( 1 ) THOUGH the impugned selection is challenged in the petition on several grounds only three grounds were pressed for my consideration during the course of hearing. Those grounds are as follows : (2) The selection is vitiated on account of substantive and procedural unfairness arbitrariness and unreasonableness as well as non-application of mind and casualness; more particularly the proceedings of the Selection Committee are vitiated because: (a) no norms or guidelines were laid down for judging the performance of the candidate at the interview and for evaluating his service record; (b) the relative weightage to be given to the performance at the interview and the assessment based on service record was not decided upon; (c) no rational and equitable formula for assessment and quantification of marks was adopted; (d) the relevant and adequate material relating to each candidate was not available for making a just assessment; (e) at the interview which lasted for hardly three or four minutes no relevant questions were put which might have a bearing on judging the suitability of the candidate on the basis of the viva voce test; (f) all the members of the Selection Committee did not individually apply their minds to the selection of candidates on the basis of any known or pre-determined standard and they merely toed the line of the Chairman (Inspector General of Police) as is apparent inter alia from the fact that the Chairmans assessment sheet constitutes the sole authentic record regarding the assessment of each candidate and every selected candidate is found to have received the same grading from all the members; (g) alternatively the time (two to three minutes) spent by the members for arriving at a consensus if any after each candidate was interviewed was too short to enable them to reach a fair judgment bearing in mind all the relevant aspects and viewing the question on an identical basis and from a uniform angle; (h) the minutes of the Selection Committee which record the final decision based on the assessment made during the proceedings of the Selection Committee are factually incorrect and in some cases they do not tally with the actual assessments; (i) the final selection is arbitrarily made because even out of those who secured the same grading only a few were picked up and chosen and others were left out for reasons which are not manifest on the record of the case; (j) whereas qualified experienced and meritorious Head Constables who have successfully undergone the Head Constables training course and are confirmed and have put in long years of service in the cadre of Head Constables have not been selected Head Constables with much lesser experience and inferior service record who have not done the training course and are not confirmed have been selected; on the basis of the record produced by the authorities during the course of the hearing of the petition no explanation much less satisfactory explanation is discernible for such manifestly arbitrary selections. (His Lordship held that in connection with the case of 45 Constables who had not successfully undergone the Head Constables Training course under Rule 121 having regard to the ground on which their selection was found to be defective there was no option but to set aside and quash the selection of those Constables because they were found to be ineligible. The selection in their case was ab initio void.)

( 2 ) BEFORE I proceed to consider the question it would be profitable to refer to some judicial decisions which have a direct bearing on the point under consideration.

( 3 ) THE validity of the admissions made to the Regional Engineering College Srinagar in the academic year 1979-80 was brought in question. The College was sponsored by the Government of India. It was established and its administration and management were carried on by a Society registered under the Jammu and Kashmir Registration of Societies Act 1898 The Society had framed cert