor of the Medical College Srinagai and I)r Tyagi a Medical Practitioner for the interviews to be held at Srinagar and Jammu respectively

The Committee further decided to interview only those candidates who had .secured aggregate to the extent of 45 per cent in the last qualifying

examination, and accordingly called such candidates for interview both at Srinagar and at Jammu After holding the in terries the Committee

recommended the names of the Respondent candidates neither candidacy who had secured first class; marks in the aggregate for/selection to the

First year M. B. B. S. Course of the Medical College at Srinagar. The Govt. on the recommendation of the Committee passed orders for

admission of these candidates to the Medical College The Petitioners were not selected by the Committee as it did not think them fail enough for

admission 'to the Medical College at srinagar and hence the present writs have been filed Before the petitions came up for hearing some of the

Petitioners were also selected by the Committee and were subsequently admit ed to the Medical College at Srinagar These. Petitioners are Bashir

Ahmed, Ghulam Moha-med Matlu and Nazir Ahmad Lone.

The Petitioners have assailed the selection of the Respondent candidates - on the ground that they have been selected by the Committee in clear

violation of the directions contained in the Government order referred to"" above. It is also argued that the Government order itself does not lay

down any objective criteria for determining the merit of the candidates to be admitted to the Medical College at Srinagar Finally it was averred that

the Government Order was itself in direct contravention of the Regulations framed under the Indian Medical Council Act. It was also submitted

that selection of the candidates was patently discriminatory and volatile of the provisions of Articles 14 and 29 of the Constitution of India It was

also urged that the interview held by the Committee was merely a farce because the candidates were interviewed for only two to three minutes and

no questions to assess their merit were at all put to the. Some of the Petitioners also contended that the Selection Committee went to the ex-ten I

of selecting some candidates who were below 17 years of age which was directly opposed to the prospectus of the college and the Notification

issued by the Principal Medical College Srinagar and the Statutes of the University, It was also contended by the Petitioners that the experts. Dr

Tyagi and Dr Nasser co-opted by the Committee did not participate in the interviews held by it in respect of all the. candidates.

The petitions have been resisted by the Respondents who have, inter and pleaded that the selection commute ad acted in accordance with the

direction contained in the Government order and it selected the candidates purely on their merit in accordance with the marks given to them at the

interview and that the committee did not make any discrimination in the selection of the candidates on the grounds of sex religion etc the allegations

of nepotism and favoritism made by the Petitioner were also emphatically denied by them Lastly the Respondents submitted that although the

advisers Dr. Nasser Ahmed and Dr. tyagi co-opted by the committee were not present throughout the interview vet they were there by and large

and no prejudice by their absence has been caused to the Petitioners. The allegation that the Government or the selection Committee for that

matter acted in a mala fide manner was also denied by the Respondents.

The Principle governing the admission of the unanimated to educational institutions came up for decision before a division bench of this Court in

Lalita sjuri v. state of Jammu and Kashmir AIR 1966 J & K 101 and this case forms the sheet anchor of the argument of the learned Counsel for

the Petitioners Apart from this a similar question was directly in issue before the supreme court R. Chitralekha and Another Vs. State of Mysore

and Others, which was a judgment from the mysore high court in the case while affirming the judgment of the Mysore high Court their Lord ships

of the supreme Court observed as follows.

It is then contended that the system of selection by interviews and. viva voce examination is illegal inasmuch as it enables the in reviewers to act

arbitrarily and to manipulate the results and therefore it contravenes Article 14 of the Constitution. To appreciate, this, contention, it is necessary to

notice how the interview, is held and the criteria laid down for the selection committee. The Government by its order, dated, May 17, 1963

constituted committee consisting of the following members for selection to Government Medical Colleges.

The Dean Medical Collage Mysore Chairman.

The Dean Medical Collage Bangalore, Member.

The Dean Medical College Hubli, Member.

So too highly qualified educationist were appointed to the Selection Committee for the Engerning College. By notificaton dated July 6 1963 in

respect of the Enginering Colleges and a similar notification issued in respect of the Medical Colleges, the Goverment prescribed the in addition to

the examination marks, there should be an interview of students for which the maximum marks presecribed shall be 25 percent of the maximum

marks of the optional subjects. The Selection Committee has to alot marks having regard to gerneral knoledge aptitude and personality previous

academic cereer, including special distinctions etc. M.C.C. A.C.C. etc. extra curricular activities include sports, social service debating, dramaties

etc. It is therefore, clear theat the Government by his order not only laid down a clear policy and prescribed definite criteria in the matter of giving

marks at the interview but also appointed competent men to make the selection on that basis. the order of the governemtn does not in any way

contravene Article 14 of Constitution.

