Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pr. (Mrs.) Kirti Deshmankar vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 19 April, 1990
Equivalent citations: AIR1990MP357, 1990(0)MPLJ494, AIR 1990 MADHYA PRADESH 357, (1990) MPLJ 494
JUDGMENT S.K. Dubey, J.
1. This petition initially was heard by a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Dr. T. N. Singh, J. and myself; there it was contended by the petitioner that respondent No. 5 is not entitled to admission in post-graduation course in Obstetrics and Gynaecology, in G. R. Medical College, Gwalior, as respondent No. 5 prosecuted her studies and did her MBBS as a foreign national, a nominee, in reserved seat under Self-financing Foreign Students Scheme (for short, the 'Scheme'); therefore, the entitlement of respondent No. 5 had to be determined with respect to Post-graduation Rules in that context, as laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in M.P. No. 908/1986 (Dr. S. K. Saxena v. Union of India and others), decided on 26-11-1986. Hence, respondent No. 5's admission to post-graduation course on merit basis is illegal and is liable to be quashed. On the other hand, respondent No. 5 challenged the correctness of the view expressed in the said decision and submitted that at the Main Seat in M. P. No. 3037/1987 ( Dr. Amarjit Singh Sardar v. State of M. P. and 2 others), decided on 21-11-1989, a different view is taken. In view of the two different views expressed by the two Division Benches of this Court, the Division Bench hearing the present petition, felt that the question is of general importance, as similar cases are bound to come up; therefore, an authoritative decision on the interpretation of the relevant rules of admission to MBBS Course vis-a-vis admission to post-graduation course by the Larger Bench is needed; therefore, the matter was referred to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice to constitute a larger Bench and decide the matter finally on merits after settling the law; hence, we are called upon to dispose of this petition finally.
2. For dealing with the petition, it. is essential to state the material facts in brief, which are thus : The petitioner after taking Pre-Medical Examination in the year 1982 was selected for admission to the MBBS Course, which she has completed in the year 1989, including one year compulsory rotatory Internship from G.R. Medical College, Gwalior. After that, the petitioner opted for House-Job in Obstetrics and Gynaecology which was allotted to her. When the House-Job was nearing completion the petitioner applied for post-graduation course in Obstetrics and Gynaecology in accordance with M. P. Selection for Post-graduation Courses (Clinical, Para-clinical and Non-clinical Courses) in Medical Colleges of Madhya Pradesh Rules, 1984 (for short, the "Post-graduation Rules"), Respondent No. 5 also, after passing her MBBS examination and completing rotatory Internship, while doing her House-Job in the same subject, applied for admission to post-graduation course in Obstetrics and Gynaecology. The respondent No. 5 being higher in merit, i.e., having secured 17 more marks than that of the petitioner was selected for admission, and the petitioner was kept at Waiting List No. 1 vide notice (Annexure P-4-A) dated 12-10-1989. To this selection the petitioner objected and made a representation under R. 8-3 the Post-graduation Rules. The College and Hospital Council (for short, the 'Council') in its meeting held on 26-10-1989, after considering the objection-cum-representation, vide minutes (Annexure P-6) overruled the objection holding: "Dr. Roza Olyai, since married to an Indian Doctor and obtained the permission of Ministry of External Affairs (Letter No. 1703/Dir. (CMS/89 dated 31-8-1989), the objection raised was rejected and her merit stands as status quo."
3. After disposal of various objections by different candidates in relation to selection in various disciplines, the Dean, G.R. Medical College, Gwalior, on 8-11-1989 issued two office orders (Annexure P-7) one declaring the final list of candidates selected for MD/MS course for the year 1989-91 and the other of candidates selected for one year Diploma Course for the year 1989-90 in the disciplines mentioned in those orders. The petitioner was selected for Diploma Course (DGO) in Obstetrics and Gynaecology for the year 1989-90. Selection candidates were directed to report through the respective Heads of Departments within 10 days, after completion of their one year House-Job, but not later than 31st December, 1989, provided their one year's House-Job is complete.
