ition Nos
9078 to 9106 9025 43 of 1982 24  35
43 46 and 2839 of 1983
Under article 32 of the Constitution of India
WITH Civil Appeal Nos 3812  3813 of 1983
Appeals by Special leave from the Judgement and Order dated the 31st December 1982 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in WP Nos
6844 of 1982  6937 of 1982
AND CMP
13616 16617 22151 22125  23486 of 1983
For the Appearing Petitioners in Writ Petitions MK Ramamurthi Anil Dev Singh Subhash Sharma Satish Vig Shri Narain VK Pandita RD Upadhyay and EC Agarwala 987 For the Appearing Respondents in Writ Petitions GL Sanghi and Mr SN Kacker Altaf Ahmad and Irfan Ahmad
A Subba Rao for the Appellants in Civil Appeals
SS Ray Vineet Kumar TVS Narasimhachari GVL Narasimha Rao and Mrs Urmila Sirur for the Respondents in Civil Appeals
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PATHAK J
This Court has had occasion in the past to entertain the complaints of several young men and women who aspired to admission to the Medical Colleges of their States and had been wrongly denied admission thereto
In the writ petitions and civil appeals now before us the grievance voiced by the petitioners and the appellants takes us to a new category of cases and to a new dimension
They question the validity of nominations by the State Government of Jammu and Kashmir and the State Government of Andhra Pradesh of candidates to seats reserved in the Medical Colleges of other States
The civil appeals are directed against the judgment dated December 31 1982 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissing writ petitions filed by the appellants
The Medical Council of India in its report on under graduate medical education recommended that with a view to encouraging national integration ten per cent of the seats in veery Medical College other than those where admissions were planned on an all India basis should be reserved on a reciprocal basis for students from other States
At the Joint Conference of the Central Council of Health and the Central Family Welfare Council held from December 28 1977 to January 31 1978 the matter was considered and a resolution was passed recommending that five per cent of the seats in Medical Colleges should be reserved for candidates from other States on a reciprocal basis
After protracted correspondence between a number of State Governments the States of Andhra Pradesh Jammu and Kashmir Karnataka Kerala and Tamil Nadu agreed upon such an arrangement
It was decided that each of them would have the right to nominate candidates to seats reserved 988 in the Medical Colleges of the other participating States
We are concerned herewith nominations made by the State Government of Jammu and Kashmir and the State Government of Andhra Pradesh
Twenty two of the thirty nominations made by the State Government of Jammu and Kashmir for the year 1982 83 have been challenged in these writ petitions and all the nominations made by the State Government of Andhra Pradesh have been assailed in the associated Civil Appeals
The petitioners in the writ petitions and the appellants in the appeals were candidates for admission to the MBBS course of studies in the Medical Colleges of their respective States and not having succeeded in that object they claim that they should have been properly considered for nomination by their State Governments to the seats reserved in the Medical Colleges outside their home States because they have secured higher marks in the qualifying examination than the nominated candidates
They urge that the nominations actually made by the State Governments have been made in their absolute and arbitrary discretion without reference to any objective criterion or any controlling norms or guidelines
They also allege that the nominations have been influenced by the personal relationship of the candidates to persons in the ruling political party or to Government officers in positions of high authority
The position taken by the Jammu and Kashmir Government and by the Andhra Pradesh Government is that to serve the objective of national integration the selection of a candidate has to be determined not merely by the marks obtained by him in the qualifying examination but also by his ability to project an appropriate image of the culture of his home State in the State to which he is nominated
It is submitted that no objective criterion is possible in that context and the selection must perforce be left to the absolute and unfettered choice of the State Government
The Andhra Pradesh Government relies on GOM No 508 M  H dated July 27 1979 which brings the scheme into effect from the academic year 1979 80
It expressly provides that the selection of candidates for such nominations is excluded from the purview of the Selection Committees constituted for admission to the MBBS Course in the States
At the outset we may dispose of an objection taken on behalf of the respondents
It is pointed out that the petitioners in the writ petitions and the appellants in the civil appeals applied merely for 989 admission to the Medical Colleges of the home State and have not alleged anywhere that they applied for nomination to a seat in a Medical College outside the State
It is urged that inasmuch as the scheme of nominations to Medical Colleges outside the State is distinct altogether from the scheme of admissions to Medical Colleges within the State the petitioners and the appellants are not entitled to question the validity of those nominations
We are referred to Chitra Ghosh and Another vs Union of India and Others1 In the civil appeals before us however we find that some of the appellants did apply for nomination to a seat in a Medical College outside the State
Besides the Andhra Pradesh High Court has elaborately considered the question on its merits and it seems desirable in the circumstances to pronounce our opinion on the controversy
The objection is overruled
For the purpose of these cases we shall proceed on the assumption that national integration which is undeniably in itself a highly commendable and laudable objective will be effectively served by a policy encouraging the admission of candidates of one State to seats in the Medical Colleges of another State
After considering the matter carefully we confess we are unable to subscribe to the view that the selection of candidates for that purpose must remain in the unlimited discretion and the uncontrolled choice of the State Government
We think it beyond dispute that the exercise of all administrative power vested in public authority must be structured within a system of controls informed by both relevance and reason relevance in relation to the object which it seeks to serve and reason in regard to the manner in which it attempts to do so
Wherever the exercise of such power affects individual rights there can be no greater assurance protecting its valid exercise than its governance by these twin tests
A stream of case law radiating from the now well known decision of this Court in Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India2 has laid down in clear terms that
Article 14 of the Constitution is violated by powers and procedures which in themselves result in unfairness and arbitrariness
It must be remembered that our entire constitutional system is founded in the Rule of Law and in any system so designed it is impossible to conceive of legitimate power which is arbitrary in character and travels beyond the bounds of reason
To contend that 990 the choice of a candidate selected on the basis of his ability to project the culture and ethos of his home State must necessarily be left to unfettered discretion of executive authority is to deny a fundamental principle of our constitutional life
We do not doubt that in the realm of administrative power the element of discretion may properly find place where the statute or the nature of the power intends so
But there is a well recognised distinction between an administrative power to be exercised within defined limits in the reasonable discretion of designated authority and the vesting of an absolute and uncontrolled power in such authority
One is power controlled by law countenanced by the Constitution the other falls outside the Constitution altogether
Proceeding from there it is evident that if the State Government desires to advance the objective of national integration it must adopt procedures which are reasonable and are related to the objective
In this Age of Reason all law must measure upto that standard and necessarily so also must all executive acts
Viewed in this context the claim of the State Government in these cases that the nature of the objective and the means adopted to serve it entitle it legitimately to vest in itself an absolute power in choosing candidates for nomination cannot be allowed to prevail
It is incumbent on the State Government to adopt a criterion or restrict its power by reference to norms which while designed to achieve its object nevertheless confine the flow of that power within constitutional limits
We are not convinced that an adequate system of standards cannot be devised for that purpose
Tested on the touchstone of our constitutional values the claim of the State Government to the content of the power assumed by it must in our opinion be declared invalid
Now the selection of an appropriate procedure lies ordinarily within the domain of administrative policy and when the objective can be fulfilled by more than one constitutionally valid method the selection must be left to administrative choice
The Courts are generally concerned merely with the legal validity of the choice made
We think it desirable therefore to leave it to the Medical Council of India to formulate a proper constitutional basis for determining the selection of candidates for nomination to seats in Medical Colleges outside the State
The problem is one which needs to be tackled at the national level having regard to the objective which is sought to be achieved and to the circumstance that it calls for reciprocal arrangements between Medical Colleges throughout the 991 country
Until a policy is so formulated and adopted and concrete criteria are embodied in the procedure to be selected we direct that nominations 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 Medical Colleges of the home State
Before concluding it is desirable to advert to the contention raised on behalf of the respondents that as the State Government finances medical education within the State it is entitled to exercise an absolute discretion in the nomination of candidates to seats in Medical Colleges outside the State specially when the nomination is part of a reciprocal arrangement between the different States