So Long as the order lays down relevant objectives criteria and entursts the business of selection to qualifed persons. this court can not oviously

have any say in the matter. In ernment are certainly relevant in the matter of awarding marks at the interview.

Sic. Before however, analyzing Ibis decision, which has been strongly relied upon by the Petitioners it may be necessary to indicate the back

ground of the facts of that case which led to the observations quoted above. It appears that in the case before their Lordships. the Germinant

Order had provided that the selection In the Medicinal Colleges in the My sore Slate be made through interview of the candidates, which,

however, should not carry more than 25 per cent of the maximum marks secured by the candidates in the optional subjects in the last qualifying

examination. Furthernunc the marks allotted at the interview were to be added to the aggregate fetched by the candidates concerned in the last

qualifying examination the selection was to be made in order of merit on the total marks so awarded subject to the reservation of certain class of

citizens. The Government order further directed that the Selection Committee constituted by it was to allot the marks reserved for interview on

various counts such as general knowledge aptitude personality etc. etc. Lastly the Government order constituted a Selection Committee which

consisted of three Deans of the Medical Colleges in Mysore State It would appear that the selection committee in the case before their Lordships

of the Supreme Court consisted of highly qualified medical experts, a feature which is essentially wanting in the present case. In the Government

order no separate marks for the various counts were allotted and the Selection Committee awarded marks at the interview on a consolidated basis

without indicating the number of marks which were to be set apart for the counts mentioned,, in the Government order.

The Mysore High Court found fault with this mode of selection and held that the Committee should have allotted at least equal ma is to various

counts and on this ground the Mysore High Court quashed the interview and directed a fresh interview to be held Their Lordships of the Supreme

Court while agreeing with the Mysore High Court held that the criteria provided in the Government cruder was objective in character and as

interview was a permissible mode of selection, the Government order could not be said to have contravened the provisions, of Article 14 of the

Constitution of India. Reading the decision of the Supreme Court as a whole, in our opinion following propositions emerge there from:

(sic)

In the instant case, the third mode as pointed above has been clearly intended by the Government order, but was unfortunately not adhered to

by the Selection Committee which appears to have selected the candidates merely on the basis of marks given to them at the interview without

taking into consideration their academic merit. In our opinion, a bare selection of the candidates on the basis of marks allotted to them at the

interview ignoring completely their academic merit appears to the patently unreasonable, arbitrary and subjective so as to at once violate the

provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Such a mode of selection gives an absolute and unanalyzed power to the committee to tilt the

balance in favour of any candidate by plumping up marks at the interview and thus converting merit into demerit or demerit into merit. In a modern

well ordered society as ours, selection of candidates to technical institutions musk be fair and objective and must partake of a somewhat

competitive nature. If a selection is made ignoring the merit of a candidate who succeeds in getting a high aggregate in the last qualifying

examination after putting in studious labour for years, such a mode of selection is inherently abhorrent to the notions of a civilized and progressive

state of society which aims at achieving a high, perfect and scientific standard of education. James Hart in his ""An introduction to Administrative

Law observes at page 180 thus

A test or examination, to be competitive must employ an objective standard of measure. Where the standard or measure is wholly sub ejective to

the examiners, it differs in no respect from an uncontrolled opinion the examiners and cannot be termed live, Similarly in his book ""Evaluation in

Education"" Wrights tone Justman Robins observed as follows:

It would thus appear that the modern trend in education favours an objective selection of the candidates either by interview or through any other

method and any method by which the merit of a candidate is assessed in a subjective fashion is not considered to be just and fair.

In the instant case the Selection Committee, as indicated above appears to have selected the candidates purely on the marks allotted to them at

the interview without giving any credit to the academic merit of the candidates. Such a selection, in our opinion, being purely of a subjective nature,

is clearly violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Apart from this, the selection of the candidates by the Committee suffers from various

other infirmities:

To begin with the, Selection Committee appears to have ignored, completely the directions given in the Government order which constituted the

Selection Committee. The Government order may' be quoted in extensor.

