Admissions policy and selection procedures upheld where no statutory mandate or arbitrariness was shown.

Courts cannot compel the State to create a particular statutory admissions body where education admissions are governed by executive power in the absence of legislation; the selection challenge on that ground therefore failed. The reconstituted competent authority's work was not invalidated by the absence of one member or by committee assistance, because it was not a statutory tribunal and no prejudice was shown; that objection was rejected. The written test, viva voce, reservation policy, tie-breaking method and seat allocation were upheld as objective and consistent with the applicable executive orders, and no arbitrariness or material prejudice was established. The High Court judgment was set aside, the selections were upheld, and the writ petitions were dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the High Court could direct the State to constitute a statutory independent body for admissions to medical colleges and invalidate selections made otherwise; (ii) whether the selection was invalid because the reconstituted competent authority did not function with all three members and scrutiny was assisted by a committee; and (iii) whether the selection procedure, including the written test, viva voce, reservations and related merit rules, suffered from legal infirmity.

Issue (i): whether the High Court could direct the State to constitute a statutory independent body for admissions to medical colleges and invalidate selections made otherwise.

Analysis: The power to legislate on education, including medical education, lies in the legislative field, while in the absence of law the executive may regulate admissions by executive instructions under the Constitution and the State Constitution. The judicial function is confined to testing legality and constitutionality; it cannot compel the legislature to enact a law or direct the executive to adopt a particular policy choice in the absence of a legal mandate. The earlier observations of the High Court were treated as guidelines rather than binding directions, and the executive orders issued thereafter substantially met those guidelines.

Conclusion: The High Court had no authority to require constitution of a statutory body or to invalidate the selection solely on that basis; the objection failed.

Issue (ii): whether the selection was invalid because the reconstituted competent authority did not function with all three members and scrutiny was assisted by a committee.

Analysis: The competent authority was created by executive order and was not a statutory tribunal exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions. The selection process had already substantially concluded when the competent authority was reconstituted, and its remaining task was only scrutiny and finalisation. Non-participation of one member did not by itself vitiate the process in the absence of prejudice, and the committee appointed to assist the authority did not usurp its function because the scrutiny was approved by the competent authority.

Conclusion: The selection was not rendered illegal on account of the composition or functioning of the competent authority, and this challenge was rejected.

Issue (iii): whether the selection procedure, including the written test, viva voce, reservations and related merit rules, suffered from legal infirmity.

Analysis: The written test and viva voce were conducted on an objective basis designed to reduce discretion and arbitrariness. The challenge based on absence of minimum qualifying marks failed because the authority effectively fixed the cut-off by calling candidates in proportion to available seats. The reservations, tie-breaking method and allocation of seats were held to be in accordance with the applicable executive orders, and no material prejudice or arbitrariness was shown.

Conclusion: The procedure of selection was upheld and the challenge to the merits of the admissions failed.

Final Conclusion: The High Court's judgment was set aside, the selections were upheld, and the writ petitions of the unsuccessful candidates were dismissed while the connected appeals were disposed of accordingly.

Ratio Decidendi: Courts cannot direct the legislature or executive to create a particular statutory mechanism for admissions where the field is governed by executive power in the absence of legislation; administrative selection procedures are valid unless shown to be unconstitutional, arbitrary, or prejudicial.

---