1. Challenge to government orders prescribing admission criteria for professional colleges, including interview marks and reservations for socially and educationally backward classes. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1964 Supreme(SC) 20
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
29th January, 1964
B.P. SINHA, C.J.I., K. SUBBA RAO, RAGHUBAR DAYAL, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR AND J.R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.
(1) R. Chitralekha (In C. A. No. 1056 of 1963)
(2) Venkatesubba Reddy (In C. A. No. 1057 of 1963), Appellants
Versus
State of Mysore and others. (In both the appeals) Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 1056 and 1057 of 1963.
Advocates Appeared
Mr. S. K. Venkataranga Iyengar and R. Gopalakrishnan, Advocates, for Appellants (In both the Appeals); Mr. C. K. Daphtary, Attorney-General for India (M/s. B.R.L. Iyengar and B.R.G.K. Achar, Advocates, with him), for Respondents (In both the Appeals).
Advocates:
B.R.G.K.Achar, B.R.L.Iyengar, C.K.DAFTARY, R.GOPAL KRISHNAN, S.K.VENKATARANGA IYENGAR
B.R.G.K.Achar, B.R.L.Iyengar, C.K.DAFTARY, R.GOPAL KRISHNAN, S.K.VENKATARANGA IYENGAR
The court held that Article 166 is directory, selection by interview is valid if based on objective criteria, and under Article 15(4), "class" is not synonymous with "caste," meaning caste can be a relevant but not the sole or dominant factor in determining social backwardness.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 15(4), 166 - Seventh Schedule, List I Entry 66 and List II Entry 11 - Executive action of State Government - Validity of orders not expressed in the name of the Governor - Provisions of Article 166 are directory and not mandatory; if it is established as a question of fact that the order was issued by the State Government, the order is not a nullity. (Paras 4, 5)
(B) Constitution of India - Seventh Schedule, List I Entry 66 and List II Entry 11 - Coordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education - State power to prescribe qualifications for admission to colleges - State Government is empowered to prescribe reasonable tests for admission so long as it does not contravene any other law or make the exercise of Union legislative power under Entry 66 impossible or difficult. (Paras 7, 8)
(C) Constitution of India - Article 14 - Selection by interview - Not inherently repugnant to the doctrine of equality provided the government lays down relevant objective criteria and entrusts the selection to qualified persons. (Paras 12, 13)
(D) Constitution of India - Article 15(4) - Definition of "Backward Classes" - Expression "classes" is not synonymous with "castes"; caste may be a relevant circumstance in ascertaining social backwardness but cannot be the sole or dominant test. (Paras 15, 19, 21)
Facts of the case:
The State Government established selection committees for admissions to professional colleges, reserving seats for backward classes and introducing interview marks based on criteria such as general knowledge, aptitude, and extra-curricular activities. Petitioners challenged the validity of these orders on the grounds of procedural non-compliance with constitutional requirements for executive actions, encroachment on Union powers regarding educational standards, and violation of the right to equality.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the validity of the orders defining backwardness and the criteria for interviews. It held that the procedural defects in the issuance of the orders did not render them void and that the State had the authority to regulate admissions to its own and aided colleges.
Issues: Whether executive orders not expressed in the name of the Governor are void under Article 166; whether the State can prescribe admission criteria affecting educational standards; whether selection by interview is arbitrary under Article 14; and whether "class" under Article 15(4) can be equated with "caste."
Ratio Decidendi: Article 166 is directory; factual evidence of a government decision validates the action. The State can set admission criteria for its colleges provided they are reasonable. Interviews are valid if based on objective criteria. Under Article 15(4), "class" is a broader category than "caste," and while caste is a relevant factor, it cannot be the sole determinant of backwardness.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- administrative law
- education law
Table of Contents
2. Validity of executive orders under Article 166; State's competency to prescribe admission standards; legality of interview-based selection under Article 14; criteria for determining backward classes. (Para 3 , 4 , 6 , 8 , 9 , 11 , 13 , 14 , 23 , 25 , 26 , 34 , 39 , 40 )
3. Article 166 is directory; State can regulate admissions to its colleges; interviews are valid if based on objective criteria; class under Article 15(4) differs from caste. (Para 4 , 5 , 7 , 8 , 10 , 12 , 13 , 15 , 19 , 20 , 21 )
4. Provisions of Article 166 are directory; class under Article 15(4) cannot be equated to caste, though caste may be a relevant factor. (Para 4 , 15 , 19 , 21 )
5. Appeals dismissed; government orders regarding admission criteria and backward class classification upheld. (Para 22 , 45 )
6. Are the requirements of Article 166 regarding the expression and authentication of executive orders mandatory?
No, the provisions of Article 166 are directory and not mandatory. Non-compliance with the formal requirements of expression and authentication does not render an executive action a nullity, provided it can be established as a question of fact that the order was issued by the State Government or the Governor. (Para 4 , 5 )
7. Can a State Government prescribe admission qualifications for colleges that differ from those prescribed by a University?
Yes, the State can prescribe reasonable criteria for admission to colleges it runs, provided such action does not contravene other laws or directly impair the Union's power to coordinate and determine standards in institutions for higher education under Entry 66 of List I. (Para 7 , 8 , 10 )
8. Is selection by interview inherently repugnant to the doctrine of equality under Article 14?
No, selection by interview is a valid mode of selection in educational institutions provided the government lays down relevant objective criteria and entrusts the selection process to qualified persons. The possibility of abuse is not a ground for quashing the system itself. (Para 12 , 13 )
9. Can the term class under Article 15(4) be equated with caste for determining social and educational backwardness?
No, a class cannot be equated to a caste. While the caste of a group of citizens may be a relevant circumstance in ascertaining their social backwardness, it cannot be the sole or dominant criterion for determining the class to which they belong. (Para 15 , 19 , 20 , 21 )
Judgment
SUBBA RAO, J. : (For himself, Sinha C.J.I. and Raghubar Dayal and N. Rajagopala Ayyangar JJ.)
These two appeals raise the question of the validity of the Orders made by the Government of Mysore in respect of admissions to Engineering and Medical Colleges in the State of Mysore. The facts may be briefly stated: In the State of Mysore there are a number of Engineering and Medical Colleges - most of them are Government Colleges and a few of them are Government aided Colleges. The State Government appointed a common selection committee for settling admissions to the Engineering Colleges and another. Common selection committee for settling admissions to Medical Colleges. The Government by an order dated July 26, 1963, marked as Ex. C in the High Court, defined Backward Classes and directed that 30 per cent. of the seats in professional and technical colleges and institutions shall be reserved for them and 18 per cent. to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. On July 6, 963, the Government sent a letter to the Director of Technical Education in Mysore, Bangalore, informing him that it had been decided that 25 per cent. of the maximum marks for the examination in the optional subjects taken into account for making the selection of candidates for admission to Engineering Colleges shall be fixed as interview marks; it also laid down the criteria for allotting marks in the interview. It appears that a similar order was issued in respect of Medical Colleges. The selection committee converted the total of the marks in the optional subjects to a maximum of 300 marks and fixed the maximum marks for interview at 75. On the basis of the marks obtained by the candidates in the examination and those obtained in the interview, selections were made for admission to Engineering and Medical Colleges. Some of the candidates whose applications for admission to the said colleges were rejected filed petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Mysore for quashing the orders issued by the Government in the matter of admissions to the said Colleges and for a direction that they shall be admitted in the Colleges strictly in the order of merit. The High Court after considering the various contentions raised by the petitioners, held that the orders defining backwardness were valid and that the criteria laid down for interview of student were good; but it held that the selection committee had abused the powers conferred upon it and on that finding set aside the interviews held and directed that the applicants shall be interviewed afresh in accordance with the scheme laid down by the Government in Exs. C and D and in Annexure IV, subject to directions given by it. Two of the petitioners have filed the present appeals against the said order of the High Court.
2. We shall now proceed to deal with the various contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellants.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the Government did not issue any order to the selection committee in charge of admissions to Medical Colleges prescribing the marks for interview or fixing the criteria for allotting the said marks. Annexure IV dated July 6, 1963, relates to award of marks for the interview of candidates seeking admission to Engineering Colleges and Technical Institutions. It was a letter written by the Secretary to the Government of Mysore, Education Department, to the Director of Technical Education in Mysore, Bangalore. Therein the Government fixed the percentage of marks to be allotted at the interview. The selection committee was authorised to allot marks to the candidates, having regard to the following factors:
(1) General Knowledge.
(2) Aptitude and personality.
(3) Previous academic career, including special distinctions, etc.
(4) N.C.C., A.C.C., etc.
(5) Extra curricular activities including sports, social service, debating, dramatics, etc. But at the time of arguments no letter written by the Government in respect of admissio