4. The petitioner aggrieved of the admission of respondent No. 5, and denial of her selection and admission to the course of M.S. in Obstetrics and Gynaecology, presented this petition and challenged the action of the council on various grounds, amongst others, that respondent No. 5 is a foreigner, who was allotted a seat in the Degree Course in MBBS as a nominee of Government of India and has passed her MBBS examination under the Scheme, hence, as per the Scheme (Annexure P-2) and Government of India's decision No: F-38/83 NS 3, respondent No. 5 was not entitled to be considered for admission to the post-graduation course in any Medical College in India, as respondent No. 5 did not participate in the Pre-Medical Examination for admission to MBBS and also did not fulfil eligibility qualifications for admission to Medical Colleges in the State of Madhya Pradesh as laid down in Rule 1(3) and (4) of the Rules for admission into Medical, Dental and Ayurvedic Colleges in Madhya Pradesh, 1982 (for short, the "MBBS Rules"), but, under the Scheme, was given admission as a nominee of Government of India against a reserved seat under Rule 8(i) of the MBBS Rules.
5. A foreigner cannot secure admission under the scheme to any post-graduation course, as the scheme does not make any reservation of seats for post-graduation courses, as is clear from Clause IX(v) of the Scheme. A student before securing an admission in MBBS under the scheme has to fill in an application form for nomination of Self-Financial foreign Students against reserved seats in Medical and Engineering Colleges in India and give a declaration, which reads as under:
"I hereby declare that I have got myself medically examined and declared fit, that the particulars given above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief, that I have read and understood the contents of the "Memorandum of guidance of self-financing foreign students for admission to professional courses of study in India, "that I have made satisfactory arrangements for regular supply of funds for my expenditure in India, that I understand that no financial assistance will be provided by the Government of India, that I will return for settlement to the country of my domicile after the completion of my studies in the course hereby applied for and that as a guarantee I and Mr./Miss.....(name of parent or guardian) do hereby jointly and severally hind ourselves, our heirs, executors and administrators to pay to the Government of India on demand a sum of Rs. 5,000 in the event of my failing to leave India and return for settlement to..... (country of candidate's domicile) within three months of the completion of my studies."
6. Therefore, petitioner averred that respondent No. 5 was bound to go back to her country, Iran and was not entitled to get any admission, and in case respondent No. 5 wanted to apply to post-graduation level, Rule IX(v) of the scheme ought to have been complied with, which reads as under :
"IX. (i) to (iv)*****
(v) There are no seats reserved for the Self-financing Foreign Students at post-graduation level either in Medicine or in Engineering in India. Similarly, no reserved seats are available for Self-financing Foreign Students seeking admission to the MBA Course. However, students who are keen to join these courses may fill in the form of the Institute where they like to seek admission and get it forwarded through Indian Missions Abroad/ Foreign Missions in New Delhi to this Ministry for onward transmission to the following authorities:
(i) Post-graduate Desk Officer, ME (PG) Course in Ministry of Health and Medicine. Family Welfare, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi.
(ii) *** *** *** ***"
7. The form of the Institute, though filled in, was not got forwarded through Indian Mission Abroad/Foreign Mission in New Delhi and Ministry of External Affairs for onward transmission to the Desk Officer, ME (PG) Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi. Hence, the petitioner averred that the form of respondent No. 5 was liable to be rejected, as it was not transmitted in the manner prescribed to the Desk Officer, the specified authority; therefore, the admission of respondent No. 5 to post-graduation course is liable to be quashed, and the petitioner who is at Waiting List No. I, deserves to be admitted.
8. A plea of bias was also raised against respondent No. 6 who is the mother-in-law of respondent No. 5 and a member of the council, the petitioner contended that when the objection-cum-representation preferred against the selection of respondent No. 5, was considered, respondent No. 6 exercised her influence and got respondent No. 5 illegally selected.
9. Before we deal with the contentions advanced by Shri N. K. Modi, learned counsel for the petitioner, we may make it clear that the learned counsel could not point out any prohibition, express or implied, for foreign students who pass MBBS after getting admission in MBBS under the scheme, against reserved seats in Medical Colleges in India, to further seek admission at post-graduation level. Learned counsel strongly placed reliance on Dr. S. K. Saxena's case (supra). In that case itself, the Division Bench in para 10 has observed that the Post-graduation Rules do not say that the post-graduation courses would be open to Indian citizens only, or that they would not be open to foreign students, therefore, the nationality of a foreign student for the purpose of admission to Post-graduation Course in a Medical College is wholly irrelevant.
