Case: Javid Rasool Bhat and Others Etc Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others

test. It appears to us to be a perfectly reasonable procedure. Even otherwise it is always open to a Selection Committee to insist on taking into consideration marks obtained at the examination held by it only and excluding from consideration marks obtained examinations held by other bodies. We are unable to see anything wrong in this procedure. A similar contention was negatived in Ajay Hasias case also where it was observed:"It is difficult to appreciate how a procedure for admission which does not take into account the marks obtained at the qualifying examination but prefers to test the comparative merit of the candidates by insisting on an entrance examination can every be said to be arbitrary".9. Two other submissions which were made in the course of the argument may also be disposed of here. One was that general knowledge and general intelligence were not matters to be tested in the viva voce test but should have been tested in a written examination. That is not a matter for this Court to decide. It was a matter for the Selection Committee to decide whether general knowledge and general intelligence could be more appropriately tested in the viva voce test or in the written test. The other submission was that there was delay in the announcement of results a nd the delay made the selection suspect. We find that there was in fact no delay and we only add that the suspicion, if any, was unfounded.We finally come to the submission on which Shri Anil Dev Singh laid considerable emphasis, namely, that the entire selection was vitiated by the presence on the Selection Committee of the father of one of the candidates. This was said to be a gross violation of one of the principles of natural justice. The grievance is not real. The Principal of Medical College, Srinagar, whose daughter was a candidate for admission to the Medical College informed the Selection Committee at the very outset about this fact and told them that he would not have anything to do with the writ ten test and would not be present when his daughter was interviewed. The other members of the Selection Committee accepted the suggestion of the Principal and did not think it necessary to address the Government to appoint a substitute member of the Selection Committee since the Government had fixed the quorum for a meeting of the Selection Committee as the Chairman and one other member and it was possible to have a quorum without the Principal of the Medical College. Srinagar . The procedure adopted by the Selection Committee and the member concerned was in accord with the quite well-known and generally accepted procedure adopted by the Public Service Commissions every where it is not unusual for candidates related to members of the Service Commission or other Selection Committee to seek employment. Whenever such a situation arises, the practice generally is for the member concerned to excuse himself when the particular candidate is interviewed. We notice that such a situation had also been noticed by this court in the case of Nagarjan v. State of Mysore (1) where it was pointed out that in the absence of mala fides, it would not be right to set aside the selection merely because one of the candidates happened to be related to a member of the Selection Commission who had abstained from participating in the interview of that candidate. Nothing unusual was done by the present Selection Committee. The girls father was not present when s he was interviewed. She was one among several hundred candidates. The marks obtained by her in the written test were not even known when she was interviewed. And, in fact, we find that as a result of her performance at the interview, she lost rather than gained some places.Great reliarlce was placed by the learned counsel on A.K.Kraipk &Ors. v. Union of India (2) on the question of natural justice. We do not think that the case is of any assistance to the petitioners. It was a ca se where one of the persons, who sat as member of the Selection Board, was himself one of the persons to be considered for selection. He participated in the deliberations of the Selection Board when the clams of his rivals were considered. He participated in the decisions relating to the orders of preference and seniority. He participated at every stage in the deliberations of the Selection Board and at every stage there was a conflict between his interest and duty. The court had no hesitation coming to the conclusion that there was a reasonable likelihood of ibis and therefore, there was a violation of the principles of natural justice. In the case before us, the Principal of the Medical College, Srinagar , dissociated himself from the written test and did not participate in the proceedings when his daughter was interviewed. When the other candidates were interviewed, he did not know the marks obtained either by his daughter or by any of the candidates . There was no occasion to suspect his bona fides even remotely. There was not even a suspicion of bias, leave alone a reasonable likelihood of bias. There was no violation of the principals of natural justice.10. One last submission, which we may note, was that there was a contravention of one of the regulations made by the Indian Medical Council. It was said that the regulation prescribed that the marks obtained at the qualifying examination should be taken into consideration in States having only one Medical College and one University/Board/Examination Body conducting the qualifying examination. This regulation has no application because there are two Medical Colleges in this State . Though only one Board conducted the qualifying examination, the examinations were conducted separately for Jammu and Srinagar areas and on two different occasions. In the second place, these regulations, have been held to be directory an d not mandatory by this court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kr. Nivedita Jain.(1)W

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]We do not think that the case is of any assistance to the petitioners. It was a ca se where one of the persons, who sat as member of the Selection Board, was himself one of the persons to be considered for selection. He participated in the deliberations of the Selection Board when the clams of his rivals were considered. He participated in the decisions relating to the orders of preference and seniority. He participated at every stage in the deliberations of the Selection Board and at every stage there was a conflict between his interest and duty. The court had no hesitation coming to the conclusion that there was a reasonable likelihood of ibis and therefore, there was a violation of the principles of natural justice. In the case before us, the Principal of the Medical College, Srinagar , dissociated himself from the written test and did not participate in the proceedings when his daughter was interviewed. When the other candidates were interviewed, he did not know the marks obtained either by his daughter or by any of the candidates . There was no occasion to suspect his bona fides even remotely. There was not even a suspicion of bias, leave alone a reasonable likelihood of bias. There was no violation of the principals of naturallast submission, which we may note, was that there was a contravention of one of the regulations made by the Indian Medical Council. It was said that the regulation prescribed that the marks obtained at the qualifying examination should be taken into consideration in States having only one Medical College and one University/Board/Examination Body conducting the qualifying examination. This regulation has no application because there are two Medical Colleges in this State . Though only one Board conducted the qualifying examination, the examinations were conducted separately for Jammu and Srinagar areas and on two different occasions. In the second place, these regulations, have been held to be directory an d not mandatory by this court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kr. Nivedita Jain.(1)We have considered the various points raised by the petitioners at some length, we have said so much and we have quoted from the previous judgments of this Court in extense not because we find any substance in any of the contentions, but because these contentionsare being repeatedly raised in many such cases and we desire to discourage the raising of unnecessary hope in the minds of the young men and women seeking the aid of courts for admission into professional colleges, ready as they are to clutch at any straw.