1980 (11) TMI 150 - SC - Indian Laws

What are the other authorities contemplated in the definition of State in Art. 13? - Held that - Writ petitions are dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the writ petition.
2. Whether the Society running the college is 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution.
3. Validity of the admission procedure, particularly the viva voce examination.
4. Allocation of marks for viva voce examination.
5. Conduct of the viva voce examination.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Writ Petition
The respondents contended that the college, being run by a society registered under the Jammu & Kashmir Societies Registration Act, 1898, is not an 'authority' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. Consequently, no writ petition can be maintained against it. The court, however, held that the Society is an instrumentality or agency of the State and Central Governments, thus qualifying as an 'authority' under Article 12. Therefore, the writ petition is maintainable.

2. Whether the Society Running the College is 'State' under Article 12
The court examined whether the Society could be considered 'State' within the meaning of Article 12. It was determined that the Society is heavily controlled by the State and Central Governments, both in terms of composition and financial assistance. The court noted, "The composition of the Society is dominated by the representatives appointed by the Central Government and the Governments of Jammu & Kashmir, Punjab, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh with the approval of the Central Government." Consequently, the Society was deemed an instrumentality or agency of the Government, making it an 'authority' under Article 12.

3. Validity of the Admission Procedure, Particularly the Viva Voce Examination
The petitioners challenged the admission procedure on several grounds, including the reliance on viva voce examination as a test for determining the comparative merit of the candidates. The court acknowledged the criticisms of the viva voce method but upheld its relevance as a supplementary test for assessing personal traits. The court stated, "The oral interview test is undoubtedly not a very satisfactory test for assessing and evaluating the capacity and calibre of candidates, but in the absence of any better test for measuring personal characteristics and traits, the oral interview test must, at the present stage, be regarded as not irrational or irrelevant."

4. Allocation of Marks for Viva Voce Examination
The petitioners argued that allocating 50 marks for the viva voce examination against 100 marks for the written test was arbitrary. The court agreed, stating, "Allocating 33 1/3 of the total marks for oral interview is plainly arbitrary and unreasonable." The court observed that even for highly competitive examinations like the Indian Administrative Service, the marks allocated for the oral interview constitute only 12.2% of the total marks. The court held that allocating more than 15% of the total marks for the oral interview would be arbitrary and unreasonable.

5. Conduct of the Viva Voce Examination
The petitioners contended that the viva voce examination was a mere pretence, lasting only 2-3 minutes per candidate and involving irrelevant questions. The court noted that if the interview did not last more than 2-3 minutes and the questions asked had no bearing on the relevant factors, the oral interview test would be vitiated. However, due to the lack of concrete evidence, the court did not set aside the selections made for the academic year 1979-80. The court cautioned that for future academic years, the oral interview test should not exceed 15% of the total marks and should involve relevant questions to assess the candidates' suitability.

Conclusion
The court concluded that the Society running the college is an 'authority' under Article 12, making the writ petition maintainable. While the viva voce examination was upheld as a supplementary test, the court found the allocation of 33 1/3% of the total marks for the viva voce examination to be arbitrary and unreasonable. The court did not invalidate the admissions for the academic year 1979-80 but directed that the best fifty students who failed to secure admission would be granted admission for the academic year 1981-82. The writ petitions were dismissed, with each party bearing its own costs.

← Previous Next →