Sanction is hereby accorded to the constitution of a Committee consisting of the' following members for selection of candidates for various courses

of training within and outside"" the State:

Committee which test shall be allotted, 100 marks (d) To draw up final lists as to the selection of the candidates in respect of the institutions

concerned for each of the two regions namely Jammu and Kashmir in accordance with its determination as to the order of merit of the candidates

for each region having regard to the results of interview and/or the written test as the case may be and (e) To submit a list of its recommendations

to the Chief Minister for issuing order in accordance with its recommendations.

by order of the Government of J & K."" A perusal of this order would clearly show that the Government had appointed highly quailed persons for

making selections. Shri Raj Kumar Shiv Dev Singh and Mr. Aga Syed Ahmed who are at present Chairman and Member of the Public- Service

Commission are, as rigidly alleged by the Respondents, very senior officers of the Government and persons of unquestionable integrity and ability.

The order father gives a clear option to the Committee to co-opt an adviser from amongst the three types of persons mentioned in the Government

order. The Committee, in fact, exercised its option in deciding to co-opt advisers and accordingly invited Dr. Nasser Ahmed and Dr. Tyagi to

assist the Committee for the interviews to be held at Srinagar and at Jammu respectively. In these circumstances, it cannot be contended with any

show of force that the. Committees constituted by the Government lid not consist of highly qualified persons. It is true that only one Medical expert

was co-opted by the Committee, but it is not necessary that the committee should have consisted of Medical experts only. The Chairman and

members of the Public Service Commission are fairly high dignitaries and were undoubtedly hilly qualified to assess the merit of the candidates who

had applied for admission to the Medical College. Moreover, these persons having been drawn from the Public Service Commission had sufficient

experience of interviewing a large number of persons who were desirous of entering the services of the State. After the Committee was only to

select the candidates for admission to the M. B. B. S. course Medical College where after selection the candidates were lo be trained for full live

years. It is not a question of selecting teachers for any technical institution that the Committee should have consisted of experts only In these

circumstances, we are not able to accede to the contention of the counsel for the Petitioners that the Committee constituted by the Government did

not consist of highly qualified persons, merely because it did not consist of experts only as indicated by the Supreme Court in the judgment

discussed above.

It was then contended that the Government order did not lay down any objective criteria for assessing the merit of. the candidates to be selected

for admission to the Medical College inasmuch as it did not provide for the consideration- by the Committee of the academic merit of the

candidate as revealed by the, aggregate secured them in the last qualifying examination We are, however unable to agree with this contention. The

Government order clearly gave an option to the Committee to hold a written test carrying. 100 marks and thus it clearly intended that the academic

merit of the candidate was to be determined. The Committee however does not appear to have exercised the option of written test perhaps due to

a very large number of candidates which had to be interviewed by it Furthermore, the Government order has specified four head namely

personality, physical fitness general knowledge and aptitude, under which the Committee had to assess the merit of the candidates. It is manifest

that the Government intended that the committee should consider the academic merit of the candidates as revealed by their performance in the last

qualifying examination under the heads General knowledge and aptitude If the Committee did not choose to consider the academic merit of the

candidate under these heads, the fault lies with the Committee and not with the Government order.

It was further contended by the counsel for the Petitioners that Government order was against the regulations framed by the Indian Medical

Council of India On 22nd 27th November 1964, Reliance was placed to the note appended to the said regulation which is as follows:

Candidates may be selected by a competitive examination at which 50 per cent of the marks may be awarded for the written part, 30 per cent

for the last academic examination performance and 20 per cent for the interview at which credit would be given for physical fitness, aptitude,

personality sports N. C. C. etc. 3. The Pre-medical course may be conducted either at a medical or science college.

The Advocate General, however, pointed out that these regulations have not vet acquired any statutory force and were in the nature of

recommendations made by the Medical Council in India which had yet to be, sanctioned by the Central Government. In this connection our

attention was drawn to Section 19 (A) as amended by Act No. 24 of 1964, which runs as follows:

19(A) (1). The Council may prescribe the minimum standards of medical education required for granting recognized medical qualifications (other

than post graduate medical qualifications) by post graduate medical institutions of India 2 Copies of the draft regulations and of all sub sequent

amendments there of -.hall he furnish flied by the Council to all State Government and the Council shall, before . submitting the regulations or any

amendment thereof' as' the case may be, to the Central Government for sanction take into consideration the comments of any State Government

received with three months from the furnishing of the copies as alone said.

In our opinion, the contention of the Advocate General is sound and must prevail. The Petitioners have not been able to show am Notification

by the Central Government giving sanction to the proposed recommendations of the Medical Council of India What has boon produced before us

is mere a draft of regulations which have vet to be adopted. So long as. however, these regulations do not receive sanction of the Central

Government which can be accorded only after obtaining the assent of the States concerned, these regulations cannot have any statutory or legal

force In these circumstances therefore the Government order cannot be held to be valid on I he ground that the method adopted by it for selection

runs counter to the aforesaid draft regulations.

Lastly the Government order was attacked on the ground that it was mala fide and was passed with a view to by passing the judgment of this

Court in AIR 1966 J & K 101 we not. however, able to accept this broad contention It is true that in the aforementioned case we have made

some observations condemning the selection of the candidates to the medical college for the session of 1965-66 If however the Government chose

to become wiser in view of our observations and provided an objective criteria for selecting the candidates it cannot be said by any stretch of

imagination that the Government was actuated by malice in law.

Another ground on which the mala tides of the Government order was urged before us was that the Government order was passed long after

the notification issued by the Principal and the results of the Kashmir University regarding the last qualifying examination. It was suggested by Mr

Bhasin counsel (or some of the Petitioners that the delay in passing the Government order was with a view to setting up standards to select the

candidates in order to suit the personal needs of the Government The argument appears to be far-fetched It is not disputed before us that the

Petitioners were given suf. fleeing notice of the fact that they had to appear for the interview before the Selection Committee and were issued cards

for interview by the Selection Committee

Furthermore, the fact that the Government order was passed some time after the notification by the Principal calling' for the applications does

not itself show that the Government .was actuated by malice it is obvious that the question of constituting a selection committee would arise only

after the Government is away of the nature and number of applications received for admission to the Medical College. Suppose the applicants for

admission to the Medical College were almost equal to the number of .seats available no useful purpose would have been sensed by constituting a

Selection Committee. In those circumstances, we are not prepared to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner this Score

Lastly it was urged on the point of mala fides that even the results of the in there view and the marks allotted to the candy dates who 'appeared

before? The committees were kept a closely guarded secret, so that the Committee maven is able to manipulate thing at the proper occasion. This

argument appears to us to be based on pure speculation we have already indicated, the Committee consisted of' very respectable and senior of

facers of the. Government holding such high and independent jobs as Chairman and member Of the 'Public Service Commission It is difficult to

believe that these persons would have been a prate to such a manipulation as is suggested by the counsel for the: Petitioners We have ourselves

examined the en-tire record of the interview which shows the list of the candidates who appeared before the Committee and the marks which they

obtained at the interview. These regards appear to us to"" be of an unimpeachable charasecter Summing up, therefore, the position is that the

Government order laid down relevan objective criterta for selecting the candidates and entrusted' the' business of selection to a committee

consisting of highly qualified per sons and. therefore, in our opinion the Government order does not suffer from any legaling firmity so as to be

violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India

We now come to the contentionsrais ed by the Petitioners which are to the effect that the Committee acted in violation of and contrary to the

clear directions contained in the Government order To begin with, it was contended that whereas the Government order enjoined on the

Committee to scrutinize the applications forwarded to it in order to see whether or not they conform to the conditioned governing admissions of

candidates to the particular institution. (Sic) Such a direction is clear by contained in para 3 (a) of the Government order quoted above Our

attention was drawn to the fact that although the Prospectus of the Medical College as also the Notification clear provided that no application of a

candidly; would be, entertained unless the candidaltained the age of 17 years on 1-12-1966 the Selection Committee,.appears to have cted as

many; as 11 candidates namely Ahmed Gilkar Kanwal rishen Khar Shafkar Ahmed Mohammad Abbl as Mir vishin mufti Jelani Miss Punam

Kuldip Charnder Mian Altaf Hussain Miss Tassneem and sataoj Balla who admittedly were below 17 years of age on the specified date. In our

opinion the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners on this score is absolutely correct. The Rule for admission contained in the

Medical College Prospectus appearing at page 2 of the Prospectus on this point may be quoted thus:

Candidate who must have attained 17 years of his age on or before 1st December of the year of admission to the Medical College and is not more

than 21 years of age is eligible for admission The selection authority may at their discretion admit a candidate over 21 years of age only in

exceptional circumstances.

