Javid Rasool v. State of Jammu & Kashmir

' A B ---- . c D. F . -G a written instead of a viva-voce· test;. (4f gerieral knowledge and general · intelligence ~ere not matters to be tested in a written exaininatiOn; ·(5) there . w_as delay in the-annOuncement of the results and the delay made the seICction suspect, and (6) the · regulaiionS made by the,Indian Medical' Councii prescribed .thilt the marks obtained· in the -qualifying examination Should be taken in to Conside1ation. . . . . ' :DismiSsing the writ petition ; . HELD: 1. _I{_ is not unusual for Candidates.related to inembers ·ofthCService Commissiou. or othe'r Selecticin Committee t~ se~k . elnp~~yrneu~ .. -_Whenever St1ch a _I_ 582 .... JA:VfD RASOOL- BHAT & ORS; ETC. "' . _v.'_ & _:_ -· -STATE OF JAMMU &'KAS!-lMJR AND ORS. _February_ 16, 1984 '· " (0. CH!NNAPPA REDD¥, E.S. VEN](AJ:ARAMIAH AND _R:B._ MJSRA,JJ.]. .-. . _EducationaJ. lnstitutions-Adniisston_ . _to ._ . _M;dical. Colleges-AJn1ission_ _to-Viva vote ·1est-W!ieti1er Court_ _Could io .into_ _relewu.1cy_ _of_ q~iestions _·pu1'o candidates._ ·· - . . -~ . - . . . _Nat,ura/justice: .Medical Col/eges-Ad111ission·to_:_Ca11did.tte_ ~elated _to_ M~rnber _of Selection Com11litee-SeleCtlo11_ _whethei vitia(ed._ - . The' State Governtnent issued an adveitiS111ent _inviting. application for ac!mis· sion -to t)le fir.st year MBBS- course in the two medical· colleges in'.the State. Jt ·.Was nlentio'ned therein that the candidates would have to appear in- a written'tcst which would be followed by a ViYa·voce test and that 85 points were _allowed for thewritten test 'and 15 pOints -were Viva·voce test. The 'SeleCtion co·n1mittec for the selection. was constitut.cd t_o conSist of the Chah·n1p.n of the State. Public, Service Co1nmissi'on as Chainnan; and two members. vii., the Principals of the two -Medicil Colleges .. The quorun1 for a nJeeting of the Cori1111ittee was stipulated as the ·chair.man and .one me1nber. When the Selection Corrimittce held its· -first n1eet· i.ng Orle Or the· 1n~nbJrs, thC Principal of the College inforn1cd the~ Com'1nittee that as his daughti::r was one of the cartdidates con1peting for adn1ission, it' would nOt - be desirabl~ for him to bC associated, at ~ny stage, with the wrlttcn test, arid that he, would not like to be preseht when liis.dauli~htcr \Vas· interviewed>The Com1nittce took'note of ih_e inform<j.tiorl and agreed with the suggeStion ... . The petitioners in their writ petitions under Article 32, questioned the seleCt· - ion'ofcani:lidates for admission: It -was .. contendcd·oi1 their behalf that.: (l)~the entire selection_ was vitiated by th(: prescrice ·on the Comi:nittee· of the father of a - caddida.t~, and this was a 'gross violatiOn of one the .principles of najural Justice : (2) the entire procedure was ~ad as the marks obtained by the candidates at the qualifying examination (T.DC.:_~art I Medical group) were not taken into account and 'not giVen any We_ight3.ge; (3) the· viva.....:.....voce test· provided for _1-_ points for . general kno"'.ledge and general 'inteIIi£-ei:iSe whereas it \\{ould have been_ mOre appro. priate to test general knowlege· ail(( general ii,telligencc' of t;andidate ·by holding..· '· ' . . ~ \ I.AVID RASOOL.V._J & K S~ATE _(Chinnappa Rei/4y,_J.)_ 583 . _. }_ \' situ~tion arises, the' praCtice genreally is for,the' n1en1ber concerned io.·ex~use himstlf ~- _<._ .wlreii'thc parti'cular candjdate·is interVieWed. Committee at the very outset about fhis f<Lct 3.nct told theQl that - h~ woUJd 'not· ··have anything to do ·with the written·test and woul.i not be present When his daughter ~as inierviewect.-." The other members' -of ·the Selection COmtrtittee Iri the iristant cas~, .the Pri~cipa[ of th~·. Medic~l ·college, wf1osc d~Ughter Was a canOfctai~ for adffiission ·to the Medical College .informed the Selection ~cepted th'C sugges'tion Of the PrinciPal\ and did not addrc;:ss · the G.overnm~nt 'to appoint a sllbstitute ·member of the Selection. Committee, since ihc Govern-' .4.. ment had :(ixcid ·the ·quorum -for a meeting of t~e Selection Committee, as_tbe 1. Chairman and one - 1her member and it was possible to have a qudru_m · A B c - 1. Chairman and one - her member and it was possible to have a qudru_m · -{ without ihe Pfincipal. · The procedure adopted by the SeleetiOn · Cornri::iitteC aod ', ~ ... - ' the. !member' eonCerned was -m. accord with. the quite well-known.and generally accepted procedure adoptCd by the Public- Service Coihmissions 'everywhere. - ' - ' . . . _Nagarajan_ v. _State_ _of_ _Mysore,_ Jl966J3- S.C.R. 682, . referr. d. to .. [5%A-CJ 2. It is no't for.the Court ·tCI ··sit'.!. in judgmcµt. ·Over t~c nature of the ...... ·- questiol1s _t?_ be put' by, the membefs ~of. the_ Selection' Committee. _'f'F_ _'It is for the, members' of the. Seleqtion Committee, to dec_i~e what they should ask and so ~ong as the questions arc not·Such as to indicate-that the intefvicw' \Vas nothing· but. a ~ake--belicve, 'the matter mUSt be allov.ed" to rest . there. It ·i~ not the function ofthe·Coµrt to weigh e:aCh questioll _io_ find out the extent ·n , . ' ·to which it is ·~\.:.lated- to aptitude,·. general knowledge_ or gerieraJ ~ntclligencc. If tl1e . question is riot fJ.ipparit, it is not for the cOurt to say that the question was irreleVant and ShO'qld not have beeti. asked. at any -inierview. Perhaps. irrelcv.allt questiolls, may also~ be asked to explore the candid3.te's capacity' tO detect: .irrelcyancies. lt is j..... not for the Court to clain1 to hself the task of determining the na,ture of the questions - _ ./to be pi.it to candidates., apPearing ~t an i1:1terview .., The persons consti.tuting the __; .. ?"_ Selection Co111fQ.ittect who. may generally be assumed _to be n1en i of experience. and ...--t~. _ knowledgCable in regar4 to men and nlaiters may st1rely be ·expe-ctCd to pu~ the fight questio~s .. In th absence of rnalafidcS, th~ mitter, is be~t left t~ the-n1. [58.9E'.