- KOSHAL KUMAR GUPfA & ORS. v. STATE OF J. & K. AND ORS.

F · The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DESA~ J. At' the conclu.sion of the hearing of the .writ. peti- tion and the transferred cases on Jan.24, 1984, the Court pronoun- ced the order dismissing· the writ p,etition. agd the transferred cases, reserving that the reasons will follow later on. Here arc G the reasons. To put.into' focus the ·controversy, the fact$. alleged ·in Writ Petition No. 8964 of 1982 may be taken as representative of the allegations in all allied cases.· ' · · '

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

k. It GlJPTA v. i. AND.K. STATE (Desai, J.) 400 5 to 13 and S·eeking a direction that the petitioners be admitted to A the same session.

A Regional Engineering College has been sd up at Srinagar in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Third respondent, Principal of the College by a public advertisement dated March 13, 1982 i.nvited appLcations for admiSsion to the Bachelor Degree Engi- B neering Course for 1982-83 session not only in the Regional Engineering College, Srinagar but ·also in eleven Regional Engineering Colleges set up in different States.. Candidates seeking admission had to fulfill the following requirements. They were required to appear at (i) a joint ·entrance examination in four papers viz. Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics and English; c (ii} candidates who qualify· in the written test had to appear at a viva-voce test; '(iii) the selections were - to be based on the com- bined performance in the written and viva-voce examination; and (iv) the seats reserved for specified categories were also Bhown. Pursuant to this ·advertisement, the petitioners applied and were •• admitted. to the' written test and on being found qualified, they D were ealled for viva-voile' test. The challenge is to the manner, the mothod and the number of marks as~igned for the viva-voce • test. Broadly stated, the allegations were that reservation of 15 marks for viva-voce test conferred arbitrary, unguided and• un· canna!ised power on those c2nducting the viva-voce test and that reservation of 15 marks for viva-voce'!est would have the perni- · E cious tendency of affecting the merit disclosed by the marks obtained at written examination. Tbere were other · allegations which d9 not merit examination.

On rule nisi being issued, respondents Nos. ·I to 3 appeared and one Dr. O.N. Kou!, Head of the Mechanical Engineering F .. . Department (Co-ordinator Admissions for session 1982·83), Regional Engineering College, Srinagar filed an affidavit in opposition on behalf of tlie Principal of the College. After • • pointing out that 85 marks were assigned for written examination and 15 for viva-voce test, it was further pointed out that in order to. avoid any charge of arbitrariness being levelled against the Selection Committee 15 marks assigned for viva-voce test were further split-up under four heads, namely, (i) Science-5 marks (ii) General knowledge-4 marks (iii) Curricular Activities-3 • marks and (iv) personality iest-3 marks. It was pointed out that vltimately out of a total of 100 marks, only 3,marks were assigned for personality test and this is the area where if at all; H discretion can be exercised which may not be reviewable on any

410 SUPREME COURT REPORTS • · tJ984J 3 s.c.I\. ...... ' . A documentary evidence. In respect of the three other heads, it was pointed .out that the Sele'!:tion Committee prepared cards on each of which a question was typed referable to the 4 subjects, llllmely, Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics and General Knowledge. and they were kept in 4 difforent boxes .. When the candidate entered the room for interview, he was required to pick up at B random one card from each of the four· boxes, .each box • ·containing atleast 150 cards and answer the question. A tape recorder was ·kept on the table in front of the members of the SelectiQ!l Committee and the ..candidate appearing .for the inter- view and the two-way dialogue was recorded in full. Marks were assigned under·each head of viva-voce test depending upon the .c merit of the answere. Thereafter, the merit list w11s prepared on · the basis of the total marks obtai11ed at written test and the viva- voce test and it was stricily adhered to save and· except for reser- ved seats· whete alw persons seeking admission to reserved seats 'had t.o stand in queu~ as in the merit list. . ·

At the hearing of these pebtions, the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 produced before the Court the cards on which questions ll'.ere typed, the cassette and a tape recorder. They also produced· the entire merit list with marks obtained by each candidate. The ·court ·at' random directed \)lorn to point out which card was picked- E up by om of the candi'1atl's from amongst; the petitioners and then play the cassette on whi1;h . his intetview was taped. Learned counsel for the petitioners and some ·of the ,petitione·rs were . pre~ent during this demonstration. We a;e fully satisfied that in this case merit has b~en ascertainod by the most scientific method .that can be. applied for selecting candidates on merits F . leaving no.room for any arbitrary. choice. . ·There was no· challenge to the written test and 85 marks assigiled for the written test. In A;ay· Ha1ia etc. v Kha/id Mujib Sehravardi &; Ors. etc. (') whorein "admission to this very Regio·· • nal Engineering College for the year 1979-80 was challenged, this Court observed tha.t 'there can be no doubt that, having · regard to the drawbacks and deficifncies in the oral interview test and the conditions prevailing. in the country, particularly .when· there is deterioratiou in n!oral values and corruption and nepo-

_____ tism are· very much on the focrease, allocation of a high per- • centage of marks for the oral inte1vie.w as compared to the marks allocated llr the written , test, cannot be accepted by thti court as .. , OJ [19s1j 2 s.c.R. 79.

k. 1::. GtiPTA V J. AND K. STATE (Desai, J.) 4H free from the vice of ar~trariness. The Court concluded by observing· that in the· existing circumstances, allocation of more than 15% of the total marks for the oral intervie.w would be arbitrary and unreasonable and would be liable to be struck down 'as constitutionally invalid. ... • The respondents· took one from these observations of the· B Court and reduced the marks assigned for viva-voce. test to 15. J Not only that but some of the drawbacks and deficiencies pointed out by this Court in the manner of holding ·of oral interview and the'marks assigned at it, the respondents split-up the marks under four heads and a;least in respect of three, there is direct evidence as recorded mi the tape to show how the :andidate has faired. And as for the dreaded persona.lily test, the marks assigned are 3 ·only. Not a single case was pointed out to us in the course of the hearing in which the candidate othetwise being eligible for ad- mis&ion on merit, lost the ··same .because of inability to get som~ " l' marks under the personality test, the maximum being -3 only. It is to the credit of rescondents Nos. I to 3, how they in order D to avoid any charge of arbitrariness reduced the marks assigned to viva-voce test, split them up under different heads and even in · respect of questions· to be put at the viva-voe\' test prepared the

. questions in adva:ic!', kept them ready. in boxes and the candidate had to pick-up his own q~estion and answer it. The record of the answer is maintaintlli in candidates own voice. We must E } record our appreciation that respondents Nos. I to 3 have practi- cally set .at naught drawbacks and deficiencie; in oral interview as pointed out by thi.s Court. The viva-voce test conducted mu;t be held to be fair, free from the charge of arbitrariness, reason- able' and just. F .. . Undoubtedly, the expectation of the Court which frowns upon anything arbitrary or unreasonable has added to the work- load of the 'Selection Committee. But today when there is ru;h for admission. to Engineering Colleges like the Ceasar's wife, the selection must be objective and beyond reproach. That has been G • scientifically achievecUn this case: We hope that bodies charged with the difficult task of ascertaining merits for admission will take cue from.what has been done by respondents Nos. r to 3 and the lead provided by them in this fUd would restore faith of young aspirants in 'the system. Therefor, the Court dismissed the writ petition and the transferred cases. · H N.V.K. Petitions &: Transfer Cases dismissed,