9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Unit-wise selection for medical college admissions. 2. Excessive marks allotted for interviews. 3. Alleged manipulation and lack of guidelines in awarding interview marks. 4. Classification of backward classes and reservation policies. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Unit-wise selection for medical college admissions: The petitioners challenged the unit-wise selection system, arguing it contravened Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution by placing applicants from different units in unequal positions. The court noted that the minimum marks required varied across units, resulting in discrimination. The State argued the system was for administrative convenience, but the court found these reasons insufficient. The court concluded that the unit-wise distribution of seats violated Articles 14 and 15, as it did not achieve the objective of selecting the best candidates on a state-wide merit basis. 2. Excessive marks allotted for interviews: The court observed that earmarking 75 marks out of 275 for interviews seemed excessive, especially since the interviews lasted only about three minutes per candidate. Despite acknowledging potential issues with the interview system, the court did not find it inherently defective or beyond the government's power to allocate such marks. However, the court suggested the government re-examine the appropriateness of the high interview marks. 3. Alleged manipulation and lack of guidelines in awarding interview marks: The petitioners alleged that interview marks were manipulated to favor certain candidates. The court found some basis for these criticisms but lacked sufficient material to conclude any manipulation. The court emphasized that the selection committees consisted of eminent persons, and it could not accept the contention of manipulation without concrete evidence. The court also noted that the interview process was flawed as it did not allocate separate marks for each criterion and considered irrelevant factors, making the interview process illegal. 4. Classification of backward classes and reservation policies: The petitioners contended that the classification of backward classes was based solely on caste, violating Article 15(4). The court reiterated that caste could be a relevant factor but not the sole criterion for determining backwardness. The court found no basis to conclude that the reservation for backward classes was excessive or not in accordance with Article 15(4). However, the court emphasized the need for periodic review of the backward class status to ensure reservations serve their intended purpose and do not become a vested interest. Conclusion: The court held that the selections were invalid due to the unit-wise distribution of seats and the flawed interview process. However, it did not set aside the selections already made, as the selected candidates were not parties to the petitions and had already commenced their courses. The court ordered the State of Tamil Nadu to fill the remaining 24 seats through a new selection committee, ensuring compliance with the rules and excluding irrelevant considerations. The petitioners were awarded costs from the State of Tamil Nadu.
|