·GJ E / F sliould~be held .at 'all or how illany marks -~hould be allOted for ·the intei-v:ieW test. Of coufse,. the~rnai:-ks n1ust-be. mini_mal so as .to :H.void charges of arbitrarinCss bllt not necessarily al\vayS. There may be. posts and appoihtrrients whefe. the only proper ·method of selection may be· by an interview test Even _·iii_ the case of admission to . ' ":3{i) Th· qu~ti~n a-S to· the subjects in wl~ic~· ~~ entran~ test may be heI~ is hardly a n~atter fof the Court, unless, of course, ihe subjects arq_ sO arbitrarily chosen as to.\.ave not. the· slightest-c~nneciion witli the objeC~ of,th~ exami1~a1ion. Such a ;ituation is Uot likely to ·arise B.s:the authO}itieS rllay· be expects:ci" tO .act reasonably. ·Again it.is 1;ot fof ·the COurt· to lay .down whether ·an interview test higher degrees courses, _it_ may sOnietimes be necessary to allot a fairly high percentage. ' . G of nlarks for the interview test. -That'is why rigid iules cannot bC laid down in these. ~atters, ahd.· not by -~purts .. The,experts a~e generally the -best.judges:. The·Courts ~: duty IieS in pretenting arbitrariness and. denial ofeqUal opportunity. [592C-E,592B] . -3ii), · s interfere when the risk of arbitiariness 'is so high that" arbitrafiness is inevitable .. AgaifJ. the· Court is not the best judge of.what questi9ns :ffiay be asked at .the inter-view. All that is' 'nc6ssary is that the questions should not be H. _. ... - amere pretence. [592F] - · , .. '_,. . '• tions, the selection of candidates for. admission to the two medical. colleges at Srinagar and Jammu as well as the _nominations by the Government- of Jammu & Kashmir to medical colleges outside the State are in qu~stio\l· On Max 24, 1983, the Governmen.t of·Jammu ' 584 'SUPREME COURT REPORTS. ;' [1984] 2 s.c.R. ' _Ajay Hasia's case,_ [1981] 2 S.C.R. 7.9 ;' _Chitra 1i"ekha a1!d_ _Ors._ 11. _State of Mysore_ _and_ _Or_s.._ [1964) 6 S.C.R. 368; _A._ _Peeriakaruppan_ _v._ _State_ _of Tamil Nadu_ & _Ors.,_ [1971] 2 S.C.R.' 4_30; and _Lila_ _Dhar_ _v._ _State_ _of_ _Rajasthan;_ [1982] 1 _B.C.R._ 320 referred· to. - _I_ ' - 4(i) Tl~e Selccti~n Co1n1nittee appa:rentl;r ' '~bought . it would be better .to have va comrµon entrance test. It appears to· be a perfectly reasonable procedure. Even otherwise it is always open to a Selection Co1nn1ittee to insist on taking into consideration marks Obtained at the exan1ination held by it and eXcluding from Considera'.'tion 1narks obtained in examinations held by Other bodies. There is nothing-' wrong in this procedure, [595C-D] 4(ii) It wa's a matter for .the Selection. Conm1ittce to decide whether .,gfneral kno\Vledge and general intelligence could be more appropriately .tested in the vivavoce tCst or in the written test. That is not a matier 'for the court to decide: [595F]. _5._ There,.was in fact no delay in The announcement of results and the suspicion, if.anY, was u~ounded. [595G] . ' - ' 6. 'The regulation of the-Indian Mddical Council prescribing tha.t the marks otbiained, at the qualifyipg examination should be taken into consideration has no application becatise,ithere are two Medical colleges .in the sta'.te. Though only one Board conducted .. the qualifying· exan1ination, the examinations ~ere conducted. separately for Jamr'nU and Srinagar areas· ·and. on _tv-io_ different occasions. Moreover, 'the-regulations of the Council haYe ·been held to be ·directory and ilot mandatory by this Court. [597 D-E) . ... ·~ ' A B c D E r H ' _Madhya_ Pr~desh. ;_ _Kr._ _Nivedita_ _Jain_ [1981] 4 S.C.C. 296, referred to. -,_,,----- - OmGINA'L JumsmcTION : WRIT PETITION (C1v11)Nos. 13325-37. 13366, 13683 to 13687 ef 1983, 256-260 & 579-81 of 1984 (Under article 32 of the Constitution of India). . ~ .__,_ ' __,. _Ani/ Dev Singh, As/wk_ ' _S.en_ and _S.B. Bhasme R. Satish;_ S.S. _Gupta,_ _J.b._ _Kotidhar_ 11nd _S.S. Khanduja,_ for the Petitioner's. _Y.S. Chitale,_ _G.L._ _Sanghi, S.N. Kacker_ •and _V.M._ _Tarkunde._ _'Alta/_ _Ahmad_ for Respondents. #### The Judgment of .the Court was deiivered by .. CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. Writ petitions questioning admissions to the medical colleges at Srinagar. and Jammu appear to have become an annual feature in this court. In the previous years, there was some" justification. It does not appear to be so this year. In these writ peti \ _.JI_ ' . ~-· . >. .. .. _I_ ... JAVID RASOOL _v,_ J _&_ K s:rATE _(Chinnappa_ _Reddy,_ _J.)_ ·.' 585 .· & Kashmir iss~ed ·an advertisement inviting applications from per- A .. manent residents of Jammu & Kashm'r··State 'for admission to• the first year MBBS in the medical colleges it Jammu & · Srinagar. One of the conditions of eligibility was that a candidate should have passed the "First _toe_ (Medical Group) ~xainination from Jammu & Kashmir . Board·of School Eduction wi!h ·~at less than 50'.Y., oft.he total marks' in English,and Science subjects taken. together" ... There w&s some re: · · B laxation in favour candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, etc. with 'which we are not no\;; coricern~d, We are also riot concerned in these. _wiit_ petitions with the 'reservations' made in favour of various , ~lasses. We are only concerned with· the · sea!s or. places available for ' open competition. The adve.ftisement expressly .mentioned, that the . - ·candidates would have to appear in a wriiien test of 'TDC-Part I Stan- .. C [1 ] I•~• ' { . dard' comprising of two papern," one' paper consisting of .the subjects, .· Physics and Chemistry' and the other, .Biology -and English, It wao; also·mentioned in'the advertisment that the candidates would be requ, ired to appear at a' Viva-voce examination .. _on 7th July, 1983, the . Government of Jammu & Kashmir.published a notification called the - · Jammu & Kashmir Government •" •' MediCal Colleges (S~iection . of Candi-. ___ __,)_,D dates for Admission _tb_ First Year MBBS _Course) Procedure Order 1983, Paragraph 4 of the . order which is relevant is as follows:. - . shall, be· .. ' ' .. \ _·I_ "4. Merit :-:-:The inter-se•merit of the candid~tes determined· on the basis . . of the following:- . - . '(i) Written test (ii) Viva voce .. _,_,:_ '. :..----:<.,...-.. E F Total ., 85 Points .. 15 Points - 100 Points ' ' . The points earmarked for .. viva-voce will . further· be sub- . - divided into the following· factors: . ~' .,.,. . . ' ' ' . ' ' The points earmarked for .. viva-voce will . further· be sub- . . ~' .,. - divided into the following· factors:,. .. ':1' (a) Apptitude 8 Points.