Medical admission selection upheld where viva voce, merit assessment, and recusal safeguards were found fair and non-arbitrary.

Viva voce in medical college admissions was upheld where it was used only as a supplementary test of aptitude, general knowledge, and intelligence, and the Court found no mala fides or obvious arbitrariness in the 15% weight given to it. Non-consideration of qualifying examination marks was also accepted because the entrance process provided a reasonable common basis for comparison across differently conducted qualifying exams. No disqualifying bias arose from a committee member's relationship with a candidate, as he disclosed the connection and recused himself from her assessment. The applicable medical council regulations were treated as directory on the facts, so the selection process was found fair and lawful.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the viva voce component of the medical college admission process, including the allocation of marks and the questions asked, rendered the selection arbitrary or unreasonable; (ii) Whether failure to give weightage to the qualifying examination marks vitiated the selection; (iii) Whether the presence of a committee member whose daughter was a candidate created disqualifying bias; (iv) Whether the selection offended the applicable medical council regulations.

Issue (i): Whether the viva voce component of the medical college admission process, including the allocation of marks and the questions asked, rendered the selection arbitrary or unreasonable.

Analysis: The selection procedure combined a written test with viva voce assessment, and the viva voce was confined to factors such as aptitude, general knowledge, and general intelligence. The Court held that the interview questions were relevant and proper, and that the manner of questioning was not shown to be a pretence or a device to manipulate the result. It also held that the allocation of 15% weight to viva voce was within permissible limits for such admissions and that the Court would not substitute its own view for that of the expert selection body in the absence of mala fides or obvious arbitrariness.

Conclusion: The viva voce component did not vitiate the selection and was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether failure to give weightage to the qualifying examination marks vitiated the selection.

Analysis: The Court accepted that the qualifying examination was held separately in different areas and at different times, with different question papers, and therefore a common entrance test was a reasonable method of comparing candidates. It held that the Selection Committee was competent to rely on marks obtained in its own entrance process and to exclude qualifying marks from consideration.

Conclusion: Non-consideration of qualifying examination marks did not invalidate the selection.

Issue (iii): Whether the presence of a committee member whose daughter was a candidate created disqualifying bias.

Analysis: The member disclosed the relationship at the outset, recused himself from the written test and from the interview of his daughter, and was not present when she was assessed. The Court held that there was no reasonable likelihood of bias and no violation of natural justice, especially since the candidate's marks were not known at the relevant time and the member did not participate in her evaluation.

Conclusion: No disqualifying bias was established.

Issue (iv): Whether the selection offended the applicable medical council regulations.

Analysis: The Court held that the regulation requiring consideration of qualifying examination marks did not apply on the facts because the State had two medical colleges and the qualifying examinations were separately conducted for the two areas. It further noted that the regulations had already been held to be directory rather than mandatory.

Conclusion: No contravention of the medical council regulations was made out.

Final Conclusion: The selection process was found to be fair and lawful, and the challenges to admission were rejected in their entirety.

Ratio Decidendi: Courts will not interfere with expert selection procedures for professional admissions unless the process is shown to be mala fide, arbitrary, or vitiated by a real likelihood of bias; viva voce may be used as a supplementary test within reasonable limits.

---