Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

26. Mr. Altaf Ahmed, learned Advocate General, Jammu & Kashmir, appearing for the State, Mr. M.H. Baig and Mr. G.L, Sunghi, learned counsel appearing for the selected candidates, have contended that the observations in Jyotshana Sharma's case were in the nature of suggestions by the Court. It is further argued that even if those are taken to be directions, the same have been complied with by the Stale Government. There was no issue before the court in Jyotshana Sharma vase regarding method or procedure adopted by the Government for making selections. None of the parties argued for Statutory Body on the ground of lack of confidence in the executive. A bare reading of the judgment shows that the Bench, before parting with the judgment, laid-down some guidelines for the Government to follow. The learned Chief Justice in his judgment in farrooq Bacha's case, reiterated the necessity of having an autonomous independent statutory body "on the lines suggested by the Division Bench in Jyotshana Sharma's case''. The learned Chief Justice rightly treated the Bench's observations as suggestions and we agree with the same. There is also force in the contention that assuming the said suggestions to be the directions, the same have been complied with. SRO 291 was issued as a consequence of the judgment in Jyotshana Sharma's case. The notification specifically states "whereas a Division Bench of the High Court by judgment and order 17th April, 1987 inter-alia made certain suggestions for improving the system for making admission to MBBS/BDS course in the State, now, therefore, in deference to the observations of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir...the Government hereby makes the following order..." Mr. Bhim Singh, learned counsel appearing for the unsuccessful candidates, however, argued that the principals of two medical colleges have not been associated with the selections. That may be so but we are satisfied that SRO 291 read with 1987 Order issued by the State Government which provide method and elaborate procedure for making selections to the medical colleges of Jammu & Kashmir substantially comply with the directions of (he High Court 27 Mr. Bhim Singh, Mr. Anil Dev Singh, Mr. D.D. Thakur and Mr. Salman Khurshid, the learned counsel appearing for the unsuccessful candidates have vehemently contended that the reconstituted competent authority consisting of three members never functioned because Shri J.P. Kesar did not join the other two members at any stage of the selection process. It was also contended that the scrutiny as per consent order dated 17th October, 1988 was not done by the competent authority but by the committee appointed by the State Government. Bstbre examining these contentions we may notice that the competent authority was reconstituted on 15th September, 1988 by the State Government and it was approved by the High Court'iri the consent order dated 17th of Octoer, 1988. The written test had taken place on 7lh and 8th August, 1988 and the result thereof was published on 25th of August, 1988. The viva voce test was held from 29th August, 1988 to ?th September, 1988. The whole of the process of selection was almost complete on 17th October, 1988 when tin-consent order reconstituting the competent authority was passed by the High Court. The competent authority was only to scrutinize the selections. There are no specific allegations of favouritism or arbitrariness in the conduct of entrance examination or the viva voce.

28. We may now examine the submissions. It is an admitted far! that Mr. J.I'. Kesar never functioned as part of competent authority. The scrutiny and compilation of the selections was done by two members namely Dr. Aga Ashraf Ali and Prof. Satish Raina. The three member authority was not a statutory authority. It was entrusted with the functions of executive nature. The mere fact that one member did not participate in the selection does not ipso facto render the selections illegal. Mr. Anil Dev Singh disputed the validity of selection placing reliance on the United Commercial Bank Ltd, vs their workmen (1951 SCR 380). In this case Central Government had constituted in-Industrial Tribunal for the adjudication of industrial disputes in bank ing companies in exercise of its powers under Section 7 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The tribunal was to consist of three members One of the members did not function on the tribunal for a period of about three months. By a majority judgment this Court held that the two remaining members were not a duly constituted tribunal and any proceedings in the absence of the third member without reconstituting the tribunal were without jurisdiction. This Court, construing the provisions of Sections 7 and 8 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Rule 5 of the Industrial Disputes Rules, 1949, came to the conclusion that when a vacancy occurred it was obligatory on the Government to notify its decision as to whether it intended to fill up the vacancy or not, and if the Government decided not to fill up the vacancy, a notification under Section 7 of the Act was essential to reconstitute the remaining members of the tribunal. The decision w,.s rendered on the construction of the relevant statutory provisions an.i keeping in view the fact that the tribunal was to perform quasi-judicial functions, The ratio of this decision is inapplicable to the committee constituted by executive order for performing purely administrative functions. Selection of candidates for admission to medical college does not involve performance of any judicial or quasi-judicial functions. Mr. Anil Dev Singh then relied upon Avadh Bihari Sinlia v. University of Bihar (C. A. 1650/67 decided by this Court on 4th of January, 1968 In this case Bihar University Regulations from under the Bihar State Universities Act, 1960 provided that a Board of moderators must consist of five members of whom two must h external experts. Two external experts were invited to join the Boand. but they declined. The appointment of members to the Board was the be complete only after they were designated and had accepted their appointment. Three members without the two external experts moderated an award which was set aside by this Court. This was a case where interpreting the statutory provisions of the regulations this Court cam,-to the conclusion that the constitution of the Board of moderators was not complete without the designation and acceptance of the appointment by the external experts. The ratio cannot be attracted to the(sic) of the present case. In the present case competent authority with then members was constituted by an executive action. In the absence of any statutory provisions to the contrary, it was perfectly legitimate for ! the authority to function with two members. Even otherwise the written test and viva voce having already taken place, the selection process was almost complete and nothing much was left for the competent authority to do. It had only to scrutinize and finalise the selection. No arguments were addressed and not a single circumstance was pointed out to show any prejudice to any candidate in the scrutiny and realisation of the selection by the authority. Mr. Altaf Ahmed fairly made all the record available in the Court. The learned counsel for the unsuccessful candidates could not point out any prejudice or injustice to any of them. We have, therefore, no hesitation in rejecting this contention of the learned counsel.

33 The objective test for entrance examination and viva voce for admission to the MBBS course in the medical colleges of Jammu & Kashmir for the session 1984-85 was again approved by this Connected in Atul Khullar vs Sate of J & K (1986 (Supp.) SCC 225). We see no force in the argument of learned counsel and uphold the selection.

34 Mr. Bhim Singh invited our attention to the judgment rendered by one of the learned judges in Farooq Bacha's case to show that there were observations adversely criticising the conduct of Prof. Satish Raina Mr. Bhim Singh says that since the conduct of a person was adversely commented upon by one of the learned judges, it was unfair to entrust him with the functions of competent authority. The action of the State Government, according to him, is not bonafide and us such the selection is vitiated. It is correct that there are some adverse observations, but the same have not been endorsed by the learned Chief Justice who delivered the judgment on reference. In any case all the parties including the unsuccessful candidates agreed to the consent order which was passed hy the High Court on 17th of October, 1988. These candidates accepted the appointment of Prof. Satish Raina in the reconstituted competent authority. It was to their knowledge that entrance examination and viva voce, which was complete before the consent order, was got conducted by Prof. Satish Raina. No objection was raised to the process of selection already conducted by Prof. Satish Raina, rather his appointment on the reconstituted competent authority to complete the remaining process of selection was accepted by the parties in the consent order.