· •· . ; . 7 Points G. \· ' (b)G.K.GI . ~~~~-'--~~~~~ Total.',, .. 15 Points" ' 'i86 [l 984] 2 s.c.R. A B c D - E F G H f~r admission to the First year of the_ MBBS Course for the Medical Colleges of the State was available in the offices of the Principals of the Government Medical Colleges atJamtnu and Srinagar. Candidates were also told that marks card would be issued on payment of a fee . of Rs. ~/- and that any candidate interested in seeing his/lier answer book could do so on payment _of Rs. 20/- as fee for each paper. Some of the facts mentioned above were taken by us from the counter affidavits filed on behalf of th<> Government of Jarrrrnu & Kashniir and were ncit admitted by the petitioners. Wedo not however have the slightest _:_ 011· 26th August 1983. a Selection Committee was constituted ·consisting of the, Chairman of the Jainmu and Kashmir Public._Se1'~ice ' Commission as Chairman ~nd two members, namely, the Principals _t_ of the two, Government Medical C~Ilegcs at Srinagar and Jammu. The quorum for a meeting· of the Committee was• stipula,ied as the Chairman··and one.member .. On the. same day by another notification it was directed that the Selection Committee should ·arrange and conduct the written test and·evo\ve its own procedure for appointing examiners and for .. the yonduct of. the examination, etc: ·n.e Selectio1; 'Commiitee held its first meeting,on September 2, 1983 when one of - t]1e members~ the Principal of the Government Medical College; Sri nagar informed the Committee'that his daughter was one of the candidates and that it would not be desirable for him to be associated, at ·any'stage, with the written.test to be conducted by the Corrimittee and further that he would not like to be pfesenr when his daughter was interviewed. The Committee took note of the information and agreed with the supgestion. As tlic.Gov~rnment had also fixe(L1 quorum for ·a rrteeting of the Committee, it was not conside.red necessary to have a substitute member appointed. Thereafter a &tailed' procedure was evolved for the written test and intcrviews.'_The Charirman wa~autho­ Tised to consult the Chairman of the Jan:unu & Kashmir Board of School Eduction and select the required number of cxainihcrs and paper-settors. The written test was conduct~d simultaneousiy at Jammu & Kashmir on Septembe_r 22, 1983. The written test was followed by. interviews from September 26, 1983 to October 11, 1983. One important factor wl\ich requires to be.mentione.d here is that the marks · secured in the written test by the respective cari~.idates was not available• to the Selection1Committee when the Committee interviewed the candidates .. The Committee met again on October 25, 1983 by which time 1 - ' -, the results of the written test were also available. The Selection Com # . mittee proceeded. with the task'or'finalising the selection. Jhe selected candidates were sent indiviudal intimations and on December 3. 1983, a notification was published by tlie Government of :rammu & Kashmir informing the public that the.result of the written test/Viva Voce:held . _ . ' . JAVID RASOOL _v._ J &KSTATE _(\hinnappa .Reddy,_ _J.)_ 587, . .· . . ; ' .' ·, ' ,doubt about the coriectness of these facts, as they are fully supp0rted . . l)y tonte~praneous official records,, :. The. petitifj~ers,'have fil,ed these writ. petitons inipunging .the _:_ se/ection made 'by the Committee .on various grounds. Jn their-peti~. !ions, they have inc1.ulged in serveral,allegati.Ons and insinuations for whic there is no basis whatsoever. Shri Anil Dev Singh, .learned coun·. . sel for some of the petitioners· raised .th'.ee tonteptions: The first was · 'that the entire selection was vitiatecl~ by the. prese,iJce o_n the C_ommji- . , 'tee (if the father of a candidate.' The second contention was th2t tho **A** **B** **c** **D** **E** **F** **G** '' ... ~ntire. **procedure** **was.·bad** **ciS** **the .tnarks** **·0b!.aii1ed** **by** **the-** **Candidates** ··~·· at the qualifying examination (TDC,PartfMedicai Group) were not taken into.account and not given,any, weightage whatever; The third contention was that the viva-voce test provided for 7 points for general knowledge 'and general intelligence wher.eas it would have ·been more. appropriate to t,est:the general knowledge and general intelligence of **''l"'** candidates by holding a written test i,nstead of a viva voce. test. Shri Anil Dev Singh also general 'y submitted that the viva voce, test was a rnere manoeuvr~·designed to bring in candidates who had.fared badly iii the written test Shri A.K. Sen, le.arned counsel who appca;ed for .'some of the other petitioners made only 'one 5ubmi~sionand it '..Jas.that . . **'the viva voce** ~est **..** **Iiad** **wofked in· an** **unreasdnal;Jc** **'arid** **arbiti·r:fy** **n-·:** **n-** **ner; ir{Jact** **and** **as** **a matter of principle'. -He** **i:-** **1** **aboraTfd** **tf:r** **subnds-** siori by arguing that though the two papers in. the writt•:n te~V curried ' ' .. 550 marks, they were reduced to 85 points as against 15 points for the ·\;viva voce test. The .result, according to him, was ihat candidates who **;'i..** got a lead of 20-?5 marks in the written·tes1 had to'bow dc\\n to f3ndi, ... ·\;viva voce test. The .result, according to him, was ihat candidates who got a lead of 20-?5 marks in the written·tes1 had to'bow dc\\n to f3ndi, ~ dates . who got a lead . . of ' '-3 or 4 points in the viva vcce test as the ' ' marks . ###### obtained in the written test were reduced· to . points in the ratio of 550 obtained in the written test were reduced· '- _to_ points in the ratio of 550 to 85. ·Sh.ri Sen also 'submitted that the questions put lo the candidates .at .the iliterview were not designed to(test.~ithH aptitude or general hnow!edge or general intelligence and for that reason, the selection" was vitiated, He suggested that the final results bcre 'c!c c;uont lesti.C **'inony t?** t~e i~j_ustice **dQne** **tO** **t_he_** mi~ority_com~unity **in** -t~e State.