ASIF HAMEED & ORS. ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR & ORS. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1989] 3 S.C.R. 19 · Decided: 03-05-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. SINGH · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 7 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-· .. ( 
'· 
""')" 
\ 
/,. 
'"''~ 
-·, 
ASIF HAMEED & ORS. ETC. ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR & ORS. ETC. ETC. 
MAY 3, 1989 
[K.N. SINGH, K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, AND 
KULDIP SINGH JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950: A~ticles 32, 226-.fudicial review--
Court not an appellate authority-Not to advise executive in matters of 
policy-Doctrine of separation of powers-What is. 
Professional Colleges-Admission to Jammu & Kashmir Govern-
ment Medical Colleges (Selection of Candidates for Admission) Proce-
dure Order 1987. Clause 2(b), 2(c), 3 and 4-High Court-
Whether competent to issue direction to State Government to constitute 
'Statutory Body' for selections to medical colleges. 
A number of unsuccessful candidates to the MBBS/BDS course 
A 
B 
c 
D 
in the two Government medical colleges of Jammu & Kashmir for the 
1988-89 Session had challenged in the High Court of Jammu and 
Kashmir the selection to the above courses on the ground that the selec-
tion was violative of the directions of the High Court in Jyotshana 
Sharma & Ors. v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, (decided on 17.4.1987). 
E 
In that case, the High Court had directed the State of Jammu and 
Kashmir to entrust the selection process of the two medical colleges to a 
statutory independent body, and till that was done, to entrust the 
process of selection to such a body which was to be free from executive 
influence. In deference to the observations of the High Court, the State 
Government issued the Jammu & Kashmir Government Medical 
F 
Colleges (selection of candidates for admission to first year MBBS/BDS 
course and other professional courses) Procedure, Order, 1987. The 
Order provided for the constitution of a Competent Authority for the 
purpose of making selections to the professional courses. Another order 
was issued laying down the qualifications, functions, conditions of 
service and powers and duties of the Competent Authority. 
G 
The High Court allowed the writ petitions on the ground that the 
selection was in violation of the court's directions in Jyotshana Sharma's 
case. The High Court held the directions in Jyotshana Sharma's case to 
be of a binding nature and it reiterated the same by issuing a 
mandamus. 
19 
H 
20 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1989] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
Earlier the petitioners had tiled a writ petition in the High Court 
challenging the appointment of Prof, Satish Raina as the Competent 
Authority and non-implementation of the directions in Jyotshana 
Sharma's case. The High Court has disposed of the writ by a consent 
order. The order observed that the State Government had reconstituted 
the Competent Authority by appointing two more persons on it, that the 
B 
reconstituted competent authority shall carry on with the selection 
process, and the petitioners shall have liberty to challenge the selection 
if still aggrieved on any ground. Later, a committee of three acade-
micians was constituted by the Government to assist the Competent 
Authority. 
It was contended on behalf of the State and the selected condidates 
C that the High Court did not have the competence to issllc directions to 
the State Government to constitute a "Statutory Body" for selections to 
medical colleges. It was further urged that the observations in 
Jyotshana Sharma's case were in the nature of suggestions only, and 
even if those observations were taken as directions, the same had been 
D complied with. 
On behalf of the unsuccessful candidates it was inter alia 
contended that (1) 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; (2) the scrutiny was 
E 
not done by the competent authority but by the committee appointed by 
the State Government; (3) the committee appointed to assist the Compe-
tent Authority coulrl only be appointed by the Authority itself and not 
by the Government; and (4) there were discrepancies in the criterion, 
method and procedure of holding the entrance examination and the viva 
voce. 
F 
Allowing the appeals tiled by the State and the successful candi-' 
dates and dismissing the appeals filed by the unsuccessful candidates, 
this Court. 
HELD: (1) Although the doctrine of separation of powers has 
G 
not been recognised under the Constitution in its absolute rigidity 
--.--
but the Constitution makers have meticulously defined the functions 
y 
of various organs of.the State. Legislature, Executive and Judic
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.