ESTHER KAVITHA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer in the Writ Petition is as follows :-

(2.) The petitioner, who belongs to backward community, after completing the Higher Secondary Examination in March, 1991, applied for the admission for the Diploma Course in Cinematography for the academic year 1991-92. It seems the petitioner got an interview card and she was called for an interview before the Selection Committee on 18-11-1991. After the interview, it seems, in the interview she was not asked any question. But, it was alleged that she was asked how did she come to know Mr. Ashok Kumar, a famous cinematographer as Cinematography apprentice and about the girl who is now working, under him. It seems the results were published on 10-1-l992 and when the results were published the petitioner came to know that she was not selected. At this stage, the petitioner has come up to this Court with the above said prayer.

(3.) It is alleged in the affidavit that in G.O.Rt. No. 637 Information and Tourism (F.T.I.) Department . dated 16-l1-1991 a Selection Committee constituted for conducting interview for admission of students to various courses conducted by Film and T.V. Institute, Madras for the year 1991-92. It is alleged in the affidavit the procedure is stated to be followed in selecting the students to various courses. In the selection procedure, the lst respondent has allotted 50 marks for qualifying examination and 50 marks for aptitude and general ability, and apart from this 30% seats will be set apart for women candidates in each category of the reservation. It is alleged in the affidavit that in the present case the petitioner has applied for the diploma course in Cinematography and the total number of seats available in the above course is 10 and as such, according to the G.O., minimum 3 seats have to be allotted to backward community and out of these 3 seats available for backward community one seat has to be allotted for women candidates, but, the Selection Committee did not allot any scat for woman candidate in the category of backward community as per the G.O. and as such the entire mode of selection is vitiated. It is alleged in the affidavit that 50% of marks were allocated for oral interview as against 50% of marks allocated for qualifying examinations and the allocation of such high percentage of marks for oral interview is against the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in many decisions especially in AIR 1981 SC 487. Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi. It is also alleged in the affidavit that she was interviewed just for 3 minutes and no question was put before her for assessing and examining the capacity and calibre of the petitioner and according to the petitioner, the interview itself is a make-belief affair and the Government has not prescribed any guidelines to be followed by the Selection Committee as to how the marks should be awarded in the oral interview and it is left to the whims and fancies of the Selection Committee and so, it is stated, the selection is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner suggests some sort of mala fides also in the affidavit.