~· \ ~We ·find no subst~nce whatever in any .of tlie subm'issions made by Shri Anii Dev Singh and Shr,i A.K,. Se11. We may straightway ··~ ' ' \ ~We ·find no subst~nce whatever in any .of tlie subm'issions made by Shri Anii Dev Singh and Shr,i A.K,. Se11. We may straightway ~observ.e t~at the .insinuatio1i that the interviews were so c~n,duct~d as to do injustice _to_ 'the minority community appears to us to be unchari. table and impetuous. We find that there ai;e candidates belonging to both the majority and the minority communities among the c~ndi-· dates who were able, to' secure admi.s'sion because of the points sco~ed by them in the viva voce,test, as.also amongst the candid~tes who '. '' ' \ .. ----· •. - . 588 SUPREME COURT REPORTS. [1984] 2 s.c.R. · A · failed to secure admission because of their low score in the viva voce test. The inconsiderateness of the all~gatioif is evident from the fact that the marks obtained by the candidates in the writien test were not even available to the Selection ·Committee when, they conducted the viva v.oce· test. This circumstance is sufficient· to repudiate the broad allegation freely made by Shri' Anil Dev Singh that the viva voce test B was designed to facilitate tlie selection of candidates who had fared badly in the written test. c D E F each candidate though 0 in certain cases interview lasted for more than. ten minutes. All the candidates were. fully and fairly assessed and it is denied that .the candidates. were interviewed only to mainpulate the results. The candidates were questioned by the members,of ·seJectfon Corµmittee only in respect of factors of interview prescribed in SR0-380 dated 7-7-1783 and the entire process was above board and extremely fair. I submit that. the result of the written test· became available to .the members of the selection committee only after. the interviews had . been completed", After this couhter-affidavit had been filed, some · of the petitioners chose to file 'rejoinder affidavits' to suggest that their 'interviews lasted for about two to three minutes only and that - questions relating to the aptitude, general knowledge or. general in The submission· that the questions put ti:> the candidates at the intervie\v were not designed to test either the aptitude, general hno\'{ledge·or gerieral .intelligence of the candidates is equally without sub-· stance. In the writ petitions, no such averment was made ~nd no· instances ·were given. In the petition a general allegation was made thaUhe viva voc;e test had been abused to dilute the otherwise high merit of the. petitioners. On behalf of the respondents, one of the members of the Selection Committee;· Dr. S.L. Verma, Principal of the Government Medical College, Jammu filed a counter-affidavit each candidate though in which, he stated'. ....... 0 in certain cases interview lasted for more than. Notless than six minutes were. spent on telligence of the candidates were not asked. It was .stated· that some some of the candidates were asked the ·names and occuptions of their _/_ some of the candidates were asked the ·names and occuptions of their . '' ' . becbme parents or brothers, and some were asked 0 a doctor and so on.·Aarti Kaul stated why he or in her affidavit thatshe wanted to becbme 0 a doctor and so on.·Aarti Kaul stated in her affidavit that [1 ] G she was also asked to give an example of Collard (?) of the human' - body, that she replied that it was blood and she was then asked what the constitution of blood was, to which s\le replied "Plasma Haemoglobin RBC Serum''. Rajesh Gupta,.another cano.idate, stated that his interview lasted for .two or. three minutes and apatt from questions 'relating to the name and oocupati~n of his father and· brothers, h~'was also asked to define 'absolute zero' and 'international ampere': He answered both the questions. He claimed that he was asked no que. . ' . ' _0 (Chinnappa_ \- - _Reddy,_ . _J.)_ 589 JAVID RASOOE _v._ J _&_ _K_ .. _00STATE_ sti~n relatillg to aptitude, generaJ.kno:.vledg~ or general Intelligence.· A ' . . ' . ' ' - ' ' ~.' ., . . -· We are of theveiw'that·there is no genuine basis for any compfaint in regard to the nature of .the questions which the can4idates were asked in the. viva voce test. We accept. the statement ofD.'V~rma that the Selection Committee·put relevant qriestion to the candidates to test their aptitude, general knowledge,and general intelljgence .. Anyo~e who has served on· a·Selection Con1mit(ee and interviewed candidate.s · B knows that ·a large number of candidates are nervous and inorder to "... put them at ease.'it is wcessary to' ask thenito·start with, innocuous . _ 4-, . questions, such: as what is vour father's occupation'? whi@h part of the country do yo~ cbme · f;;m ?, 'what is your m'other-tongue? and .. so on.' .Such qu~stions are intended to enable the candidate, to fec;l at ease and get over his nervousness. No complaint can surely to made that' candidates were put .such questions. We also fail to see. h'ow any . . complaint can be made of the fact thai questions t>n science subjects . _ ·~ were asked of candidates seeJdng admission to medical colleges, Surely . such questions are at .least as good as questions about the name ofthe 'capital of ~n obscure Latin American State or .who captained India - D , in the SeconU test ma,tch·agaii1st Pakistan.in I?SO, W~ entertain on' .... ~doubt that the questions asked .were proper and relevant. We add that it is not for the co.urt to sit ·in judgment over the nature. of the questions to be put by the members· of the Selection Committee. It is ~ · for 'the members of. the . Selection Co1nmittee . to' decide what questions they should ask and so lo~g 'as the q;i-estions are not _. &uch as to. indicate' that the i;\erview was nothing but a make-believe. EI' questions they should ask and so lo~g 'as the q;i-estions are not _. &uch as to. indicate' that the i;\erview was nothing but a make-believe. -"'-~we ~rnst allow the matter to rest ther~ .• It 'is not the function of the · '°Cburt to weigh eacl; question to find out the extent to whcih it is related ~o aptitude, general knowledge or gep.enral intelligence. ff the question - \ .. -"'-~we ~rnst allow the matter to rest ther~ .