10. After holding so in para 10, the Division Bench proceeded to consider Rule 3 of the Post-graduation Rules, which is quoted in extenso :
"3. These courses shall be open to :
A. Merit candidates graduating from Medical Colleges in M.P. B. Assistant Surgeons serving under the State Government.
C. Armed Forces personnel, and D. Private Medical personnel and practising and settled in Madhya Pradesh and Medical Officers employed in Central Government Institutions and public undertakings located in Madhya Pradesh and Medical Officers of Para-military Forces posted in Madhya Pradesh, in accordance with the allocation of seats prescribed for each category."
For the purposes of this petition Clause A of Rule 3 of the post-graduation rule is only relevant, which was construed in Dr. S. K. Saxena's case (supra) in the light of Rule 1(3) of the MBBS Rules, which provide a Pre-Medical Examination for selection of candidates for admission to MBBS in Medical Colleges in Madhya Pradesh. After construing the various Rules, namely, Paras 4,7,8 and 22, it was observed that a foreign national. Dr. Nooreyezdan, a nominee of the Government of India, who neither appeared at the Pre-Medical Examination nor was required to fulfil to eligibility conditions laid down in Rule 4 for admission to a Medical College in the State of Madhya Pradesh, was not a bona fide resident of Madhya Pradesh and a citizen of India; therefore, he could not have got the admission as a general candidate, if he would not have been a nominee of the Central Government. In para 15 it was observed that in the light of Clause IX(v) of Annexures P-2, Dr. Nooreyezdan could not have applied or sought admission for post-graduation in Surgery as a foreign student unless his application was forwarded through Indian Mission abroad/Foreign Mission in New Delhi to the Ministry of External Affairs for onward transmission the specified authority, i.e., Desk Officer, ME (PG), Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi. In para 17, after considering both the Rules, the Division Bench observed that the State Government was conscious of making not reservation of seats for post-graduation for any of the categories mentioned in Rules 7 and 8 of the MBBS Rules, and disability of Central Government nominees admitted to MBBS Course under the Self-financing scheme for Foreign Students to apply for admission to post-graduation course. Under the circumstances, no conditions similar to Rule 4 of the MBBS Rules were imposed in the post-graduation rules for candidates seeking admission to post-graduation courses, and no provision was made for candidates, who passed their MBBS examination as Central Government nominees and who wanted admission for post-graduation courses; therefore, the Division Bench construed that the language used in Clause (A) of Rule 3 of the Post-graduation Rules-- "Merit candidates graduating from Medical Colleges in M.P." only meant to refer to those candidates who passed their MBBS examination from the general category or the reserved categories under Rule 7 of the MBBS Rules and who had fulfilled the eligibility conditions under Rule 1(3) and (4) of the MBBS Rules at the time of their admission to MBBS course. As. Dr. Nooreyezdan did not belong to the general category it was held that he was not entitled to be considered for admission to the post-graduation course under Clause A of Rule 3 of the post-graduation Rules.
11. With great respect, we are of the opinion that in Clause (A) of Rule 3 of the post-graduation rules, we do not find such words which mean to refer to those candidates only who passed their MBBS examination after securing admission in MBBS course from the general category or the reserved categories under Rule 7 of the MBBS Rules and who had fulfilled the eligibility conditions under Rule 1(3) of the MBBS Rules; this we say for the following reasons.
12. It cannot be disputed that the rules for admission to MBBS course and those for admission to post-graduation course in MD/ MS are two different rules for different courses, i.e., one for graduation and another for post-graduation, which are to be read and applied separately. So far as admissions to post-graduation courses, such as M.S.M.D., and the like, are concerned, no reservation is made on the basis of residence requirement within the State of M. P. But, having regard to broader considerations of equality of opportunity and institutional continuity in education, which has its own importance and value, admissions are to be granted purely on merit basis, and that is why the post-graduation courses have been kept open to various categories of candidates enumerated in Rule 3, Clause A, which relates only to merit candidates graduating from Medical Colleges in Madhya Pradesh; therefore, the consideration in Rule 3A is only of merit and not of other eligibility conditions prescribed for admission to MBBS course. In Clause (A) of Rule 3, we also do not find that merit will be considered of those candidates only, who secured admission under MBBS Rules, if that would have been the situation, there ought to have been a specific mention in Rule 3A to that effect, but neither there is any prohibition nor there is any exclusion from consideration of the students who are foreign nationals and have graduated as nominees of Government of India.
13. In a recent decision of this Court at the Main Seat in case of Dr, Amarjit Singh Sardar (supra) the Division Bench, while considering a case of a foreign national for post-graduation studies, observed that the undertaking in a pro forma application was only in relation to and for study in MBBS course to which the petitioner in that case was ultimately admitted, and not for further studies. Such students sponsored by the Government of India can be admitted to post-graduation classes according to their merit because there is no prohibition in the post-graduation Rules for such admission. In the opinion of the Division Bench, what was necessary was the nomination/permission or no objection certificate from the concerned department of the Government of India for such admission of such foreign nationals to any course of studies in Medical Colleges, in the absence of which, it was held, the petitioner in that petition was rightly excluded from the merit list.
14. A bare reading of Clause IX(v) of the scheme also shows that for self-financing foreign students no seats in the post-graduation courses are reserved. However, students who are keen to join these courses may fill in the form of the Institute where they like to seek admission, because there is no prohibition, either express or implied, to such students to prosecute further studies, if they get admission as merit candidates. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the view expressed in Dr. S. K. Saxena's case (supra) for excluding a merit candidate from consideration, merely because he got admission under the scheme and does not fulfil the eligibility conditions as required under Rule 7 and Rule 1(3) of MBBS Rules at the time of admission to MBBS course, with great respect, is not correct and runs counter to the view taken in Dr. Amarjit Singh Sardar's case (supra), which, in our opinion, correctly lays down that there is no prohibitions to a foreign national who secured admission in MBBS course and came in merit, to get admission in post-graduation course.
15. The next contention of Shri Modi that respondent No. 5 was not eligible to apply for want of fulfilment of the conditions of Clause IX(v) of Annexure P-2, has also no merit. It is not in dispute that respondent No. 5 has married to an Indian national, the son of respondent No. 6, and now has been granted citizenship of India. Shri J. P. Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No. 5, has drawn our attention to Annexure R-l dated 31st August 1989, issued from the Ministry of External Affairs to one Shri R. H. Shah, where in para 2 it has been clearly mentioned that the External Affairs Ministry has no objection to the admission of Miss Roza Ramezani Sarajari now Roza Olyai in the G. R. Medical College, Gwalior (India) for doing her M.S. Course at the above cited college. There is another letter No. U. 14020/51/89-ME (UG) dated 24th November 1989, issued by the Desk Officer, Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi, to the Secretary. Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of M. P., Bhopal, copies of which were sent to Ministry of External Affairs, Director (Gulf), New Delhi, Ministry of External Affairs, Students Cell, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi and to respondent No. 5, wherein it has been clearly mentioned that the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi, has no objection to the candidature of the above foreign national being considered for admission to post-graduate course in Obstetrics and Gynaecology at G.R. Medical College, Gwalior, in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the State Government/ University/Medical College concerned. It is also stated that the decision regarding her final selection may be intimated direct to her under intimation to the said Department. Shri Gupta, therefore, contended that before admission the non-objection formality was also completed. Learned counsel further pointed out that application on prescribed form were invited vide Annexure P-10 dated 11-8-1989 for admission to MD/ MS course at G.R. Medical College, Gwalior, but neither in the notice nor in the prescribed application form there is any column to fill or to annex "No objection" or "Clearance" certificate either from the Ministry of External Affairs or from the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi; hence, from the form it is clear that before selection "No objection" or "Clearance" certificate was not a condition precedent. In our opinion also, Shri Gupta has rightly pointed out that when there is no column or requirement to annex the prior permission or no objction certificate in the form, which was submitted for selection on merit basis, the form could not have been rejected for non-compliance.
16. It would be further evident that prior "No objection" or "Clearance" is not an eligibility condition or a qualification for admission, but is a formality, which has to be complied with before admission, which is evident from Annexure P-11, a Memo No. U.11020/18/81-ME (US) Desk-II dated 6-8-1983, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi, to the Deans/ Principles of All Medical Colleges, wherein their attention was invited to Items No. II(a) and (b) of the letter dated 16th July 1983, of the Ministry of Education and Culture (Department of Education), New Delhi, addressed to the Vice-Chancellors of All the Universities, relating to the admission of foreign students to courses in Medicine, which reads as under :
"No foreign student shall be admitted to under-graduate or post-graduate or any other course in Medicine or Public Health Institutions whether provisionally or on firm basis unless, in case of seats made available by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, he or she has been sponsored by the respective Ministries/Departments through the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare." "No foreign student, who is seeking admission directly for such courses shall be admitted unless Ministry of Health and Family Welfare gives its clearance."
Thereafter, another memo almost repeating the above was issued on 28-1-1987 (Annexure P-12). In these two memos Clause (a) relates to the admission to those foreign students in respect of whom seats are made available by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, and Clause (b) relates to foreign students who seek admission directly. Though the word "and" is used between Clauses (a) and (b) in the letter dated 28-1-1987 (Annexure P-12), in our opinion, Clause (a) and Clause (b) are not conjoint and Clause (b) is not dependent on Clause (a), as both clauses contemplate admission in two different situations, i.e., one relates to a situation where the seats are made available by the concerned ministry, and the other where a foreign student seeks admission directly.
17. The underlying idea of seeking clearance is clearly envisaged in Annexure P-12 that the need of "No objection" or "Clearance" certificate is to check those foreign students who come on passport or tourist visa and seek admission after altering the entry of tourist visa to student visa, whereas in the passport the original entry remains as tourist visa. There is another document (Annexure P-13) issued by the Public Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, dated 25-4-1989, which refers to Annexure P-11 and Annexure P-12 and speaks that without prior permission and "No objection certificate" no foreign student shall be admitted for further studies; as they get admission for a fixed period and for a particular course. In this view of the matter, the condition of producing "No objection" or "Clearance" certificate with an application from for selection or for admission or for admission of a foreign student to post-graduation courses cannot be considered to be a condition precedent nor it is a mandatory condition; it is neither a qualification nor a condition, but is a formality which has to be complied with before admission.
18. For considering whether a provision is mandatory or directory, the Apex Court in a recent decision in case of Karnal Leather Karmachari Sanghatan (Regd.) v. Liberty Footwear Company (Regd.), AIR 1990 SC 247, quoting a passage from Craies on Statute Law, 8th Ed., p. 63, observed in paras 25 and 26 as under:
"25. Craies, however, gives us some guidelines :
"When a statute is passed for the purpose of enabling something to be done, and prescribes the formalities which are to attend its performance those prescribed formalities which are essential to the validity of the thing when done are called imperative or absolute; but those which are not essential, and may be disregarded without invalidating the thing to be done, are called directory."
26. It is well established that the wordings of any provision are not determinative as to whether it is, absolute or directory. Even the absence of penal provision for non-compliance does not lead to an inference that it is only directory. The Court, therefore, must carefully get into the underlying idea and ascertain the purpose to be achieved notwithstanding the text of the provision."
19. To interpret whether a provision is mandatory or directory, no universal rule can be laid down whether mandatory enactments shall be considered directory only or obligatory with an implied nullification for disobedience. It is the duty of the Courts of justice to ascertain the real intention of the legislature by carefully attending to the whole scope of the statute. (See State of U. P. v. Manbodhan Lal, AIR 1957 SC 912) and Principles of Statutory Interpretation by G. P. Singh, 4th Edn., p. 224.
20. From the above it is clear that the stress is on the intention and not on the language employed by the law maker, and that has to be gathered not only from the phraseology of the provision but also by considering its nature, its design and the consequences which would follow from construing it in one way or the other. (See State of U. P. v. Babu Ram, AIR 1961 SC 751); State of Mysore v. V. K. Kangan, AIR 1975 SC 2190) and Govindlal Chagganlal Patel v. Agriculture Produce Market Committee, AIR 1976 SC 263).
21. The underlying idea of producing "No objection" or "Clearance" certificate is clearly borne out from Annexures P-12, P-13 and P-14, which is to check those foreign students who misuses their passports and tourist visas. Therefore, the non-filing of a "No objection" , or "Clearance" certificate with the application form by respondent No. 5 was not an impediment for considering her application for selection, Besides, a substantial compliance has also been made, as it is not disputed that before admission "No objection" or "Clearance" certificate was filed. Moreover, as stated earlier, now in the case of respondent No. 5 the formality needs no compliance, because it is stated at the bar that respondent No. 5 has married an Indian citizen, who is a bona fide resident of Madhya Pradesh, and has been given a nationality certificate.
22. The next contention of Shri Modi is that against the Division Bench decision of this Court in Dr. S. K. Saxena's case (supra) petitions for special leave to appeal (civil) Nos. 15167 and 15167A/1986 were preferred before the Supreme Court of India which were dismissed. Therefore, the said judgment has got a binding force under Article 141 of the Constitution, which reads as under:--
"Though the seven respondents have been served, no one has so far entered appearance to oppose these petitions. The petitioner does not claim relief against respondent No. 7. Without disturbing the admission of respondent No. 7 into M. S. Course, the petitioner will also be admitted into M.S. (General Surgery) in G.R. Medical College, Gwalior. The special leave petitions are disposed of accordingly."
A bare reading of the order shows that there is no declaration of law. It is settled that when no reason is given but a special leave petition is dismissed or disposed of simpliciter, it cannot be said that there has been a declaration of law by the Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution (See Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 334).
23. The last contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the proceedings of the counsel are vitiated because respondent No. 6 who is the mother-in-law of respondent No. 5, had participated in the meeting of the council and had influenced its decision deserves consideration, but that does not affect the decision of the council in the facts of this case. In this respect the contention of Shri Mittal, learned counsel for respondent No. 6, and Shri M. C. Jain, learned Deputy Advocate-General for the State, that the validity of the proceedings and decision of the council was not affected in any manner, because respondent No. 6 did not play any part in the proceedings has no merit. It cannot be disputed that respondent No. 6 had an interest in respondent No. 5. De Smith on Judicial Review of Administrative Action, 4th Edn., at p. 273 has observed :
"If a disqualified person is present at a hearing and sits or retires with a tribunal, the proceedings may be set aside notwithstanding that he took no part in the decision or that he did not influence the decision at all or that he took no active part whatsoever in the proceedings. It is enough that a reasonable man would have thought that he was acting as a member of the tribunal or was otherwise participating in or influencing the making of the decision."
It is not disputed that when at the time of consideration of the objection-cum-representation of the petitioner in relation to admission of respondent No. 5 by the council respondent No. 6 remained sitting. No material has been placed before us that when the deliberations took place in the council, she withdrew from participation and went out. The Apex Court in case of Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana, AIR 1987 SC 454, while considering a case of selection of candidates by Public Service Commission has held in para 18 as under :
"There can be no doubt that if a selection committee is constituted for the purpose of selecting candidates on merits and one of the members of the Selection Committee is closely related to a candidate appearing for the selection, it would not be enough for such member merely to withdraw from participation in the interview of the candidate related to him but he must withdraw altogether from the entire selection process and ask the authorities to nominate another person in his place on the selection committee, because otherwise all the selections made would be vitiated on account of reasonable likelihood of bias affecting the process of selection."
24. Therefore, the proper conduct of respondent No. 6 ought to have been not only not to participate but to withdraw from the selection process. This conduct of respondent No. 6 certainly gave an apprehension in the mind of the petitioner of bias, but, on facts, the plea of bias is out of consideration, as, admittedly, respondent No. 5 is more meritorious having secured 17 marks more than that of the petitioner. In view of this fact, the selection cannot be said to be vitiated.
25. Before parting with the petition, we may observe that whenever there arises an occasion that any member of the council is a close relative of any candidate appearing for the selection, such member should not only not participate in the selection of the candidate related to him, but he must also withdraw altogether from the entire selection process and ask the council to nominate another person in his place in the council so as to ensure purity of selection and its process.
26. In the result, the petition has no merit and is dismissed with no order as to costs.