LexKHALID HUSSAIN (MINOR), REPRESENTED BY FATHER DR. AKTHAR HUSSAIN versus COMMISSIONER & SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU, HEALTH DEPARTMENT, MADRAS & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
- KHALID HUSSAIN (MINOR), REPRESENTED BY FATHER DR. AKTHAR HUSSAIN. v. COMMISSIONER & SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU, HEALTH DEPARTMENT, MADRAS & ORS. AUGUST 19, 1987 [A.P. SEN AND B.C. RAY, JJ.) Professional Colleges-Admission to: Category of 'eminent sportsmen'-Selection of-Validity of-Selection must necessarily depend upon academic merit. Constitution of India, Arts. 226 & 136: Powers of the Court-Not obligatory to interfere unless justice of the case so demands. The State Government of Tamil Nadu reserved three seats for the A B c '1' category 'eminent sportsmen' for admission to the MBBS Course for D 1986·87 in the Government Mei.lical Colleges. Category (iii) in Anne- xure I to the prospectus indicated their order of preference as participa· tion at (a) International level, (b) National level, and (c) State level. Candidates securing 50 per cent aggregate marks in science subjects in the qualifying examination were made eligible. The Selection Commit- ~ tee adopted participation at the national level to be the criterion and E -. selected three candidates on the basis of merit in the qualifying exami· nation. Four candidates were placed in the waiting list in order of merit. The petitioner who was next in order of merit and could not be selected, 1 filed a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution assailing the select list. The Single Judge refused to grant the petitioner any relief. He, however, struck down the selection of respondent No. 6 placed third in F the select list since he had actually not played at the national level, and directed the Selection- Committee to fill up the vacancy trom the waiting list and go by the order of merit. Dismissing the appeal by the petitioner the Division Bench held that the decision of the Selection ·-,, Committee was reached bona fide on the basis of academic merit and that it was not just and proper that the respondent No. 6 should lose his G seat in the medical college for no fault of his but at the instance of the petitioner who stood no chance compared to the other candidates in the waiting list. In this special leave petition, it was contended for the petitioner that the only criterion for selection was pre-eminence in sports and not H 1049 1050 SUPREME COURT REPORTS I 1987] 3 S.C.R. A academic excellence, and that the Division Bench was in error in not sustaining the order of the Single Judge setting aside the selection of respondent No. 6, who had played in the Zonal tournament which was not of national level. B Dismissing the special leave petition, t HELD: I. All that Category (iii) does is to lay down a rule of preference. A candidate who had participated at international level 'wl would exclude a candidate participating at National level and a person who had participated at National level would exclude a person parti- cipating at State level. There are no guidelines provided for determina- C tion of comparative eminence as be!Ween candidates belonging to the same class, e.g. at National level. Nor does it provide for any guidelines '-r by which the choice has to be made between the candidates who have excelled in a particular field of sports, e.g. acquatics, or when there is more than one candidate who have excelled in their respective fields of sports e.g. cricket, football, hockey etc. and the number of seats D reserved are less than the candidates found eligible. All of them being y more or less equal, the best method is to go by marks obtained at the qualifying examination. The selectjon must, therefore, necessarily depend upon their academic merits. If the adjudging of comparative merit amonl the eligible candidates is left to the discretion of the Execu- tive that would necessarily introduce an element of subjectivity, which E would introduce arbitrariness. l1055B-F] 1 ~ 2. It is not obligatory for the Court to interfere in all cases unless justice of the case so demands. In the instant case the High Court was entitled to take the view that the Court ought not to, in the facts and T circumstances of the case, exercise its discretionary powers under Art. F 226 of the Constitution at the instance of the petitioner who was not entitled to any relief. Any other view would have been manifestly unjust. [1056C-D] CNIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Peti- tions (Civil) Nos. 5535-36 of 1987. G ~ H From the Judgment and Order dated 28.4.1987 of the Mamas High Court in W.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.