LexSURENDRA KUMAR versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
19
SURENDRA KUMAR
v.
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
November 9, 1984
(0. CH!NNAPPA REDDY, A. P. SEN AND E. S. VLNKATARAMIAH, JJ]
Constitution of India 1950-Artides 14, Ifi and 32-4d1nission to ~fedical
Colleges-Selection to be made on basic. of 1nerit-Nomination of candidates by
Chief Minirter-Invalid
Educational Institution-Admission to Medical Col!eges·-Nomination of
candidates by Chief Minister-Invalid and abuse of power-Selection to be stric~
tly on basis of merit.
Nine seat were reserved in the medjcal colleges of Jammu and Kashmir
for candidates from the State of Bihar. Thirty five students applied for thes~
nine seats. A list of seven candidates was prepared by thi Controller of Exa-
minations~cum-Additional Director of Health Services for being recommended
to the Government of Jan1mu and Kashmir. The nan1e of the petitioner
figured as No. 3. Another tentative list of seven candidates had also been
prepared on the basis of merit from the candidates in the waiting list. This list
received nobody's consideration.
From time to time applications along with recommendations of V. I. Ps.
were received by the Chief MMlister's Secretariat and the names of ten per!'ons
other than th1 seven persons from 1he tentative list were recommended by the
Chief Minister from time to time for admission to medical colleges in Jammu
and Kashmir.
A Hewing the Writ Petition,
HELD : 1. Even after thirty-four years of the Constitution proclaiming
equality before the law and equality of opportunity, the Chief Ministers of som~
States continue to regard admissions to Profe<;sional Co~leges and appointnient
to Government posts as their little private empires. [20F]
2 (i) There can be no doubt that there was blatant abuse of power by the
Chief Minister of Bihar. The list of na1nes recomn1ended by the Chief Minis~
ter is quashed.
[22D·EJ
A
8
c
D
E
F
G
(ii) The Government of Bihar shall forthwith prepare a list according to
merit and offer successivel)' to candidates accordine; to merit the opportunity of
ff
A
B
c
D
E
f
G
20
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1985) 2 S.C.R.
pursuing medical education in the medical colleges of Jammu and Kashmir.
The merit list shall be prepared of al J candidates who sought admission into the
local medical colleges and should not be confined to the 35 candidates who
applied for admission to the coJJeges in JammU and Kashmir.
This is because
the Government never invited applications separately for the seats reserved in
the colleges of Jammu and Kashmir. [22F·G]
3. Until a policy is formulated and <tdopted and concrete criteria are
embodied in the procedure to be selected nominations should be made by
following the procedure of selecting candidates strictly on the basis of merit, the
candidates nominated being those in order of merit immediately next below the
candidates selected for admission to the n1edical colleges of the home State.
[2iE·FJ
Suman Gupta v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, AIR 1983 SC 1235,
referred to.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 15329 of 1984.
(Under article 32 of the Constitution)
R.K. Garg and L.R. Singh for the petitioner.
Ln/ Narain Sinha, D. Goburdhan and Jay Narayan for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. Even after thirty four years of the
Constitution proclaiming equality before the law and equality of
opportunity, the Chief Ministers of some States continue to regard
admission to Professional Colleges and appointments to Govern-
ment posts as their little private empires. So recently as on
September 19, 1983, this Court had to disabuse this impression
in s,man Gupta v. State of Jammu and Kashmir('), The question
in that case arose this way : A Certain number of seats in the
medical colleges of one State were reserved for candidates from
other States to be nominated by the Governments of the other
States. Was an absolute power vested in the State Governments
in the choice of candidates for nomination or was it incumbent
on the State Governments to adopt definitive criteria and follow
pre-defined norms? Pathak, J. speaking for himself, Chandrachud
C-J. and Sabyasachi Mukherji J. said :
"After considering the matter carefully, we confess,
H
(I) AIR 1983 SC 1235,
'
'
SuRENDRA KUMAR v. BIHAR (Chinnappa Reddy, I.)
we are unable to subscribe to the view that the selection
of candidates for that purpose must remain in the un-
limited discretion and the uncontrolled cExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.