R. CIDTRALEKHA & ANR. versus STATE OF MYSORE & ORS.

Citation: [1964] 6 S.C.R. 368 · Decided: 29-01-1964 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 29 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

1964 
C. 
S. 
Rowjee 
v. 
State of Andhra 
Pradesh 
Ayyangar J. 
1964 
January, 
29 
368 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
in case the appeals succeed, the State will com-
pensate the appellants for the loss incurred by 
them during the period that the appeals were 
pending in this Court by reason of the fact 
that they were not allowed to ply their buses 
on the routes under the respective permits 
granted to them. 
The learned Advocate-
General further undertakes that this amount 
of compensation will be determined in 
the 
present proceedings themselves. No order as to 
costs." 
The learned Coun'sel requested us that we should give 
some directions in terms of this undertaking. 
In view of 
the above we would add the following at the end of the 
judgment which was pronounced on January 27, 1964: 
"In view of the order r,iassed by this Court on June 
10, 1963, when the in1erim order of stay was 
vacated at the instance of the respondent, 
recording the undertaking on the part of the 
State that it would compensate the appellants 
for the loss incurred by them during the period 
when the appeals were pending in this Court. 
there· will be a declaration to that effect, and 
the High Court will determine the amount so 
payable and pass 
suitable directions for the 
payment thereof." 
R. CIDTRALEKHA & ANR. 
v. 
ST A TE OF MYSORE & ORS. 
(B. P. SINHA, C. J., K. SUBBA RAO, RAGHUBAR DAYAL, N. 
RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR AND J. R. MUDHOLKAR JJ.) 
Constitution of //idia, 1950, Arr. 166-1/ mandatory-List I Entry 66--
Scope of-Viva Voce test for admission in college-If violation of 
Art. 14--Article 15(4)-Classification of backward classes-Yali· 
tlity. 
6 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
Tho Government of Mysore by an order defined backward classes and 
directed tbat 30 per cent of tbo aoata in professional and technical colleges 
1964 
Chitraltkhn 
v. 
and institutions shall be reserved for them and 18 per cent to tbe Sche-
R. 
dule castes and Scheduled Tribes. It was laid down tbat classification of 
aocially and educationally backward classes should be made on tho basil Stat• of M1-• 
of economic condition and occupation. By a letter the Government in .. 
formed tbe Director of Technical Education tbat it had been decided that 
253 of the maximum marks for tbe examination in optional subjects 
shall be fixed as interview marks. The selection will be conducted by a 
committee composed of Heads of Technical Institutions aod in allottins 
marks for interview factors like general knowledge, personality and extra-
curricular activities of the candidates should be taken into consideration. 
On the basis of the above criteria selections were made for admission 
to Engineering and Medical Colleges. 
Thereupon some of the candi-
dates whose applications for admission were rejected filed writ petitions 
before tbe High Court of Mysore for quashing the orders issued by tbe 
Government and for directing that they shall be admitted in tho colleges 
strictly in tbe order of merit. The High Court rejected tbe contention• 
raised on points of law but found that the selection committee has abused 
its power and directed that the petitioners be interviewed afresh aild ad-
missions be made in accordance with tbe Government Order and letter 
which were declared valid. 
Before this Court it was contended that the Government Jetter was 
invalid inasmuch as it did not comply with tbe provisions of Art. 166 
of tbe Constitution. The next contention was that the Government had 
no power .to appoint a selection committee for admitting 
students to 
colleges on the basis of higher or different qualifications than tbose pres-
:ribed by the University. Another contention was that selection by viva 
voce examination was illegal by reason of the fact that it enables tho 
interviewers to act arbitrarily and therefore it contravenes Art. 
14 of 
the Constitution. Lastly it was contended that unless the observation of 
the High Court that the classification was not perfect since tbe Govern-
ment has not applied the caste test as well as the economic test ii correc-
ted it will mislead the Government. 
Held: (Per B. P. Sinha, C.J., Subba Rao, P.aghubar Dayal and 
Rajagopala Ayyangar JJ.) (i) Ibe provisions of Art. 166 of the Con-
stitution are only directory and not mandatory and, if they are not com-
plied with, it can be established as a question of fact tbat the impugned 
order was issued in fact by the State Government or the Governor. In 
the present case the impugned o

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