9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Compliance with High Court's directions in Jyotshana Sharma's case. 2. Validity of the selection process by the competent authority. 3. High Court's competence to issue directions to the State Government. 4. Allegations of favoritism and arbitrariness in the selection process. 5. Method and procedure of holding the entrance examination and viva voce. 6. Reservation and allocation of seats. Summary: Issue 1: Compliance with High Court's directions in Jyotshana Sharma's case The High Court set aside the selection to the MBBS/BDS course for the session 1988-89 on the grounds that the selection process was not held in accordance with its directions in Jyotshana Sharma's case. The High Court had directed the State Government to entrust the selection process to a statutory independent body free from executive influence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's directions were in the nature of suggestions and that the State Government had substantially complied with these suggestions through SRO 291 and the 1987 Order. Issue 2: Validity of the selection process by the competent authority The High Court invalidated the selection process on the ground that the competent authority, as constituted by the High Court's order dated 17th October 1988, did not function as a three-member body. The Supreme Court found that the selection process, including the written test and viva voce, was almost complete by the time the competent authority was reconstituted. The scrutiny and compilation of the selections were done by two members, and there were no specific allegations of favoritism or arbitrariness. The Court held that the absence of one member did not render the selections illegal. Issue 3: High Court's competence to issue directions to the State Government The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court had no authority to issue directions to the State Government to constitute a statutory independent body for selections to medical colleges. The Court stated that the power to enact laws and make policy decisions lies with the legislature and the executive, respectively. The High Court's directions in Jyotshana Sharma's case were beyond its jurisdiction. Issue 4: Allegations of favoritism and arbitrariness in the selection process The Supreme Court examined the method and procedure of the entrance examination and viva voce, which were objective and minimized the scope of favoritism. The Court found no specific allegations of favoritism or arbitrariness and upheld the selection process. Issue 5: Method and procedure of holding the entrance examination and viva voce The Supreme Court approved the objective method of the entrance examination and viva voce, which involved printed question cards and answer booklets. The Court noted that the process was fair, free from arbitrariness, and minimized human discretion. Issue 6: Reservation and allocation of seats The Supreme Court addressed the contention that reserved candidates who secure merit in the general category should consume the seat in the reserved category. The Court held that counting reserved candidates as general candidates was permissible under SRO 272. The Court also addressed issues related to the allocation of seats for sportsmen and the method of dealing with tie cases. The Court found no illegality in the allocation of seats and upheld the selection process. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the State of Jammu & Kashmir and the successful candidates, setting aside the judgment of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court. The writ petitions filed by the unsuccessful candidates were dismissed. The Court upheld the selection process and found no merit in the contentions raised by the unsuccessful candidates.
|
