A. PERIAKARUPPAN CHETTIAR versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU &. ORS.

Citation: [1971] 3 S.C.R. 449 · Decided: 15-01-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
449 
A. PERIAKARUPPAN CHE'ITIAR 
v. 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU &. ORS. 
January 15, 1971 
[J. C. SHAH, C.J., K. S. HEGDE AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.] 
Admission to 
Medical 
Colleges-Allegation of malafides 
against 
Selection Committee-Proof of -Interview marks-Government specifies 
heads of distribution of marks but no 
marks allotted to each head-
Presumption that marks should be distributed equally-Violation of pre-
sumption by Selection Committee-Effect on selections made. 
The petitioner, who was an unsuccessful applicant for a seat in one 
of the medical colleges in the respondent-State challenged the selections 
made by a writ petition in this Court. This Court came to the conclusion 
that the selections made were invalid, but did not strike t'iem clown, 1nd 
instead, dire~ted the State to constitute a separate expert Committee )Or 
making selections to the unfilled seats. The Court further directed that 
the Committee should interview only the candidates shown in the waiting 
list and t'1ose who moved unsuccessfully the High Court a"d this CN\ft. 
This Court observed that the 75 marks allocated for interview "should 
be divid.d equally among the live different heads with respect to which 
the marks should be given at the interview. 
In pursuance of the direction the State constituted a Selection Com-
mittee. 
The Committee- called for 
interview several 
other candidates 
. besides those asked t<(be interviewed by this Court, though the Committee 
refrained from interviewing such additional candidates. The Selection Com-
mittee also distributed the 75 interview marks among the live heads not 
equally but according to its own discretion. Candidates were se!ecteo for all 
the unfilled seats but the petitioner was not selected. He challenged the 
selection on the grounds that : ( 1) the Seleotion Committee showed open 
hostility to him at the interview, (2) the violatioi of the directions of 
this Court showed malafides, and (3) those illegalities vitiated the selec-
tion made. 
HELD : ( 1) The Selection Committee denied that they had exhibited 
any hostility towards the petitioner. The charge of ma afides has to be 
established by the ·petitioner by satisfactory evidence, and the fact that the 
petitioner could not get anv outside evidence to establish what happened 
at the interview cannot shift the burden that is on him, [451 F-H] 
(2) The Selectiot Committee explained that they called additional 
candidates for interview because they did . no~ understand the SCC!pe 
<?f 
the judgment of this Court, and that they ~1st"!but~d the 75 ma:ks tn t~eir 
dicretion because there was no spec;fic direction rn the operative portion 
of the jud~ment of thi~ Court t? distribute them ,equally. Though t!ie 
explanation was not sattsfactory, it could not be said that the Committee 
had acted mala fide. [452 B.C; 453 E-F] 
( 3) The interview rules were made by Government a~d Goverr•ment 
alone could have distributed the marks amongst the va•1ous heads. 
Tn 
the absence of such a distribution it should be .teemed that each one of 
the hea&. carried e~ual marks. 
Therefore, the 
p~o:~ure ado~ted by 
the Committee was illegal and contrary to the directions of this Court 
and was likelv to have affected the result of the interview. [453 F-0] 
15-L807Sup.Clf71 
450 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1971] 3 S.C.R. 
Moreover, the CQnu11ittee, even on the b~is adopted by it, had· pro-
ceeded on wholly wrong premises while granting marks to the petitioner 
under the liead 'National Cadet Corps activities'. [455 F-G] 
Therefore, the selections made could not be sustained. 
ORIGINAL JuR1so1cnoN : Writ Petition No. 623 of 1970. 
Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for enforce-
ment of fundamental. rights. 
K. K. Venugopal and R. Gopalakrishnan, for the pe'.itioner. 
S. Govind Swaminathan, Advoca:e-General, Tamil Nadu, S. 
Mohan and A. V. Rangam, for respondents Nos. 1 to 5. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
A 
B 
c 
Hegde, J. 
This is an unfortunate case. 
The peti:ioner, a 
bright . young student is approaching this Court for the second 
time to seek justice. 
He had a brilliant academic career. 
He 
secured high marks in all the examinations in which he appeared. 
In the Pre-University Examination, he secured First class with 
D 
Grade D plus in Physics and Chemistry and A plus in Biology. 
He stood 4th in his college. 
Grade D plus represents 85 to 99 
per cent marks and A p!us 65 to 75 per cent marks. H

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.