ARTI SAPRU versus STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR & OTHERS

Citation: [1981] 3 S.C.R. 34 · Decided: 27-02-1981 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. PATHAK · Disposal: Case Allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
34 
ARTI SA-PRU 
v. 
STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR & OTHERS 
February 27, 1981 
[R.S. PATHAK AND 0. CHlNNAPPA REDDY, JJ.J 
Admission to medical college-Government Notification No. 41-G.R· of 1980 
dated 24th September, 1980 purporting to identify certain villages as socially and 
educationally backward.for applying the pri11ciple nf"rectification of imbalance in 
different parts of the S1ate"-W/1ether the classification is wholly arbitrary a11d 
without any foundatio11 to sustain ir and conseque111/y the criteria adopted in 
grallfing admission to the M.B.B.S. course is discriminatory, unreasonable and 
void-When viva voce test lasts between two to four minutes, whether allotment 
of 30% of total marks is patently unreasonable and arbitrary-Whether accepting 
applications beyond the time prescribed on the [!round that qualifying examination 
in which the applicant appeared was held late and the results were announced 
after the date prescribed for submitting the applications, bad in law. 
Regulationsframed by the Indian Medical Council under section 33 read with 
section T9A oft he I11dian Medical Council Act, 1956, whether Ito/ding viva voce 
examination and assigning 30% of the total marks in it is in violation of Article 31 
of the Constitution-Whether the presence of a Government official 011 the Selection 
Committee in the viva vore test is obnoxious to law. 
Selection of candidates to be admitted to M.B.B,S. course in the Medical 
College of the State of Jammu & Kashmir was made by a Selection Committee 
on the basis of (a) merit in qualifyin.g examination (35_ marks) (b) an objective 
test (35 marks) and (c) a viva voce test (30 marks). The seats were distributed 
besides the examination base was determined by a distribution of the seats into 
three distinct divisions namely, (i) 60% on the basis of open merit ; (ii) 20% on 
the basis of reservation for scheduled castes and other reserved categories, one 
of which was broadly described as "socially and educationally backward classes" 
which included candidates from (a) areas adjoining actual line of control and 
(b) areas known as "bad pockets", including Ladhak and (iii} 20% were reserved 
as seats to be.filled "on the basis of inter se merit to ensure rectification of 
imbalance in the admission for various parts of the State, if any, so as to give 
equitable and uniform treatment to those parts". 
In Nishi Maghu v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, (1980) 3 S.C.R. 1253, the 
Supreme Court held that the selections made under the third category were 
invalid, inasmuch as the classification made for rectification of regional imbalance 
without identifying the areas suffering 'from imbalance was vague. 
The Stale Government, therefore, published Notification No. 41 G.R. of 1980 
dated 24th September, 1980 purporting to identify certain villages as socially and 
educationally backward for applying the principle of "rectification of imbalance 
in different parts of the States" and reduced the distribution of seats in the 
Medical Colleges of the State under this category from 18 to 17% under this 
·category. This order is challenged by the petitioner, an unsuccessful candidate 
in the selection made for admission to M.B.B.S. course.for the year 1980-81. 
)·· 
----\ 
ART! SAPRU V. J. AND K. 
35 
Allowing the petitions, the Court 
HELD: I. The classification attempted by the State Government by its order 
dated 24th September, 1980 suffers from tbe vice of arbitrariness and is, therefore, 
invalid. There was no intelligible data before the Court for sustaining the classifica-
tion. No doubt the State Government had acted in its own wisdom, but the 
material to which that wisdom was applied was not disclosed at all. The fact by 
itself that some hundreds of villages had been brought within the classification is 
of no assistance whatever. That a comprehensive understanding of regional 
imbalances from the Anand Committee report and the Sikri Commission report 
had not been possible yet affords no justification for an arbitrary classification. 
The State failed to bring the case within Article 15(4) of the Constitution. 
[39 G; 40 DJ 
State of U.P. v. Pradip Tandon, [1975] 2 S.C.R. 761 applied. 
2 : I. There is need to revise the marks ratio for the viva voce test because 
of the very real risk future selections would face on this score. The Government 
would also do well to ensure that Selection Committees take care to devote 
sufficient time to the o

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