In our opinion the contention cannot be regarded as valid in view of what has been laid down now by this Court in Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs The International Airport Authority of India and Ors1 Considerable and vehement argument has been addressed on behalf of the petitioners and the appellants that we should make an order revoking the nominations already made by the Jammu and Kashmir Government and the Andhra Pradesh Government
We do not propose to do so
The State Government proceeded in the bona fide belief that the procedure adopted by it was just and proper the basis being one which appears to have been uniformly adopted by all the participating States
Besides the candidates nominated have already covered a substantial part of their course of studies
These considerations considered cumulatively dissuade us from interfering with the nominations already made
In the result we allow the writ petitions and the civil appeals insofar that the principle adopted by the State Governments of nominating candidates in their absolute and unfettered choice to seats in Medical Colleges outside the State is declared invalid
The Medical Council of India is directed to formulate a proper constitutional basis for determining the selection of candidates for nomination to seats in Medical Colleges outside the State in the light of the observations contained in this judgment
Until a policy is so formulated and concrete criteria are embodied in the procedure selected the nominations shall be made by selecting candidates strictly on the basis of merit the candidates nominated being those 992 in order of merit immediately below the candidates selected for admission to the Medical Colleges of the home State
The judgment dated December 31 1982 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court is modified accordingly
In the circumstances of these cases we make no order as to costs
A copy of this judgment and order shall be sent to the Medical Council of India
HSK Appeals  Petition partly allowed


Summary:
With a view to encourage national integration a few States including respondent states agreed upon an arrangement by which a certain percentage of the seats in medical colleges was reserved for candidates from other States on a reciprocal basis
In the year 1982 83 the respondent States made some nominations under the above arrangement
The validity of these nominations was challenged in these writ petitions and civil appeals on the ground inter alia that these nominations had been made by the State Governments in their absolute and arbitrary discretion without reference to any objective criterion or any controlling norms or guidelines
Partly allowing the writ petitions and the appeals  HELD The principle adopted by the State Governments of nominating candidates in their absolute and unfettered choice to seats in Medical Colleges outside the State is invalid
But the nominations already made will not be affected
991 F G E The exercise of all administrative power vested in public authority must be structured within a system of controls informed by both relevance and reason relevance in relation to the object which it seeks to serve and reason in regard to the manner in which attempts to do so
article 14 of the Constitution is violated by powers and procedures which in themselves result in unfairness and asbitrariness
There is no doubt that in the realm of administrative power the element of discretion may properly find place where the statute or the nature of the power intends so
But there is a well recognised distinction between an administrative power to be exercised within defined limits in the reasonable discretion of designated authority and the vesting of an absolute and uncontrolled power in such authority
One is power controlled by law countenanced by the Constitution the other falls outside the Constitution altogether
Proceeding from there it is evident that if the State 986 Government desires to advance the objective of national integration it must adopt procedures which are reasonable and are related to the objective
In this Age of Reason all law must measure upto that standard and necessarily so also must all executive acts
989 E F 989 G 990 A D In the present cases viewed in this context and tested on the touchstone of our constitutional values the claim of the State Government that the nature of the objective and the means adopted to serve it entitle it legitimately to vest in itself an absolute power in choosing candidates for nomination is to deny a fundamental principle of our constitutional life and cannot be allowed to prevail
990 D E Chitra Ghosh and Anr
vs Union of India and Ors
   420 Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India 1978 2 SCR 621 and Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs The International Airport Authority of India  Ors  referred to
The Medical Council of India is directed to formulate a proper constitutional basis for determining the selection of candidates for nomination to seats in Medical Colleges outside the State in the light of the observations contained in this judgment
Until a policy is so formulated and concrete criteria are embodied in the procedure selected the nominations shall be made by selecting candidates strictly on the basis of merit the candidates nominated being those in order of merit immediately below the candidates selected for admission to the Medical Colleges of the home State
991 G H 992 A