Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

18. Ms.Monika Arora, learned counsel for the JNU submitted that given the compulsion and necessity to take into consideration the broad heads relevant for each subject, it cannot be said that those who judge the suitability of the candidate, would do so arbitrarily. She also submitted that the UGC Regulations are mandatory and binding upon all Central Universities including the JNU, therefore, the grievance that the JNU has been especially in some manner object all adverse decision, cannot be sustained. Learned counsel also relies upon a tabular chart, giving the break-up of the number of supervisors at all level i.e. the Professors, Associate Professors and Assistant Professors and stated that the number of students who were under the supervision of such academics was excessive and disproportionate to the ability of such senior faculty to give attention in any meaningful manner for research, ultimately ensure that the standard of research of that kind of JNU could expect from its students and research scholar. Learned counsel also relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Adhiyaman Educational Research Institute, (1995) 4 SCC 104 and submitted that the prescription of standard, is the primary role and duty of the UGC and to the extent that uniformly the UGC prescribed certain criteria with respect to the procedure for admission as also as regards to the students-supervisor ratio and such standard cannot be faulted or termed arbitrary. Doing so would mean that the Court is placing itself in the position of regulator or decision maker. Learned counsel also relies upon the judgment in P.V.Inderesan v. Union of India, (2009) 7 SCC 300, which stated that minimum standard i.e. by way of minimum cut off marks, in relation to reserved category candidates, linked with the open from the candidate mark per se is not arbitrary or unconstitutional. Analysis and Conclusions

24. In the present case, the first issue is whether the grant of marks or 100% weightage to viva voce performance as the sole basis for selection to M.Phil./Ph.D seats is valid or is it arbitrary. Ajay Hasia (supra), the Supreme Court had dealt with the proportion of marks given for declaring a candidate successful in an admission process, and held as follows:

"The marks allocated for the oral interview were 50 as against 100 allocated for the written test, so that the marks allocated for the oral interview came to 33 1/3% of the total number of marks taken into account for the purpose of making the selection. This, contended the petitioners, was beyond all reasonable proportion and rendered the selection of the candidates arbitrary and violative of the equality clause of the Constitution. Now there can be no doubt that, having regard to the drawbacks and deficiencies in the oral interview test and the conditions prevailing in the country, particularly when there is deterioration in moral values and corruption and nepotism are very much on the increase, allocation of a high percentage of marks for the oral interview as compared to the marks allocated for the written test, cannot be accepted by the Court as free from the vice of arbitrariness. It may be pointed out that even in Peeriakaruppan's case (supra), where 75 marks out of a total of 275 marks were allocated for the oral interview, this Court observed that the marks allocated for interview were on the high-side. This Court also observed in Miss Nishi Maghu's case (supra): "Reserving 50 marks for interview out of a total of 150... does seem excessive, especially when the time spent was not more than 4 minutes on each candidate". There can be no doubt that allocating 33 1/3 of the total marks for oral interview is plainly arbitrary and unreasonable. It is significant to note that even for selection of candidates for the Indian Administrative Service, the Indian Foreign Service and the Indian Police Service, where the personality of the candidate and his personal characteristics and traits are extremely relevant for the purpose of selection, the marks allocated for oral interview are 250 as against 1800 marks for the written examination, constituting only 12.2% of the total marks taken into consideration for the purpose of making the selection. We must, therefore, regard the allocation of as high a percentage as 33 1/3 of the total marks for the oral interview as infecting the admission procedure with the vice of arbitrariness and selection of candidates made on the basis of such admission procedure cannot be sustained."

26. The distinction between admission (to a course in an academic institution) and appointment to a service or post was highlighted in Kiran Gupta and Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors., 2000 (7) SCC 719, when it was emphasized that for admission to an academic course, selection based on a high interview or viva voce marks or exclusively based on interview would be arbitrary and that the position might be different in the case of recruitment to posts, especially higher posts, where the process might be only interview: