Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a bright student with a brilliant academic career, applied for admission to a medical college in Tamil Nadu. He was not selected initially because of low marks in the interview. He challenged the selections before the Supreme Court in Writ Petition No. 285 of 1970, which was allowed on 23 September 1970. The Court held the selections invalid but did not strike them down because selected candidates were not parties. Instead, it directed the State of Tamil Nadu to constitute a separate expert committee to fill 24 unfilled seats, to interview only candidates on the waiting list, unsuccessful High Court movers, and the two petitioners before the Supreme Court, and to allot separate marks under five prescribed heads. In pursuance of this direction, the State constituted a Selection Committee. The Committee called additional candidates for interview but later refrained after the petitioner approached the Court. The Committee distributed the 75 interview marks among the five heads at its own discretion, allocating 10 to 25 marks for different heads. The petitioner was again not selected. He filed the present Writ Petition No. 623 of 1970 under Article 32 challenging the fresh selections. He alleged that the Selection Committee showed open hostility toward him at the interview, that calling additional candidates and distributing marks arbitrarily demonstrated mala fides, and that these illegalities vitiated the selections. The Committee denied hostility and explained that it misunderstood the scope of the previous judgment regarding additional candidates, and believed the operative portion did not require equal distribution. The Court held that the charge of mala fides was serious and required satisfactory proof; the petitioner could not shift the burden merely because outside evidence was unavailable. The Committee's explanations, though not satisfactory, did not establish mala fide. On the legality of the mark distribution, the Court reiterated its earlier view that, in the absence of specific allocation by the Government, each of the five heads must be presumed equal, carrying one-fifth of the interview marks. The Selection Committee was not the rule-making authority and could not distribute marks at its discretion. The procedure adopted was illegal and likely affected the result. Additionally, the Committee proceeded on wholly wrong premises in granting marks to the petitioner under the head 'National Cadet Corps activities'. Therefore, the selections made could not be sustained. The Court ruled in favour of the petitioner, holding the selections invalid due to arbitrary distribution of interview marks and erroneous assessment of NCC activities, while rejecting the plea of mala fides.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Mala Fides Allegation - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 32 - The petitioner alleged open hostility by the Selection Committee and mala fide design due to adverse publicity, but the Committee denied hostility. The burden of proving mala fides rested on the petitioner, and lack of outside evidence could not shift that burden. The Court found the Committee's explanations for calling extra candidates and discretionary mark distribution, though unsatisfactory, did not establish mala fide. Held that serious charge of mala fides requires satisfactory proof and was not established. (Paras 1-4) B) Administrative Law - Selection Process - Equal Distribution of Interview Marks - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 32 - Government allocated 75 marks for interview but did not prescribe separate marks for the five heads; prior judgment had approved the principle that in absence of allocation each head must be deemed equal (1/5th each). The Selection Committee distributed the 75 marks at its own discretion, allocating 10 to 25 marks, which contravened the Court's earlier direction and was likely to affect the result. Held that only Government as rule-making authority could distribute marks, and the procedure adopted was illegal. (Paras 5-7) C) Education Law / Administrative Law - Interview Marks for NCC Activities - Misgrading under National Cadet Corps Activities - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 32 - The petitioner produced an 'A' certificate for NCC training, but the Committee proceeded on wholly wrong premises while granting marks under the head 'National Cadet Corps activities'. This additional illegality reinforced the conclusion that the selections made could not be sustained. Held that the erroneous assessment vitiated the selection. (Paras 5-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Selection Committee acted mala fide; whether its non-compliance with the prior judgment's direction on equal distribution of interview marks vitiated the selections made to unfilled medical college seats.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court held that the selections made by the Selection Committee could not be sustained. The Committee's discretionary distribution of 75 interview marks among the five heads was illegal and contrary to the earlier judgment, and the Committee proceeded on wholly wrong premises in granting marks for NCC activities. The allegation of mala fides was not established due to lack of satisfactory evidence. The selections were invalid.
Law Points
- In absence of specific allocation of interview marks among prescribed heads by the rule-making authority
- each head is presumed equal
- Selection Committee cannot distribute marks at its own discretion
- violation of prior judicial direction likely affects results
- serious charge of mala fides requires satisfactory proof and is not established by mere unsatisfactory explanation.
