A K SHIMPI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(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.) 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 certain rules regulating its administration. Rule 15 (iv) conferred power on the Board of Governors to make by laws for admission of students to various courses. Pursuant to Rule 15 (iv) the Board of Governors laid down the procedure for admission to students to different courses. For the purpose of the present petition suffice it to say that the procedure for admission to certain categories of students was on the basis of comparative merit as determined under the following scheme: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_398_GLR1_1983Html1.htm</FRM> Separate marks were assigned under four different heads for the viva voce examination. The petitioners in that case challenged the validity of the admissions on the ground that the Society acted arbitrarily in the matter of granting of admissions first by ignoring the marks obtained by the candidates at the qualifying examination; secondly by relying on viva voce examination as a test for determining comparative merit of the candidates thirdly by allocating as many as 50 marks for the viva voce examination as against 100 marks allocated for the written test and lastly by holding superficial interviews lasting only 2 or 3 minutes on an average and asking questions which had no relevance to assessment of the suitability of the candidates with reference to the four factors required to be considered at the viva voce examination. The first ground of challenge was rejected. On the second ground of challenge. the holding was that it could not be said that the oral interview test is so defective that selecting candidates for admission on the basis of oral interview in addition to written test must be regarded as arbitrary. However the following further observations were made while dealing with the said challenge: