Gujarat High Court
Chhatrapalsinh vs Central on 21 September, 2011
Author: A.L.Dave
Bench: A.L.Dave
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/7610/2011 19/ 19 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7610 of 2011
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. A.L.DAVE
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To be
referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
CHHATRAPALSINH
PARAKRAMSINH JADEJA SINCE MINOR - Petitioner(s)
Versus
CENTRAL
BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
SHALIN MEHTA with MR HEMANG M SHAH
for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
NOTICE UNSERVED for Respondent(s) : 1,
DS
AFF.NOT FILED (N) for Respondent(s) : 1,
NOTICE SERVED for
Respondent(s) : 2 - 3.
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 2 -
3.
MR MITUL K SHELAT for Respondent(s) :
3,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. A.L.DAVE
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date
:21/09/2011
CAV
JUDGMENT
(Per : HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA) In this petition preferred by a student studying in Standard XI (Science Stream) the following reliefs have been prayed:-
"(A) Be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the action of respondent No.2 and 3 in denying the admission to the petitioner in Class XI Science Stream to be illegal, arbitrary, unfair, non-transparent and exploitive and arbitrary and further be pleased to direct the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 to enroll the petitioner in Science Stream in Standard XI;
(B) Be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondent No.1 to take over the admission procedure for filling up the seats in XI Standard in respondent No.2 school and be pleased to direct respondent No.1 to fill up the said seats from out of the students passing from X Class of the respondent No.2 school;
(C) Pending admission hearing and final disposal of the petition, an interim injunction may kindly be granted directing respondents to grant provisional admission to the petitioner in XI Class in Science Stream;"
2. The facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition can be summarized as under:-
2.1 Petitioner Chhatrapalsinh Parakramsinh Jadeja has voiced a grievance through his natural guardian and father Parakramsinh Jadeja that respondents Nos. 2 and 3 have refused to admit him in Standard XI (Science Stream), after the results of Standard X SSC Examinations were declared. It appears that petitioner studied in respondent No.2 school from Class III to Class X. Petitioner secured Grade C-1 in the Class X CBSE Examination. He wanted to continue in Class XI in the same school i.e. respondent No.2 school, in Science Stream, as his ambition is to become a pilot. When time came for him to seek entry in Class XI, school refused to admit him in Class XI Science Stream on the ground that his marks in Standard X Examinations were very low. School authorities were however, ready and willing to admit him in any other stream except Science stream.
It is at that stage that the petitioner was left with no other option but to prefer this petition seeking appropriate reliefs against the respondents.
2. We have heard learned counsel Mr. Shalin Mehta for the petitioner, appearing with learned Advocate Mr. Hemang Shah and learned Advocate Mr. Mithul K. Shelat, appearing for respondents.
2.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the action of the respondents in not granting admission to the petitioner in Science Stream is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the settled legal position and therefore a writ of mandamus must be issued directing them to grant admission to the petitioner in Class XI in Science stream.
2.2 He would further contend that petitioner studied in the respondent No.2 school right from Standard III till Standard X and therefore, the question of admission, test or re-admission on the basis of result in a particular class is out of question. He would contend that school authorities were not justified to deny admission to its own student who has passed Class X examination, which is a public examination, and neither the Act, nor the Rules prescribe any cut-off level of marks for promotion to Class XI in the same school, after passing Class X examination.
2.3 He would also contend that respondent No.2 school is admitting students of other schools of CBSE thereby depriving its own students admission in the Science stream in Class XI.
2.4 Learned counsel invited attention of this Court on the facts that petitioner is a sports person and has played State level Championship in Table Tennis, and has also represented the School at National Level Championship last year and petitioner is also a Cadet of NCC (Air Force). He also submitted that petitioner has also joined Pilot Training Course in Vadodara and has also filled up the examination form, as for becoming a Pilot the candidate must have studied in Science Stream.
2.5 Learned counsel has placed reliance in support of his contention on a ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Principal, Cambridge School and anr. Vs. Payal Gupta, reported in (1995) 5 SCC 512.
3. Per contra, learned counsel Mr. Mitul K. Shelat, appearing for the respondents submitted that no legal right or any fundamental right of the petitioner can be said to have been infringed by the respondents. He submitted that petitioner failed to secure the minimum cut-off marks required for admission in Science stream in Standard XI. He submitted that the school authorities have not refused to admit him in Standard XI, but they offered admission in the Commerce and Arts stream. He further submitted that the petitioner, after obtaining School Leaving Certificate, has already got himself admitted in Bhavans School at Vadodara.
3.1 Learned counsel for the respondents, in support of his contention has placed reliance on the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya Vs. Saurabh Chaudhary, reported in (2009) 1 SCC
794. 3.2 Affidavit-in-reply has also been filed on behalf of respondent No.3, wherein in paragraph 3 it has been averred as under:-
"3.Before averting to respond to the petition para-wise, I submit that the following preliminary objections to the maintainability of the writ petition:-
(a) I state that the petitioner has not disclosed the fact that the answering respondent has commerce and arts stream in class XI and class XII and that the petitioner was offered admission in the said stream on the basis of the marks obtained in Class X. I state that the petitioner has thereafter obtained admission in Bhavans School, Baroda. I state that the said facts were relevant and material and had a direct bearing on the disputes raised in the present petition.
I submit that non-disclosure of material facts amounts to suppressio veri; the petitioner has not come with clean hands and is therefore not entitled to the grant of relief as prayed for in the petition.
(b) I state that the answering respondent is a private unaided school. I state that the answering respondent is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. I submit that the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is therefore not maintainable in law."
4. We have given our anxious considerations and thoughts to the rival contentions of the respective parties and we shall now proceed to examine the contentions on merits and see whether any relief can be granted to the petitioner or not.
5. We may start with the ruling of the apex Court in the case of Principal, Cambridge School (supra). In the said case before the Supreme Court, the appellant school with a view to achieve certain objectives and to upgrade the academic standard of each student through special programme, prescribed a cut-off level of 50% marks for admission to Class XI of the said school. The school informed the parents of the students stating that the admission to Class XI would not be automatic but a cut-off level was prescribed by Cambridge School to the effect that the student of Class X must obtain 50% marks in aggregate in the Board examination for being granted re-admission in Class XI. The Supreme Court noticed that it would be a fresh admission even for those students who pass Class X from Cambridge School itself obtaining minimum marks of 50% in aggregate as the qualifying percentage for being considered for readmission in Class XI. In this background, the Supreme Court examined the issue from the view point as to whether any rule contemplates or requires fresh admission or readmission of the student in the same school after he passes an examination from the same school. The Supreme Court considered Rules 138, 144 and 145 of Delhi School Education Rules, 1973, which reads as under:-
"138.
Admission of failed students not to be refused.- A student who fails at any public examination shall not, on that account, be refused re-admission in the school or class by the school from which he had appeared at such examination.
144. Power to issue departmental instructions.- The Director may issue instructions with regard to any matter,not covered by this Chapter, relating to aided schools.
145. Admission to recognised unaided schools-(1) The head of every recognised unaided school shall regulate admissions to a recognised unaided school or to any class thereof either on the basis of admission test or on the basis of result in a particular class or school.(2)
Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (1), the provisions of this Chapter shall, so far as may be, apply to admission to a recognised unaided school as they apply to admissions to an aided school."
After considering the Rules, the Supreme Court ruled and held in paragraphs 7 and 8 as under:-
7.
Further it may be seen that Rule 138 reproduced above contemplates that even a student who fails at by public examination hall not, on that account, be refused readmission in the school or class by the school from which he had appeared at such examination. If a student who fails at any public examination could not be denied readmission in the school or class then it is beyond comprehension as to how a student who passed the public examination can be denied admission in a higher class in the same school from which he had appeared at such examination. That being so, the right of student to continue his studies further in the higher class, in the same school, after passing any public examination, cannot be worse than the right of a student who fails at any such public examination. The scheme of the Act and the Rules made thereunder and a combined reading of Sections 16(3), 28(2)
(a) and Rules 135.137 and 138 will go to show that once a student is admitted to a school the same admission continues class after class until he passes the last examination for which the school gives training and no fresh admission or readmission is contemplated from one classes to the other. Therefore, in a Higher Secondary School such as the one in question, the examination of tenth class cannot be regarded as a terminal examination for those who watt to continue their study in eleventh and twelfth classes of the said school. No separate criteria has been laid down in the rules for the students passing class X and wishing to continue their studies in eleventh and twelfth classes.
8. Now coming to the provisions of sub-rule (1) of rule 145 which is the sheet anchor of the appellant's case, we do not find anything in the said rule which contemplates or requires fresh or readmission of a student in the same school after the passes an examination from the said school. That the class X examination is a public examination does not make any difference. The question of an admission test or the result in a particular class or school for purposes of admission would arise only if a student of one institution goes for admission in dome other institution. The question of admission test on the basis of result in a particular class will not be taken into account in the case of a student of the same school who passes the public examination. Learned counsel for the appellant was unable to produce or show any provision in the Act or the Rules which specifically contemplates that readmission or fresh admission is necessary to every next higher class after a student passes out a particular class nor he could show any provision of law authorizing the head of an educational institution to prescribe a cut off level of marks for continuance of further studies in higher class in the same school by a student who passes a public examination. "
6. This ruling of the Supreme Court has been relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner to fortify his contention that in the present case also the Rules do not contemplate or requires fresh admission or re-admission of the student in the same school after he passes an examination from the same school. Thus, it is evident from the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Principal, Cambridge School (supra) that the Notification issued by Head of the School under Section 144 of Delhi School Education Act prescribing cut-off level of marks in public examination for admission of a student of the same school to the next higher class, was held to be invalid and Supreme Court ruled that on passing a class even by qualifying in public examination, promotion to the next higher class in the same school would be automatic irrespective of the marks obtained i.e. no fresh admission or re-admission is required for promotion to the higher class.
7. Counsel has drawn our attention to the Rules applicable in the present case, i.e General Conditions and Procedure for Admission of students to a CBSE School. So far as admission to Class XI is concerned, it reads as under:-
"Admission to class XI in a school shall be open only to such a student who has passed:
(a) Secondary School Examination (Class X examination) conducted by this Board; or
(b) an equivalent examination conducted by any other recognized Board of Secondary Education/Indian University and recognized by this Board as equivalent to its secondary school examination."
8. So far as decision in Payal Gupta's case (supra) is concerned, in our opinion the decision has no application to the facts of this case. We have carefully perused the judgment of the Supreme Court in the said case. All that the judgment says is that student who have passed out of Class X in a school should be admitted in Class XI in that school, if seats are available. Payal Gupta's decision does not say that such a student must be admitted in a particular stream of his or her choice. In the present case, the school is not denying the petitioner admission to the school. The school is only not giving him Science stream as he failed to secure minimum cut-off marks fixed by the school for the purpose of securing admission in Standard XI Science stream. The school i.e. respondent No.2 was always ready and willing to admit the petitioner in any other stream like commerce or arts. We cannot see any objection to such an approach of the school and hence, Payal Gupta's case (supra) has no application to the facts of the present case.
9. As discussed above, what Payal Gupta's case mandates is that student who have passed out of Class X from a school should be admitted to Class XI in that school, if seats are available. This mandate is being followed in the present case. Respondent No.2 agreed to give admission to the petitioner to Class XI. Payal Gupta's case does not require the school to give admission to the student in a stream of his or her choice even if seats are available in that stream. In fact, such a question did not even arise for decision by the Supreme Court. The contention of learned counsel in this regard deserves to be rejected.
10. In a recent pronouncement of the apex Court in the case of Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya Vs. Saurabh Chaudhary and ors (supra), the Supreme Court has taken the view that one cannot have an objection to the school laying down cut-off marks for selection of suitable stream/course for a student giving due regard to his/her aptitude as reflected from the Class X marks where there are more than one streams. The Supreme Court in Kendriya Vidyalaya Vs. Saurabh Chaudhary (supra) also considered the judgment rendered in the case of Cambridge School (supra). However, the distinguishing feature, which the Supreme Court noticed in Payal Gupta's case is important. In Payal Gupta's case (supra), the student was not even admitted in any other stream and straight-away asked the student to leave the school and get herself admitted in any other school. In this background, Supreme Court in Kendriya Vidyalaya's case (supra) held as under after noticing relevant provisions in the 2004 Guidelines applicable in the said case.
"17.
Reading the 2004 and the 2007 provisions together would make it clear that any preference in favour of the school's own students that might have been assumed earlier has now been provided for expressly. But that alone, as we see in the present case does not prevent the school from denying admission to one of its own students on the ground that he/she failed to secure the cut off marks in the class X CBSE examination.
18. One can have no objection to a school laying down cut off marks for selection of suitable stream/course for a student giving due regard to his/her aptitude as reflected from the class X marks where there are more than one stream. But it would be quite unreasonable and unjust to throw out a student from the school because he failed to get the cut off marks in the class X examination. After all the school must share at least some responsibility for the poor performance of its student and should help him in trying to do better in the next higher class. The school may of course give him the stream/course that may appear to be most suitable for him on the basis of the prescribed cut off marks.
19. In the present case it would have been perfectly open to the appellants to offer admission to the boy Saurabh Chaudhary in class XI in streams/courses other than science stream with Mathematics on the basis of the prescribed cut off levels of marks, had such courses been available in Central School No.2, AFS, Tambaram. But this school has only science stream with Mathematics for classes XI and XII. The decision in Payal forbids the school from turning down a student because he/she failed to get the cut off level of marks for admission to class XI. As a result of this fortuitous circumstance the boy must get admission in class XI in Central School No.2, AFS, Tambaram in science stream with Mathematics.
20. In light of the discussions made above we come to the conclusion that the case in hand is fully covered by the earlier decision of the Court in Payal. The decisions of the three High Courts relied upon by Mr. Patwalia in so far as they go contrary to the decision in Payal do not lay down the correct law. The decision of the Madras High Court coming under appeal takes the correct view of the matter and warrants no interference by this Court."
11. The Supreme Court in Kendriya Vidyalaya's case (supra) makes one thing very clear. Supreme Court has said that one can have no objection to a school laying down cut-off marks for selection of suitable stream/course for a student giving due regard to his/her aptitude as reflected from the Class X marks where there are more than one stream. The Supreme Court, however, clarified that it would be quite unreasonable and unjust to throw out a student from the school because he failed to get the cut-off marks in the Class X examination.
12. In the present case, this is not the position. Respondent No.2 school never asked the petitioner to leave the school and thereby refused to admit him in other streams like Commerce or Arts. It is evident from the stand taken by the respondent and the affidavit-in-reply that they were very much willing to admit him in Standard XI, but not in the Science Stream. However, since petitioner wants to become a Pilot and needs to study in the Science stream, he had no other option but to leave the school voluntarily and seek admission in another school i.e. Bhavans School, Baroda. This being the position, we are afraid that we cannot grant any relief in favour of the petitioner, as the position of law appears to be very abundantly clear as held in Kendriya Vidyalaya's case (supra).
13. We may also like to refer a Constitutional Bench decision of the Supreme Court in the case of T.M.A Pai Foundation and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in (2002) 8 SCC 481, wherein at paragraphs 55, 58, 59 and 61 the Supreme Court has observed as under:-
55. The Constitution recognizes the right of the individual or religious denomination, or a religious or linguistic minority to establish an educational institution. If aid or financial assistance is not sought, then such institution will be a private unaided institution. Although, in Unni Krishnan's case, the Court emphasized the important role played by private unaided institutions and the need for private funding, in the scheme that was framed, restrictions were placed on some of the important ingredients relating to the functioning of an educational institution. There can be no doubt that in seeking affiliation or recognition, the Board or the university or the affiliating or recognizing authority can lay down conditions consistent with the requirement to ensure the excellence of education. It can, for instance, indicate the quality of the teachers by prescribing the minimum qualifications that they must possess, and the courses of study and curricula. It can, for the same reasons, also stipulate the existence of infrastructure sufficient for its growth, as a pre-requisite. But the essence of a private educational institution is the autonomy that the institution must have in its management and administration. There, necessarily, has to be a difference in the administration of private unaided institutions and the government-aided institutions. Whereas in the latter case, the Government will have greater say in the administration, including admissions and fixing of fees, in the case of private unaided institutions, maximum autonomy in the day-to-day administration has to be with the private unaided institutions. Bureaucratic or governmental interference in the administration of such an institution will undermine its independence. While an educational institution is not a business, in order to examine the degree of independence that can be given to a recognized educational institution, like any private entity that does not seek aid or assistance from the Government, and that exists by virtue of the funds generated by it, including its loans or borrowings, it is important to note that the essential ingredients of the management of the private institution include the recruiting students and staff, and the quantum of fee that is to be charged.
58.
For admission into any professional institution, merit must play an important role. While it may not be normally possible to judge the merit of the applicant who seeks admission into a school, while seeking admission to a professional institution and to become a competent professional, it is necessary that meritorious candidates are not unfairly treated or put at a disadvantage by preferences shown to less meritorious but more influential applicants. Excellence in professional education would require that greater emphasis be laid on the merit of a student seeking admission. Appropriate regulations for this purpose may be made keeping in view the other observations made in this judgment in the context of admissions to unaided institutions.
59. Merit is usually determined, for admission to professional and higher education colleges, by either the marks that the student obtains at the qualifying examination or school leaving certificate stage followed by the interview, or by a common entrance test conducted by the institution, or in the case of professional colleges, by government agencies.
61. In the case of unaided private schools, maximum autonomy has to be with the management with regard to administration, including the right of appointment, disciplinary powers, admission of students and the fees to be charged. At the school level, it is not possible to grant admissions on the basis of merit. It is no secret that the examination results at all levels of unaided private schools, notwithstanding the stringent regulations of the governmental authorities, are far superior to the results of the government-maintained schools. There is no compulsion on students to attend private schools. The rush for admission is occasioned by the standards maintained in such schools, and recognition of the fact that state-run schools do not provide the same standards of education. The State says that it has no funds to establish institutions at the same level of excellence as private schools. But by curtailing the income of such private schools, it disables those schools from affording the best facilities because of a lack of funds. If this lowering of standards from excellence to a level of mediocrity is to be avoided, the state has to provide the difference which, therefore, brings us back in a vicious circle to the original problem, viz., the lack of state funds. The solution would appear to lie in the States not using their scanty resources to prop up institutions that are able to otherwise maintain themselves out of the fees charged, but in improving the facilities and infrastructure of state-run schools and in subsidizing the fees payable by the students there. It is in the interest of the general public that more good quality schools are established; autonomy and non-regulation of the school administration in the right of appointment, admission of the students and the fee to be charged will ensure that more such institutions are established. The fear that if a private school is allowed to charge fees commensurate with the fees affordable, the degrees would be "purchasable" is an unfounded one since the standards of education can be and are controllable through the regulations relating to recognition, affiliation and common final examinations."
14. Thus, we hold that though the Rules are silent but still there can be no objection to a school laying down cut-off marks for selection of suitable stream/course for a student giving due regard to his/her performance and aptitude as reflected from the Class X marks, where there are more than one stream. At the same time, we also hold that no school can ask his own student to leave the school and seek admission in other school after Standard X, thereby refusing to even admit its own student in any other stream like commerce or arts. This is exactly what has been explained by the Supreme Court in Kendriya Vidyalaya's case (supra).
15. There is another important aspect which cannot be overlooked. The remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution is equitable justice. As already stated, it is not the case of the petitioner that persons similarly situated with him have been given admission and he is being denied. If that was the case, there would be no difficulty in granting equitable relief to him. But this is not the case. Petitioner cannot raise any grievance at all since he has been equally treated. We could have directed respondent No.2 school to admit the petitioner in Standard XI either in Arts stream or Commerce stream as per the choice of the petitioner, but as he has made it clear in the petition itself that he wants to become a Pilot and therefore he needs to pursue study in Science stream, the relief which we intend to grant would also not be of any help to the petitioner.
16. This matter deserves to be considered from one another aspect. It appears that respondent No.2 school has taken a policy decision and it is not proper for this Court to interfere in such decisions. It is well settled that in policy matters the Court has a very limited scope of interference.
In Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Vs. Paritosh Bhupesh Kumarsheth, AIR 1984 SC 1543, the Supreme Court considered the scope of judicial review in a case of policy decision and held as under:-
"The Court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the policy evolved by the Legislature and the subordinate regulation making body. It may be a wise policy, which will fully effectuate the purpose of the enactment or it may be lacking in effectiveness and hence calling for revision and improvement. But any drawbacks in the policy incorporated in a rule or regulation will not render it ultra vires and the Court cannot strike it down on the ground that in its opinion, it is not a wise or prudent policy but is even a foolish one, and that it will not really serve to effectuate the purpose of the Act. The legislature and its delegate are the sole repositories of the power to decide what policy should be pursued in relation to matters covered by the Act and there is no scope for any interference by the Courts unless the particular provision impugned before it can be said to suffer from any legal infirmity in the sense of its being wholly beyond the scope of the regulation making power or it being inconsistent with any of the provisions of the parent enactment or in violation of any of the limitation imposed by the Constitution."
14. No doubt in the present case the policy decision is that of the management of the school and not of the Government, but in our opinion, there is no real difference between the policy decisions of the Government and the policy decisions of other bodies so far as the principle enunciated above is concerned. In our opinion, the policy decision of the school in fixing the minimum marks for admission in Science stream cannot be said to be so outrageous in defiance of logic or accepted moral standards that no sensible person could have arrived at it. The school has to safeguard and uphold its reputation and at the same time it does not want to put children who do not have sufficient aptitude in maths and science to such a stress that they may not be able to cope up with the subject and they may even be harmed mentally and physically. Every parent has a dream that their children attain great heights in life while studying well and by becoming something like Doctor, Engineer etc. One cannot find any fault with the parents who have a dream for their children. However, what is important is that parents should not forget that the child would definitely have liking for a particular subject and a child having an aptitude for a particular subject must be groomed in that direction. What we want to convey is that the parents must know and understand the ability and potentiality of the child to learn something. Over a period of time we have seen that students are unable to cope up with the pressure of studies and have committed suicide. Many cases have been reported in the recent past which is something very much disturbing. In such cases either the student does not possess sufficient intellectual ability to cope up with a particular stream but is forced to take up that stream and when unable to fulfil the dreams of the parents and or cope up with the pressure of studies, they put an end to the life to relieve themselves of acute mental stress and depression. This should never happen. It is for the parents to understand the potentiality and the ability of their children. This is precisely the reason why schools insist that if the performance of a student in the subject of science is not up to the mark in Standard X, then that student will not be able to perform well in the higher standards like XI and XII. For this reason, schools advice the parents to get the child admitted in any other stream like commerce or arts. In our opinion, the school management has expertise in the matter because they know the student well as he would be in the school for many years by the time he passes his standard X examination. In the present case, though the petitioner seems to be having an aptitude for science stream and wants to become a pilot, but since he failed to secure the minimum cut-off marks in Standard X, the school authorities could justifiably refuse to admit him in Standard XI Science stream.
15. An administrative decision does not always require a statutory sanction. For instance, it is well settled that for holding interviews for selections/admissions short listing can be done and it is not necessary that all those who have got marks above the statutory minimum marks must necessarily be called for the interview. In such cases the authorities can impose a non-statutory cut-off minimum marks at their discretion and as long as there is no discrimination, the Court will not interfere. (M.P. Public Service Commission Vs. Navnit Kumar Potdar, J.T 1994 (6) SC 302.)
16. In the above view of the matter, we are left with no other option but to reject the petition in absence of any merit. Petition is accordingly rejected with no order as to costs.
(A.L. Dave, Actg. C.J.) (J.B. Pardiwala, J.) */Mohandas Top