The requirement of minimum grading in the Pre-University examination, even for candidates who had taken a higher degree, was not unreasonable and was related to the object of securing proper candidates for admission. The classification of candidates who had taken a higher degree and the refusal to consider their higher qualification was not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

ORDER :- The petitioner herein prays for the issue of a writ of Mandamus to direct the Secretary, Selection Committee, Madras Medical College, to consider the application of the petitioner for selection to the integrated M. B. B. S. course.

2. The selection of candidates for admission to the Government Medical College in the Madras State is made in pursuance of certain executive directions of the Government. In accordance with those directions, the Director of Medical Services, Madras issued what is called a prospectus for the 1963-64 session, in which were set out the minimum qualification required of the candidates seeking admission. The petitioner submitted his application, but though his application was acknowledged, no interview card was sent to him. The selection of the candidates to be admitted is based on the result of an interview. The interview itself is preceded by weeding out applications of candidates whose qualifications do not conform to those set out in the prospectus. The petitioner states that when he made enquiries, he was informed that the results of the Pre-university examination would govern the selection of candidates for interview. The petitioner claims that though the grades that he obtained in the Pre-university course did not come up to the standards, if that course alone was to be considered, he has taken a higher degree examination, that is to say, the B. Sc. course with Botany as the main subject and Zoology as the subsidiary subject, in which he has obtained the requisite grading. His complaint is that on a proper interpretation of the prospectus issued, he is entitled to be considered for selection and not liable to be screened on the basis of his performance in the Pre-university examination. The failure of the second respondent to select the petitioner for interview is attacked as entirely arbitrary and the classification of the candidates who have passed a higher degree examination on the basis of the Pre-university examination results is arbitrary and discriminatory as well in so far as eligibility for admission is concerned. It is accordingly claimed that the guarantee of the protection under Art.14 of the Constitution to which the petitioner is entitled has been denied. It is urged that candidates who have passed a higher degree examination are entitled to be considered despite the character of their performance at the Pre-university examination and cannot be ruled out on the basis of grading they obtained in the Pre-university examination.

3. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent, the selection committee, it is stated that the rules governing the selection of candidates is specified in a Government Order which clearly states that only the performance in the Pre-university examination will be taken into account and that the marks obtained in the B. A. or B. Sc. degree examination shall be ignored. It is urged that since the petitioner has not acquired the necessary grading at the Pre-university examination, his application could not be taken up for consideration by the selection committee. The counter-affidavit also sets out the various subjects in which minimum grades should have been obtained in the Pre-university examination and purports to explain how the petitioner did not come upto the standard required. It is denied that there is any arbitrary classification. The prospectus requires that in all the specified subjects which should be offered for the pre-university examination the candidates should have obtained certain minimum grades. The fact that the petitioner has obtained the requisite grade in one of those subjects in the higher degree examination cannot, according to the counter affidavit, justify his selection for an interview and enable him to be treated differently from the large mass of students who had appeared for the Pre-university examination and had obtained the requisite grading.

4. In a reply affidavit filed by the petitioner it is p