SHRI CHANDER CHINAR BADA AKHARA UDASIN SOCIETY AND ORS. versus STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 68 · Decided: 11-09-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
SHRI CHANDER CHINAR BADA AKHARA 
UDASIN SOCIETY AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND JRS. 
SEPTEMBER 11, 1996 
[A.M. AHMADI CJ., N.P. SINGH AND B.N. KIRPAL, JJ.] 
Education-Higher education-Admission to professional colleges: 
Medical Colleg~Admission-Selection procedure-P1ivate recognised 
medical college run by society-No rules/guidelines framed by State Govem-
ment for admission-Students seeking admission filed w1it petition before 
High Court-Complaining that failure on pmt of State Govemment to frame 
rules/guidelines deprived them of opp01tunity of seeking admission-Society 
D impleaded as respondent to the said wlit petition-Single Judge of High Cowt 
constituted Committee for selecting candidates on basis of oral interviews and 
fixed time schedule for admission-Pursuant to which advertisement issued 
on 4-10-1995 inviting applications and last date for receipt of applications was 
11-12-1995-/nterviews held between 15 and 17-12-1995-Classes com-
E 
F 
menced from 26-12-1975-But Division Bench in L.P A. stayed operation of 
order of Single Judge and directed selection be made on basis of common 
viva voce examination and that 75% marks for academic qualification and 
25% marks for viva voce be allotted-Advertisement in'Jiting applications 
stipulated that candidate must be pennanent resident of State-Held: orders 
and directions of Single Judge as well as J?ivision Bench of High Court not 
consistent with orders and directions issued by Supreme Court-Time 
Schedule fLXed by Single Judge was perse arbitrary-Percentage of marks 
secured at stage of higher secondmy examination conducted by different 
Boards vary and should not f01m basis of selection-Allotment of 25% marks 
for viva voce examination was unjustified-Condition of eligibility that cmi-
didate must be a pennanent resident of State also unreasonable:-Common 
G entrance examination must be held and admission made in accordance with 
Supreme Court's directions in-Vnnikrishnan and subsequent cases. 
Medical Co/leg~Admission-Plivate recognised medical college-No 
ntles/guidelines framed by State Govemment-Admission made in accbrd-
H ance with High Cowt's directions-Though such directions not consistent with 
68 
C.C. BADA v. STATE 
69 
orders and directions issued by Supreme Court-Held : due to indifferent A 
attitude of State Government and haste shown by college, the so-called 
candidates, who were said to have been admitted, were viltually on the 
roads-But only on equitable grounds, a procedure which was not sanctioned 
by law would not be approved only to mitigate hardship of such candidates 
who had sought admissions in the said medical college. 
B 
The Appellant-Society had the object of promoting medical educa-
tion by establishing medical colleges, hospitals and child welfare· centres. 
A proposal was submitted to the State Government for setting up a 
medical college and a private hospital in the State. The State Government 
allotted land for the proposed medical college and charitable hospital. In C 
due course temporary recognition to the said medical college was granted 
by the Medical Council of India. However, no rules/guidelines were framed 
by the State Government for admissions to the said medical College. 
Some students seeking admission to the said medical college filed a D 
writ petition before the High Court complaining that failure on the part 
of the State Government to frame rules/guidelines to regulate admission 
to the medical college of the Society had deprived them of the opportunity 
of seeking admission. The Single Judge of the Big~ Court constituted a 
Committee for selecting candidates on the basis of oral interviews and 
fixed a time schedule for admission, pursuant to which an advertisement E 
was issued on 4-12-1995 inviting applications. The last date for receipt of 
applications was 11- 12-1995 and interviews were held between 15-12-1995 
and 17-12· 1995 and classes commenced from 26-12-1995. 
The respondents filed a Letters Patent Appeal against the aforesaid F 
order before the Division Bench which stayed the operation of the order 
of the Single Judge. The Division Bench directed that selection be made 
on basis of common viva voce entrance examination and no common 
entrance written examination be held. A direction was also given that out 
of 100 marks awarded for selection of the candidates, 75% shall be for 
academic qualification and 25% shall be for common entrance viva voce G 
examination. P

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