Admissions criteria and backward class classification: Article 166 defects, interview-based selection, and caste as a relevant factor only.
Article 166 was treated as directory as to form, so a Government decision on interview marks was not invalid merely because the communication lacked ideal authentication, where the decision's existence was otherwise established. A State controlling its own colleges could prescribe reasonable admission machinery and criteria, including interviews for qualified candidates, without violating the University's minimum requirements or Article 14 on the material before the Court. Under Article 15(4), caste was held to be only a relevant factor in identifying socially and educationally backward classes, not a compulsory or dominant test, so omission of caste as a necessary criterion did not invalidate the classification.
Issues: (i) whether the Government communication prescribing interview marks for admissions was invalid for non-compliance with Article 166 of the Constitution of India; (ii) whether the State Government had power to prescribe a selection machinery and criteria, including interviews, for admission to medical and engineering colleges despite the University's admission rules and Article 14 of the Constitution of India; (iii) whether caste could be required as a dominant or compulsory criterion in identifying socially and educationally backward classes under Article 15(4) of the Constitution of India.
Issue (i): whether the Government communication prescribing interview marks for admissions was invalid for non-compliance with Article 166 of the Constitution of India.
Analysis: The communication, though not in the ideal form, was treated as evidence that a Government decision had in fact been taken and communicated to the selection committee. The governing principle applied was that Article 166 is directory in form as to expression and authentication, and non-compliance does not by itself nullify the executive decision if its existence is otherwise established.
Conclusion: The communication was not invalid on this ground, and the contention against its legality failed.
Issue (ii): whether the State Government had power to prescribe a selection machinery and criteria, including interviews, for admission to medical and engineering colleges despite the University's admission rules and Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Analysis: The admissions scheme was upheld because the Government ran the colleges, could regulate admission of qualified students, and had laid down relevant criteria for interview-based selection. The Court also held that the scheme did not, on the material before it, transgress the field reserved to the Union on standards in higher education, did not contravene the University's minimum qualifying requirements, and did not establish a violation of Article 14 merely because interviews involved an element of judgment by the selectors.
Conclusion: The State Government had power to prescribe the selection machinery and criteria, including interviews, and the challenge on these grounds failed.
Issue (iii): whether caste could be required as a dominant or compulsory criterion in identifying socially and educationally backward classes under Article 15(4) of the Constitution of India.
Analysis: The Court read Article 15(4) as referring to classes, not castes, while recognising that caste may be a relevant circumstance in some cases. It held that caste could not be made the sole or dominant test, though it may be taken into account with other relevant factors where appropriate.
Conclusion: Caste was only a relevant factor and not a compulsory or dominant criterion; the Government's classification was not invalid for omitting caste as a necessary test.
Final Conclusion: The majority sustained the impugned admissions scheme and the classification approach, so the appeals did not succeed.
Ratio Decidendi: Article 166 does not invalidate an executive decision merely because the form of expression or authentication is defective if the decision's existence is otherwise proved; a State may regulate admissions to its colleges by reasonable criteria for qualified candidates, and caste under Article 15(4) is only a relevant factor, not the sole or dominant basis, for determining backward classes.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
