Court Invalidates Regional Quota, Emphasizes Fair Allocation

The Court found the allocation of 30% marks to the viva voce test excessive but refrained from interference due to timing. It declared the classification for regional imbalance invalid, quashing admissions under that quota. The Court emphasized the need for the State Government to revise marks allocation. Allegations of favoritism lacked substance, and the presence of Government officials on the Selection Committee was deemed permissible. Admissions under the regional imbalance quota were annulled, with seats to be filled based on open merit, aiming to mitigate harm to affected candidates. Other issues were similarly disposed of with no costs awarded.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Discriminatory admission criteria.
2. Validity of classification for regional imbalance.
3. Allocation of marks to viva voce test.
4. Composition and functioning of the Interview Committee.
5. Allegations of favoritism.
6. Adherence to application deadlines.
7. Compliance with Indian Medical Council regulations.
8. Presence of Government officials on the Selection Committee.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Discriminatory Admission Criteria:
The petitioner challenged the admission process for the M.B.B.S. course at the Government Medical College, Srinagar, claiming it was discriminatory, unreasonable, and void. The selection criteria included a qualifying examination, an objective test, and a viva voce examination, with marks allocated as 35, 35, and 30 respectively. The petitioner argued that the allocation of 30% marks to the viva voce test was unreasonable and arbitrary. The Court referred to the case of *Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib*, where an allocation of more than 15% of the total marks for the oral interview was deemed arbitrary and liable to be struck down. Although the Court found the allocation excessive, it refrained from interfering due to the timing of the selection process but emphasized the need for the State Government to revise the marks ratio.

2. Validity of Classification for Regional Imbalance:
The petitioner argued that the classification of certain villages as socially and educationally backward for the purpose of rectifying regional imbalances was arbitrary and lacked a pertinent basis. The Court found that the classification by the State Government was arbitrary and declared it invalid, noting that there was no intelligible data to support it. The Court referenced the case of *State of U.P. v. Pradip Tandon*, where it was ruled that reservation for rural areas was unconstitutional. The Court concluded that the State Government had not succeeded in bringing the case within Article 15(4) of the Constitution and quashed the admissions granted under the quota reserved for rectifying regional imbalances.

3. Allocation of Marks to Viva Voce Test:
The petitioner contended that the allocation of 30% of the total marks to the viva voce test was unreasonable and arbitrary. The Court referred to previous judgments, including *Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib* and *A. Peeriakaruppan v. State of Tamil Nadu*, which disapproved of high marks allocation to viva voce tests. The Court found the allocation excessive but did not interfere due to the timing of the selection process. It urged the State Government to revise the marks ratio to avoid future constitutional invalidity.

4. Composition and Functioning of the Interview Committee:
The petitioner alleged that the composition of the Interview Committee varied during the interviews, with some members joining late or leaving early. The Court found no material evidence to suggest that the slight delay in joining or partial absence of some members materially affected the validity of the proceedings. The Court emphasized the importance of having a consistent and complete committee but did not find sufficient grounds to invalidate the selection process on this basis.

5. Allegations of Favoritism:
The petitioner alleged that some candidates were selected due to favoritism based on relationships or friendships with Selection Committee members or influential persons. The Court found these allegations vague and sketchy, with most being made in the rejoinder affidavit, leaving no reasonable opportunity for the respondents to reply. The Court did not find a basis for a finding in favor of the petitioner on this ground.

6. Adherence to Application Deadlines:
The petitioner argued that some respondents did not apply for admission within the prescribed time. The Court found that the State Government had permitted the candidature of these applicants due to delays in the relevant examination and announcement of results. The Court noted that these respondents had excellent records and would have been admitted based on merit if they had applied in time. Therefore, the Court did not interfere with their admission.

7. Compliance with Indian Medical Council Regulations:
The petitioners in related writ petitions argued that the selection process violated the Regulations framed by the Indian Medical Council under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. They contended that the only permissible reservation was for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and that the viva voce examination and separate objective test were not allowed. The Court found no sufficient basis for these contentions and refrained from expressing a final opinion on the validity of the Regulations as the Council was not a party before the Court.

8. Presence of Government Officials on the Selection Committee:
The petitioners argued that the presence of a Government official on the Selection Committee vitiated its constitution. The Court found no principle of law disqualifying a Government official from participating in the Interview Committee. It emphasized that the constitution of the Committee lies in the wisdom of the State Government and that the appointment of a Government official is not inherently objectionable.

Conclusion:
The Court quashed the admissions granted under the quota reserved for rectifying regional imbalances and directed that those seats be filled based on open merit. The Court hoped that the State Government would sympathetically accommodate the displaced candidates to avoid serious prejudice to their careers. The remaining writ petitions were disposed of in a similar manner, with no order as to costs.

---