• It 'is not the function of the · '°Cburt to weigh eacl; question to find out the extent to whcih it is related is not flippant, it is not for the court to say.that the question was iire- ·" Jevant and should riot have been asked at an interview. Perhaps irrele' :,- . vant questions !nay also be asked to_explo're the 'candidate's capacity· !> to detect irrdevancies~ It is n~t for the court to·~laimto.itselfthe task ·.: _'r_ . of determining tlie nature 9f the questions to be put to carididates appearing at· an interview: The persons constituting. the Selection . Coin'mittee who may generally be assu!"ed to be. men ofle,W~rience, . \. '~,_ '· and knowledgeable rn regard to men and matters m~y surely be expe- G cted to put the right questions. 'Jn the absence of malafides, the maatter - is best'left to them." ; - - -~ is best'left to them." ; - - . .. . ' . .. . . / .. ' / . Mr. Sen made a complaint that \he m~rks obtained in the writ' ten 1:est :.vere reducec to pomts and this -hail ·-resulted in ca11didate• who had fared well in the interview stealing a march over •oine candi' . :·H-· . ;--, / ,_, -· 590 SUPREME COURT R!Sl'ORTS [1984] 2 S.C.R. **A** **B** **c** I **n:** **E** **F** **G** **. H** ' dates whn had fared well .in the wriUen test. The rules require that 85 points should be awarded for the written test and 15 points for the viva· voco test. Therefore, although the written tests carried· a total of 5~'.) m irks, the marks obtained by each candidate had to be necessarily reduced to points on·the basi's that 85 points equalled 550 markS The gr.ievance is plainly imaginary. ·. - ' " Both.Mr.. Anil Dev Singh and Mr. A.K. Sen invited our attentiOn to the observations of this courl'•in _Ajay Hasia_ 's' [11 ] _case_ in regard to the desireability of holding viva voce test !Cl) select candidates for ad1nission to p'rofessional colleges and· in regard to the manner of conducting sucht~sts. The Qourt after referring to the criticism levelled against viva voce test observed:. "Now this criticism cannot be said to be whoHy. unfounded and it reflects a point of view whi'ch has certainly some validity'.' The court then quoted M.P. Sharma· on ·Public Administration'. in 'Theory and Practice'. and Gle1\n Stahl on •Public P 'Cs Jnnel Admi'nistration' a.nd observed "But, despite all this criticism, ihe oral interview mef~od con1inues to be' very. much ;in vogue as l suppelmentary test for assessing the suitabi!jty of candidates wherpver test pf personal traits is con;;idered essential. Its relevance as' a .test for determ'ning suitabilty based on personal characte**ristics h3.S** **been** **recognis6d** **ih** **a** **number of decisions** **of this court which·.** 1 are1Jinding Up Jn us". The Court then quoted from _rhitra Lakita and_ _Others_ _v._ _Slate' of My.iore and_ _Others">_ and _A. Pseriakarupfan_ v. _State_ _of Tamil Nadu_ & _Others<a>_ and observed: . / . ' . ·, (I) [1981] 2 S.C.R. 79 . (2) [1964] 6 S.C.R. 368. (3) {1971) 2 S.C.R. 430. .. . ' ' ".ft is therefore, not possible to accept the contentions of the .Petitioners that the oral interview test is so defective that _.J_ ## ~eJ.ecting candidates for admission on the basis of oral intervciw ·in addition to written test must be regarded as arbitrary. The' oral interview test is und<mbtedly not a very satisfactory test for assessing and eva]u;1ting the capacity and calibre of candi ' ' ' **da teS,** ~'ut **in** **the absenc2** **of any better test for measurin,g** **perisonal**, ·, **ch,iracterLstics .and traits, the oral** **iTiterviev.** **[1 ]** **test '.must, at the** ,pNsent stage be regarded as 11ot irrational ·or irrelevant though \ ' ' . ' **_it** **is** **subjective** **and based** **on** **first** **i.mprcssion_;** **its result** **is** jf!~ue:-i ced by m1ny uncertain factprs and it is capable of abuse. We would, however, Ji ke to point out th,it in the matter of admis, sion to college or even in the matter of public employment, the - \ I ' - 0 ' ' . JAV!D RASO()L _v._ J _&_ K STATJJ' (Chimz~ppa _Reddy,_ _J.)_ . 591. - oral inte;view test as presently held should not be_ relied upon **A.** - as an exclusive test, but it niay be resorted to only as a·1i additfo.. - . . . **e** .. - . - nal or supplementary test and, m·oreover; great care must. be· be taken tci see that persons who are appointed _iO__ conduct the·_ ornl in,rview test are inen of high integrity, calibre and qualifi**cation'** . . . . . . . . . .. .• . **e·** . _The Court the_n pro.cceded to consider whether the allocation of •.. as _high percentage as 331/3 of t)je .total marks for the viva voce test did: .not render the-· admissio_n procedure arbitra~y. Jt was held• that . ..., ·· .it did make the s~kctiori procedure arbitrary but even so theselec.tio"n _.I . ·was_ not _set .. aside _as 18m_onths had 'elapsed since the selection and. -'!:;' no rr,iala fid~s had· bee1iestablished. _The court finally considered the **C.** "argument that each candidate wa:S not in-tervhved for· more than two ~r three minutes and rele_vant questions were .not a·sked. Taking· . note. of the cii'cunisfahce,that .no ·affidavii had been filed either by a member _pf_ the Seection Committee ·or by any other officer who_ was present at ihe interview, ihvas thought that the· allegations of tne. petitioners had to·be accepted: • .• -. ' ' '. ' ·It >'-· was then said that ' ' "if ' that - be ' so, the,. .. **D** .' oialo iuter~iew test must be hCld to be. vitiated and the selection made on the basis _ot_ such test must be hold to b~ -~rbiirary". However, for the reason that IS months had already elapse;i., it was not thought proper to strike down the' :selections alr.ady made. Threafter ·the. **folloWing** ob~ervation,s. \ve~e **..** mad~: - · .,. ··. . "Vie may point out. that, in our opinion, if 'the marks _**,J.**_ .. ·allocated for the. oral interview do not exceed J 5% of the total - ~-'-: . marks a~d the candidates ·. are properly interviewed . and - .. releva1\t questions are a~ked with a view to _assessi1ig their .suit- · ... ability.with reference to the factor~ ~equired tci ·.be taken into - ~-'-: - .. releva1\t questions are a~ked with a view to _assessi1ig their .suit- · ,. ability.with reference to the factor~ ~equired tci ·.be taken into **E** **·F·** .· **·G** •· .. .. consid,ration, .the oral interview test would satisfy the crit~r­ ion of reasona_bleness an_d non-arbitrariness. • We thii1k that it wottld. also be desirable .if the interview of-the candidates is tape-reeorded, for" in that eventhere will _be - conteinpo, . .r~~cous·evid~11ce **to.** s~()w. **wl1at''were** **·the** **C}_ueStions** **asked** **to** ihe candidates by the interviewing committee and what were . . the answers give11 ·and _that will eliminate _a lot of unnecessary · contraversy besides acting as a clieck on· the possible_. arbitr ·~rine_ss **of.** **the·** **·intervieWing·** **·co!llmittee".** . - It wo~ld be noticed tha_t niost of the observations were. made . with a vie_; to enable the Government to ·devise a selection prncedure **H** , which would he above r.eproach, H: was never intended to lay down· . _: ._ . .• ·--' 592 ' SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19S4] ~ S.C.R. any hard and fast rules; In the very nature ofthihgs it would not .b~ . within the proviric.e or even the competence of the Couri and the.court would not venture ;into such exclusive thickets to discover ways out, . when the matte{$ ate mere appropriately kft to the. wise expertise of medica 1 academicians intllres!ed in the quality and inte~ty of medjcal · ·• . education and public administrators conversant with various ad~ini.' strative ~nd socio-economic problems.".,needs and requirements. ·The - Court's duty'iil's in preventing arbitrarines.s and denial of equal opporc · tun.ity. The question as to the subjects in which an entrance test may - · · · be held ishardly a matter for' the cou;t, unless; 'or course, the subjects ' . . .:: are so arbitrarily c!iosen as to have not the slightest connection with· ·, the object of the examination.' S.uch a situation· is not likely to arise : _-j._ . - as the aut)iorities ·may be expected to. act reasonably. Again it is not 1 for the court to lay down whether.an interview test should be. held at . all or how many marks should .be allotted for the invefview test. **D** E . F G **H** Of course, the marks must. be mininiaPso as.to avoid charges'ofarbitrariness but not necessarily always. There may be posts and appoint- .. ments where the only proper method pf selection may be by an inter . (I) [1982] ~~l~~ S.C.R. 320. v~ew test. Even in the case of admission to higher degree courses, it may some .times be ·necessary to allot afrurly high percentag~ of nlllrks · .. for·the interview test; ·For'admission tq a Ph. D course, for example, · :' · - ·.candidates niay have to be consumn1ately interviewed, each of them :for a few hours;. perhaps; ~efore any decision can be taken a.s to 'who. inay ·be admitted_. That. is why we say ·rigid rules cannot be_ laid in .•. **t** t]lese matters, and not by Courts~· The ~xpert bodies are generaliy the bestjudges, 'An that we may say is that allocation ofa high percentage· of marks ·for admission to.under-Graduate courses should be avoided as the~e isa risk of a ·certain amount of arbitrariness which may lead· __y_ to frustration of the very object of t_he selection. ai1d disrepute. of the . __y_ svstem.· Courts interfrre when the rlsk of arbitrarine.ss is so high· that a~bitrariness is in~vitable. Again the. court is i1pt the best judge of . what questions may. be asked at the interview. As mentiol'led by' us ._. oatUer; all that is nece'ssary is that the questions should nvt be a ri\ere·,. **pretence.** . .. . . . .,• AU thit we lia ve said above i~ o~ly to supplement w~at has been said in Ajay Hasia"s case ai\d in the case .of _Lila Dhar -vs._ _State of Raja'_ _sthan'"._ In the. latter .case after refefring to the K_othari Committee's report on Recruitment Policy a_nd Selection Methods, we said: . .. . . . .J AVID RASOOL _V._ J ' - . .. . . - . ; . .~,· . . . . . &. . KSTATE . . . _(Chinnappa Reddy,_ - J.) ~ 593 .· - ·. ''It is now well recognised that while a written examina~ . tion assesses it caJfdidate'sknowledge and· intellectual ability; ·· · . ari interview test is valuable io assess a candidate's o~erail . - · inteliectual and perional.qualitie~: whil~~ writtenexaminqtiori has. certain- distinct ~dvantage . over the: inter~;ew test ti1ere ·are yet rio writteri tests. whiCh,<:an· evaluate a· candidatcs's initiative, alertness, r~sourcefulness; dependableness, coope. ·. - rativeness, capaciil' for clear and logical' presentation, cffecti' . _,_._. - 'VMess, in discussi_on: elfe~tiveness in IJleetingand dealing with others,"adaptability,. judgment, ability . to· make decision, · "ability to lead, fotellectual arid moral integrity:. _Sbme_ of. the.se _Sbme_ qualities may be.evaluated, perhaps ;vith· soine .. degree . of error,. by. ap interview fest, much depe.nding ·on the·coristitu- . ti oh of ·iJie ·.interview Board." - ·· We then .re!erred to CJl~rtn Stahl on .'Ptibli~ Pers~nneF Ad~lnis- · .. . . tration and the United Nations Hanel.book ~ri Civil.Sorvice Law and Pfactice". We furt1i"er said: - • · . ·.,. "Thus, the written examinatio~ ·assesses .ihe Jna~'s inieliect a.nd theintervi~w te.stthe man himself and "the twain shall njeet" - .• for a proper s~kction.: ifbpth written e·xainination ancHnterview . . test are to be esseritjal feiturcs of proper.selecti~n, .the question . may aris.e as to. ihe weight to be attached respectively. to them .. In the case of.admissio11 to 'a college; :for instance, where the ·candidate's petscinality is yet.to develop ·arid it is ·too' e~rly· to. - idontify the- personai ·qualities for which greater impo"riance may . · have to be attached in later !ifo, gceate(weight· h.as per. for.ce _td_ . ·.be given to .performance in.the written examination. The imper' . ' tantc to be attached to the.interview testmust be mini~al..That - · w~s what was decided by this Court in Perfakaruppai1 v. State' . of Tamilnadu, Ajay Basia etc. v. Khalid Mujib Seharvardi & ·ors:ctc.; (supra) and other cases. on th.ii other han'd, in the case of services.to wbkh .recruitmeni has'nccessarily fo·be made"from .persons• ~f m:;ture personality, interview test may be "the only way,".stibject'to· basic: and essenti~I acadeinic and professiori0 .l · . requirements being satisfied. 