From a perusal of this Rule it is manifest that while this Rule gives an option to waive the bar of a candidate being over 21 years, in exceptional

circumstances, it does not give any power to the Selection Committee to waive the age bar of 17 years under any circumstances whatsoever The

Government Order also clearly mentions that the applications of the candidates should be scrutinized in accordance with the rules provided in the

college Prospectus thus the Selection Committee had absolutely no jurisdiction to recommend the names of such candidates who did not fulfill this

requirement and were below 17 years of age on any ground whatsoever The Chairman of the Selection Committee as also the Advocate General

have sought to justify this action on the ground that as sonic of these candidates possessed extraordinary merit so they were selected in the hope

that the university authorities would relax the rule in their favour. This, however does not appear to be any justification for having selected the

candidates who were debarred from applying for admission to the Medical College and whose applications were not to he entertained at all The

Govern merit order itself did not give any authority lo the Selection Committee to select these candidates in the hope that their age maybe relaxed

by the University Further it would appear mulct the University Statute for Degree of Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surges being Statute

No 10 runs as follows.

The first professional examination shall be hold twice in a year in the months of November and May and shall be open to a student who has

attained the age of seventeen years on the first December of the year of the admission to the class except if exempted by the Syndicate in the

special circumstances of a case on the recommendation of the Principal.

So long as the age Described by the University Statute is not relaxed by the Syndicate the Selection Committee had no jurisdiction even to

entertain the applications of the candidates who were below the age of 17 years far less to select them Thus the action on the part of the

Committee in selecting the aforesaid eleven candidates is not only in direct isolation of the Government order but is also contrary to the university

Statutes referred to above. Furthermore it will be unfair to these candidates if they are allowed to be admitted 196V J & K/8 X G-27 to the

Medical College and after attending their classes for at pretty long time, the Syndicate ultimately decides, not to relax their age and thus the time

put in by these candidates in the college would be unnecessarily wasted. In these circumstances, therefore, the selection of these candidates cannot

be justified on any ground whatsoever.

Apart from this, the Selection Committee in our opinion, appears to have acted is violation of the directions contained in the Government order

in following particular.

(Sic)

The next point for consideration is as to what is the relief which is to be given to the Petitioners in the instant case It is common ground that

some of the candidates who were selected had secured First Class aggregate in the last qualifying examination and their selection has not been

challenged by the Petitioners Nor have the Petitioners, sought any relief against them in the present case, nor have they been made Respondents in

the instant caste In these circumstances, therefore, the selection of these candidates, whether right or wrong cannot be, questioned or disturbed by

us in these writ petitions. It has also been seen from the findings given by us that the Committee went to the extent of. recommending as many as

11 candidates namely Nazir Ahmed Gilkai Kanwal Kishen Khar. Hakim Sltafqat Ahmed, Mohamad Abbas Mir, Usha Visliin Mufti Gh. Jeelani.

Miss Punam, Kuldcep Chancier Mian Altaf Hussain Miss Tasneem and Saroj Balla. for admission to the Medical College although they were

below 17 years of age and their applications could not be en tertained by the Committee far less consider ed for selection The admission of these

can treadles therefore, would have to be quashed.

The Advocate General, however, drew our attention to the cases of some individual Petitioners, who according to him. had either since been

admitted to the Medical Col loge or who had not applied at all or appealed before the Committee for interview We shall examine these individual

cases in detail of is staled that Bashir Ahmed in petition No 184 Gluilani Mohamad Mattu in petition No 201 and Nazir Ahmed in petition No. 312

have been selected and granted admission to the Medical College before the petitions came up for hearing before us This fact is mentioned in the

counter-affidavit filed by the Secretary General Department and the objections filed by the Advocate General in these writ petitions and has not

been Controyerted before In these circumstances here fore, it follow that the petitions of these Petitioners must 'dismissed.

As regards Shamboo Nath Bakshi who is one of the Petitioners in writ petition No. 204, it has been alleged in para 3 of the Chairman's

affidavit that this Petitioner had neither applied for admission to the Medical College nor appeared for the interview. In fact, it was his son Roshan

Lal Bakshi who had appeared in the interview but was not selected. We have carefully perused the averments the petition and there is, nothing to

indicate that this particular Petitioner applied on behalf of his son from perusal of the petition it would appear that the Petitioner him self had applied

for admission to the Medieval College and had secured the aggregate marks shown in the Annexure to the Petitioner As there so no application by

Roshan Lal or any body on his behalf we cannot infer that the Petitioner applied .on behalf of his sop because that is not the case set up by him in

his petition for these reasons the petition of this Petitioner merits diismissal.

finally it is said that nancy in writ petition No. 167 Nazir Ahmed in writ Petitioner No. 168 and 1 Farida in Petitioner No. 174 did not appear

in the interview and therefore their cases are not ensiled to be considered by this Court These Petitioners. however have , clearly and emphatically

mentioned in their affidavits that the quad received intimation from the Selection Committee and had actually appeared before the interviewing .

committee J The list produced by the Advocate General show the names, of the candidate who had applied for admission to the Medical College

and who were called for interview, and those .candidates who had been called for in terries and not appear before the committee were/marked

absent It is not the cast of the Chairman in his counter-affidavit that these Petitioners were never even called for interview and vet their, .names do

not find place in the .two lists submitted by the Advocate General before us and which according to him are exhaustive lists in these circum

/stances, therefore is seems to us that the. names of these Petitioners appear to have been omitted due to oversight The Advocate General has not

been able to give am convincing explanation as to why the names of these Petitioners are not mentioned in two lists supplied by him One of the

Petitioners. Nazlif Ahmed Saraj about whom it is said that he did not appear for interview has produced the interview slip itself which shows that,

was asked to appear before the Committee on 20-7-1966 if this was so. then there is absolutely no reason why the name of this Petitioner does

not find place in the is submitted by the Advocate General In these circum stances, therefore we think that either these Petitioners despite having

secured more than 46 percent, in the aggregate of the, last qualifying examination were not at all called for interview or that they were called for

interview but due to oversight the record of the Committee does not show their names. In these circumstances we are not able to agree with the

Advocate General that the cases of these Petitioners do not merit any considered on in fact the cases of these Petitioners at and on the same

footing as the other Petitioners.

Lastly it was pointed out by the Advocate General that some of the candidates who were selected by the Committee for admission to the

Colleges outside the State could be questioned in these writ petitions as the Petitioners have challenged the admission to the Medical College at

Srinagar only, ha our opinion, the contention is sound and must prevail. Therefore any order that we pass m these petitions win not affect the

selection at the candidates who have been nominated for colleges outside the State.

For the reasons given above, the Petitioner of Bashir Ahmed hi writ petition No. 184, Nazir Ahmed in petition No. 312, Gulam Mohamad

Mattu in petition No. 204 and Shampoo Nath Bakshi hi petition No. 204 are dismissed.

The other petitions are allowed to this extent that the entire interview held by the Selection Committee qua the Respondent candidates

excepting the candidates who have been selected for admission to colleges outside the State is hereby quashed.

The admission of eleven candidates vir Nazir Ahmed Gilkar, Kanwal Krishen Khar, Hakim Shafqat Ahmed, Mohmad Abbas Mir, Usha

Vishin, Mufti Gh. Jeelani. Miss Pumam Kuldip Chander, Mian Altaf Hu&'sain, Misa Tasnccm and Saroj Balla. as being ngainaf the college

prospectus as also the University Statute is also quashed, and their cases can be considered only after they have attained the age as required by the

University Statute and the College Prospectus.

The Selection Committee is further directed to hold a fresh interview of all the Petitioners whose petitions have been allowed and the

Respondent candidates as soon as possible after co-opting one expert who shall be present throughout the interview in accordance with the

directions contained in the Govermnent order and in the light of the observe lions made by us in this case it would be advisable for the Selection

Committee to hold hilcrvjcws at an early date so that if some of the Respondent candidates or some of the Petitioners are ultimately selected their

studies ha the college may not suffer.

J.N. Wazir, C.J.

I agree

J.N. Bhat, J.

I agree.