'ro.subjecJsuchpersons to a written examination . may yield unfruitful and·. negative re§ults, apart fron1 its being an· act of cr11elty to those perso:fis, There a.re/of _·co_ Urse~ **·many services to** **WhiCh** **tecpJit:illerit .is** **made ffom:** **yo"unger'.** cimd\dates whos~ personalities are·oihhe threshdld of ct6velopc. ment ~nd,who show signs of great pr6Il)ise, ahd the' ·.discerning may in an intervie1~ test, catch a glimpse of.the future personality .. · **'A** c **D .** E **. F** **H** .~·. '' .• 594 - SUPREME com\T' REPORTS A. B c D G H . ., At this.juncture while-_, we are quoting froin the earlier decision -. . of the court in Liladhar v. State Of Rajasthan, we may as well refer to ·the criticism of. Shri Anil Dev Singh that block marks should not have been _allocated. for' general knowledge and general intelligence. Our observationsin Liladhar's case, which we have extracted below, _. answer this point. alsci: . '.'The rules 'themselves do not provide for. the allocation ·of . marks under different heads .at .the in\ervi(:w test. The ct'ite.ria for the interview test has been laid down by the. -rules. It is fqr ihe intervie1ving. body to take a geceral · decisibn whether. to allocate mark.sunder different heads or to award marks in a single Jot: The award of marks under different he~ds ma~J~ad to a distorted· picture of the candidate on occasions. On the other hand the totality cf the impression created by· the candidate on the interviewing bcdy may ' give. a more accurate picture of the candidate's personality.· It is f<;>_r the interviewing body to choose. the appropriate' method of marking at the selectjon to each service. There cannot be any magic formulate"in these matters and courts cannot sit it judgment over the, methods C:f marking employed by i1~ter, viewing bodies unless, as we said, it is proven or obvious that ·the: method of marking was chosen wlth oblique motive. "It is frue that in Periakafoppah's case the. Coqrt held that the n<iri·ail9catioff Of.mar.ks under variolls ·heads in the interview test was illegal but that was bccau_se the ins!ructions . Iri the cas·e of such services, where sound. selection mµst combine . academic ability with p'ersonality promise, sonie weight has to - be given, though not much too great weight, t<;> the interview test. There_ cannot -be-any-rule of thumb regarding the 'precise · . weight to be given. It must varylromservice to.service according . t,0 the requireme~ts of the service, the 1ninimum qualifications - .prescribed, the age group from which the selection-iii to be made, the body to' which the tasl<-of holding th!) interview test is propo sed to be entrusted and a host of other.factors.: it'is a matter fer determinatiori by experts. It is a matter for research. It is not._ 4 [, ] for Courts to proriou~ce upon it unless exaggerated weight has · been given with proven or obvi_ous oblique motives. The Kothari _ ~: . Committee also suggpted that in view o( the o_bvjous importanc~ · · _(_ of the subject, it may be exami1icd in detail by the Research Unit of the Union of' Public Service Commission.". ,.. -, .. .. ., .. ·, - JAV!D RASOOL . . . _v._ J _.&_ K ' . _STATE·(Chbinappa_ . _Reddy;_ . _J.)__ . .. 595 _I_ - to the -Selection Committee . 'provided that marks were to c · · •• be awarded at the interview on tJie basis of five disti11ct . tests. H was thought that the failllre to allocate markS. under each bqd or distihCt te~t~ wa'n illegality''. The criticism that·the Selection procedurc~was bad becalis~ the marks obiained,by the candidates at the respective qualifying exami:., nations wore not taken into account; but only the niarks in the written test a1id. the oral test conducted by the Selection Committee, has also **·** - {c-, · · no force. We we1'e told that the qualifying examination, that is,· the ., First TDC (M,a,ical Group) exawination was held at diff~rent times - ih Jamnrn and Srinagar. Naturally the question papers,, etc.···must have ·been different. The Selection· Committee· aprarently thought that it would be better to have a :common entrance te'st. It appears to us to be a .perfectly reasonable procedure. Even otherwise it· is always.· - open to a Seledon Committee to insist on taking into' c-0nsideration **B** . C' **D** marks. obtained-at the examin_alion held by it only and excluding from - c·ansideration marks. obtained ih examinations held· by· other bodies. We are unable to see anything .\vrong .in this procedure. A similar . contention was negatived in Ajay Rasia's case al~o where. 'it was obser., ved: _**Ji....:**_ . '~It is diflic.ult to appreciate how a·procedurc for admission w,hich .. · does not. take·· into account the . marks bbtjlineU·at the ·qualifying .· _.J..[_,_ exa1nination, but prefers fo test th.e comparative merit of the candidates E ·by· insisting on an entrance · hamination can every Ile· said to be arbi:.. ~ ~rary"; •.· · - . !.:., ..... Two. other submissiohs which were made in the . course of the · · _'r_ argument n\ay also be disposed of here. Orie was.th<t_t general knowc " ·;;.ledge and,gerieral inteHigcnce were not matters to be.Jested in 4:he ~jva '· voce·test, but should _have been tested· in a. written examination. That is· not a. matter for this Court t6 .decide. It was .a matter for the Selection Committee. to de.cide whether general. knowledge a~d general .intelligence· could be more appropriately tested in the viva voce test or in tlie written test. The other· sµbniissiori was tl;iat there was delay jn the anno.uricement of results and the delay made the .selection suspect. We .... ·,find that there was in fact no delay and.we only add that the.suspicion, · .. if any, was unfounded. _. - di;j _We finally come to the submission on which Shri Anil Dev-Singh · laid considerable emphasis, namely, that the entire selection was vitia- · ted. by the presence cmthe Selection' Committee of theJather of o~e _,,_, F .G **H** SUPREME COURT REPORTS (19'84] 2. $.C:R. . . _...:_ ' **A** **. R** E **F** **G** ; ~ of the candidates .. This was said to be a· gross violation of one ofthe ' . Great re.liance was. placed by the learned couns.cl 011 _A..K,· Kraipak_ _.·&_ _Ors._ v, _Union, of india_ 12.i on "the question of natilral justice. We. do J;ot .think that .. the case is of any assistance to the petitioners. It was a case where one of the person~, who sat as member oLthe Selection Board,. was. himself one of the persons to .be considered for· selection:· . · He participated in the deliberations of the Selection Boa~d when. the claims. of bis rivals were.considered. He participated in the·decisions . principles ot·natural justice. The grivance is not reaL The .Principal . of ·Medical. College, Srinagar,' whose daughter. was a· caric\idate; for admission to the Medic:al College informed. ihe Selection Committee at the very outset aboutthi.cact ·and told them tha·t he would not have' · • . anything to do. with the written test . . ~ . ·,' e.11d· . - would · no.t 'be present when · • . . . - . his daughter was interviewd; The 9ther members •of the. Selection Committee accepted the suggestion of · ibe Principal· and did . not . · think it ne.cessary t~ add;ess the . Governm.ent to appoint a . snbsti- · . · think it ne.cessary t~ add;ess the . Governm.ent to appoint a . snbsti- · tute •member of the: Selection Coriimittee since the Government· had _:·1'_ fixed.the quo'rum _fot_ a meeting·of the Selection Co,mmittee· as:th~ Chairman.and' one other member and'it was possible to have a quorum. ·without the .Principal of the Medical College, Srinagar. The prccedure · ' .. '. adopted by the Selection Commit.tee a~d the member .cqncerned .was in accord.with the quite well-known and generaIJy:acceptedyrocedure _:_ ·adopted _bi_ the Public Service Commissions· ·every \\.here. It is not· umisual for candidatenelated to members of the Service Commission .. er other Selection Committee t<) seek employment Whenever such a situation arises, the practice generaJ'Jy is. for the' m<mber concerne.d to e~cuse. 'himseif . when the pa1:tic~lar candidate is. inter.viewed. We notice. that such a· 'situation had· also .been noticed by this court _in:_ the · case of _Nagarjan_ ~- _State_ _of Mysore_ _w_ where it was polnted out'that . in ihe absence of mala fides, it would not be' tight to.set aside the s~lec- ~ '* tfon merely ·because one,of tlie c;andidates happened t" be reiated . · to 'a . me1nber •of the ·Selection Commission who had abstained froin. parli~ipating-in the interview of that candidate. Nothing" unusual was ~~ d~ne by 'lhe preseni Selection Committee, The girl's fat]1er wat not present .when she was interviewed, She was one among several hundre.d cadidates. The· marks obtained by her. in the _written_ _test_ _were· not._ - · . · eveii :kno,;,n: when she was interviewed, And, in fact, ;,.,e .find that as **.'f.** ·· a resu. It of her P.erformance at the "interview, slie l.~st rather.than gainecl · . . ~· - so·ine I ·.places. . ' . - - - - - · - - - . . · eveii :kno,;,n: when she was interviewed, And, in fact, ;,.,e .find that as **.'f.** ## ·· a resu. It of her P.erformance at the "interview, slie l.~st rather.than gainecl · . **H** ~~'~~ (1}{1970] I S.C.C, 457, (2) [1966) 3 S.C,R. 682. .. . .. 597' rel~ting to the prdors'.or· preference and s<mioriiy .. He partici~ated at . A . : . '·every stage" in the .. delibeq!.ions of the Selecti.on .Bo.ard·an<l at every rstage there 1vas ·a cortffict between his'hiterest arid dnty. The court bad1 ' .· no hesitation in.coming lo the :tonc!Bsion· that.there was a rea~'9nab!e. · ### I [. ] [. ] rstage there 1vas ·a cortffict between his'hiterest arid dnty. The court bad1 ' .· no hesitation in.coming lo the :tonc!Bsion· that.there was a rea~'9nab!e. · .. Iikelihoqd of bias and therefore, ther,e _wai_ a xiolatioii of the principles of natt:ral justice. Jn the' case,before us .. the "Principal of the Medical · . College~ Srinagar, dissociatedJiimself from the Written test ai{d did. **:fl** **Ir.;.** nofpartici.pa te in. the proceedings. when his daughter was interviewe<l .. . ·.When the other candidates were interviewed, he '.·ctid not know 'the· ., _=:·_ ::~ ; .marks ~bfained .eiiher by .. his dai.lghter .or by ~ny of the candidates. · . There ;.va~ no occasion to: suspe~t his. bona ftdes even remotely .. There .. was not eyen ~ suspicfon of bias.leave alone a reasonable Jikelih.ood 'of bias. There ',·. ., was no viola.lion of the ':", principale_s . of natural justice.,,. _ .. ·. C · One last submissio11, which we may ·note: was that there was f a contravention of one Of the regulations made.by .the Indian Medical . CounCil._It was. said. that .the regulation p~escrili6d that the marks . . .. obtained at the qualifying examination should be taken into .conside~· - fatiori in States l)aviµg only one Medkru College ·and one University/. . **D** Board/Examination BJdy . conducling .the ·qualifying examination .. ·. This . iegi.tfatio,n.,has no. application because ·the<e are two Medical ._ Coilegesfo this,Sfate. Though olily one Board conductec1 theiqualify~ .. fog,e~aniination; .the, examinat)ons:•were ·. Conducted. separateiy .'.for, Jamiriu .·and .Srinagar aroas and· on fwo different' ·occasi6ns; In the );. .. second. place; these regulationshave b~enheld. to be directory and not E 'mariilatory by th.is court,in _State_ _of Madhya Pratfesh_ v; _Kr._ _Nivediia_ . _**J.ilin;**_ _**[11]**_ _**>**_ -?' ~- \ .. . We hayeconsidered the various ·points 'raised by the petitioners. _r._ ··at sonie length, .we have said so· much and we 11ave quateariom ihe . · :F - previous judg1nents of thisC<iurt in exterise not because we find any ... ' : substance in' any of the ·contentions, but .because these .conten,tionsare '. . b.iirig re~eatedly. rai,sed in many such cases and .we desire to .discou- . - .. ·ra.ge, the raising. of un,necessary hope'in th.e minds .cif thC. young:men : . arid wome~ seeldng the aid' of courts for itdinission into professional. collegis, ready as t\ley are t~ ch~ich at any straw .. We dismiss all the . **G:** Writ petitions but in the· circums.tances without costs. - . • . . . . . ' .. ' _Petitions dismissed._ : ' ##### .. . ' : - ~ I • '