Holding

The 2% reservation for outsiders is unconstitutional, but diploma marks are valid if the diploma was earned before the application deadline and the result was known before selection, and the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, quashed the High Court order and directed specific admissions and addition of seats.

Summary

The Kerala State medical colleges reserved 2% of post‑graduate ophthalmology seats for candidates from outside the state, and allowed extra marks for diploma holders even when diploma certificates were not attached to the application. The High Court struck down the 2% reservation and quashed admissions based on diploma marks, but the Supreme Court held that the reservation violated Articles 14 and 15, while the diploma marks could be validly considered if the diploma was obtained before the application deadline and the result was known before selection. The Court set aside the High Court's order, quashed the earlier selections, and directed that two additional seats be created for the current academic year to admit the eligible candidates. It also ordered the admission of Dr. Naomi and Dr. Gopalakrishnan and permitted Dr. Skaria to continue his course pending further relief. The judgment emphasized a balanced, welfare‑oriented judicial approach that avoids wasting seats and upholds equal opportunity in higher education.

Issues considered

The constitutional validity of a 2% reservation for candidates from outside Kerala in the open merit pool under Articles 14 and 15.
Whether the special communication (Ext. P3) could override the prospectus clauses requiring diploma certificates to be attached with the application.
Whether diploma marks may be awarded when the diploma certificate is produced after the application deadline but before the selection process.
Whether the High Court's quashing of admissions and its direction to re‑run the selection process was lawful.
What appropriate remedial relief should be granted to avoid disruption of the academic year.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 15

Subjects

reservationequal opportunityArticles 14 and 15medical educationdiploma marksadmission policyKeralapost‑graduate coursesjudicial interventionconstitutional law

Judgment

71

CHARLES K. SKARIA A
v.
DR. C. MATHEW
March 19, 1980
[V. R. KRISHNA !YER AND R. S. PATHAK, JJ.]
Constitution of India 1950, Articles 14 and IS-Admission to Post Gradu- B
ate degree and diploma course in medicine-Reservation Quota of 2% of total
number of seats for candidates from entire country minus Kera/a-Such reser-
vation-Whether valid.
The Kerala State runs three medical colleges with post-graduate degree and
diploma courses in two of its Universities (Trivandrum and Calicut). The
selection is made from among candidates guided by the prospectus issued in this
behalf and the Selection Committee makes the selection. The principal of the C.
Medical College, Trivandrum., being the convener thereof. A notification invit-
ing applications was published in the Gazette dated 27-2-1979 wherein the last
date for receipt of application for the post graduate course in ophthalmology
was set down as March 31, 1979. Candidates were considered on the basis of
their merit, marks being allotted for various attributes including military service,
membership of the Scheduled Castes and Tribes, and holding of medical dip-
lomas. The competitive marks provided for 10% to diploma holders in the D
selection of candidates to M.S. and M.D. courses in the respective subjects or
sub-specialities.
The Kerala State provided a quota of 2 % of the total number of seats for
candidates from the entire country minus Kerala.
While clause 12 of the prospectus fro\Vned upon late and/ or defective
applications, clause 13 provided that attested copies of the statement of marks E
at each professional examination and those of other documents should be
attached with every application.
The Special Secretary to the State Government in a communication to the
Selection Committee informed that as the result of the Diploma Course con-
ducted by the Medical College, Trivandrum would not be available before the
la~ date for the receipt of applications, 10% weightage may be given to the
concerned applicants, subject 'to the condition of production of the Diploma F
Certificate before finalisation of the selection to the post-graduate course.
The number of seats for the post-graduate degree course in Ophthalmology
available for the year 1979-80 was six of which one belonged to Schedule
Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidate, another to a tutor working in a medical col-
lege. The State was left with four seats.
In the Writ Petition, the High Court held that one of the students, Dr. G
•' Gopinathan Nair, was so meritorious that none challenged his admission, and
that there was no inherent lacuna or illegality in the communication Ex P 3
of the Special Secretary to the Selection Committee. Jn appeal, the Full Bench
• of the High Court, allowed the appeal holding that Ex P 3 cannot have the effect
of over-riding the effect of clauses 12 and 13 of the prospectus and quashed the
selections made on the basis of the rank list for admission.
In the appeals to this Court on the question whether the 2% reservation H
for the entire country's candidate population from outside Kerala in the "Open
Merit Pool", was valid,
72 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 3 S.C.R.

A HELD : l. Principled policy, consistent with constitutional imperatives
(Articles 14 and 15) must guide admissions to courses in higher professional
education but Governments and Universities, not infrequently take liberties with
this larger obligation under provincial pressures and institutional compulsions
and seek asylum in reluctant pragmatism mindless of hostility to oonstitution · '
a1ity. Nothing is more harrowing for the Court, with increasing litigation and
thereby forced in to slow motion and unwilling to intervene in an administra-
B tive area than to hamper the stategic stages of educational prcr..ess like admis-
sion andexaminations, but the Justice System cannot run- away from hea.ring and •
deciding questions of unconstitutionality, especially when educational authorities
shape policies, change rules and make peace with the crisis of the hour, ignor-
ing the parameters· of the National Charter. Mistrust of Government, is viola·
tive of comity between instrumentalities and is not permissil,)le unless substan-
ti!:lted by facts. Suspicion is the upas tree under whose shade reason fails and
justice dies. High Court has thrown the academic year in post-graduate Opthal-
mology into disarray and even wastage. [74 F-H, 77 G-H]
2. Welfare-oriented judicial process must be constructive in its objective,
must be geared to order as its goal and must pave the way for resultant con-
tentment, avoiding negative writs which, in practice, prove to be congealing
commands. [78 D-E}
3. In the instant case, the High Court, on the crucial question, has correctly
D
stated the law regard denial of opportunity for 'outsiders' and consequ.ently
found the admission to the courses all wrong, but through its judgment, has r
jettisoned students who are half-way through their courses and directed fresh
admission.,. on new policies yet to be evolved, with little chance of any one
geU.ing through the examinations or even admissions during this acaden1ic year.
[78 E-F]
F. 3. Whatever might be the passion for correct law and provocation on
account of governmental indifference, the Court must use its power
to correct error and promo_te order and not strike down an illegal error With-
out going forward to affirmative action which may minimise injury generally.
The judicial process, in its creative impulse, must hesitate to scuttle, salvage
wherever possible and destroy only when the situation is beyond retrieval.
[79 D-E] .
F 4. The scheme of reservation or a Paltry 2% for candidates in the whole
country outside the two universities of the State has not been substantiated as
a sufficient fulfilment of Articles 14 and 15. Fundamental rights of candidates
do not depend on the grace of governments and Indians are not, aliens in their
own motherland when asking for seats on the score of equal opportunity. A
host of goCKi reasons may weigh with the state in formulating prefences,
reservations and other cases of choice provided they do not outrage Arts. 14
G
.•
and 15, or promote the process of equalisation as a dynamic phase of equality.
What is paramount is equal opportunity for each. [81 D-F] y

State of Kera/a v. V. M. Thomas, [1976] 2 S.C.C. 310 referred to.
5. Law in action being a healing art, the Court must strive to avoid driving
out the students half-way through their course and to see that no costly seat
•
for advanced studies in which the community as a whole has a stake is wasted.
H 'fhe Court should not give up the search for alternatives. {82 E-F]
6. There is nothing unrea~onable nor arbitrary in adding 10 marks for
holders of a diploma. But to earn this extra 10 marks, the diploma must be
' CHARLES K. SKARIA V. C. MATHEW 73 A
obtained at least on or before the last date for application, nor later. Proof
of having obtained a diploma is different from the factum of having got it.
It is prudent to produce evidence of the diploma alongwith the application, but
that is secondary. Relaxation of the date on the first is illegal, not so on the
secord. .A.cademic excellence, through a diploma for which extra marks is
granted, cannot be denuded because proof is produced only later, yet before the
date of acrual selection. The emphasis is on the diploma, the proof thereof
subserves lhe factum of possession of the diploma and is not an independent
factor. [84 D-F] B
7. When a statute vests a public power and conditions the manner of exer.
cise of that power then the law insists on that mode of exercise alone. It is
unconcerned with that rule. A method of convenience for proving possession
of a qualification is merely directory. Moreover, The prospectus itself permits
government to modify the method. There is nothing objectionable with the
government directive to the selection committee, nor in the communication to
the selection committee by the university, nor even in their taking into considera-
c
tion and giving credit for diplomas although the authentic copies of the dip-
lomas \Ver~ not. attached to the application for admission._ [86 A-CJ
8. Much of hardship and harassment in Administration flows from over-
empha>;is on the external rather than the essential. The government and the
selection committee rightly treated as directory (not mandatory) the mode of
proving the holding of diplomas and as mandatory the actual possession of the D
diploma. The frustrating delay in getting copies of degree was by-passed by
the State Government by two steps. Government informed the selection com-
mittee that even if they got proof or marks only after the last date for appli-
cation:9 bnt before the date for selections they could be taken note of and
secondly the Registrars of the Universities informed officially which of the
candidates had passed in the diploma course. The selection committee did not
violate any mandatory rule nor act arbitrarily by accepting and acting upon E
these step» £86 D-GJ
9. The three candidates who had been eventually admitted by the selection
committee could not be ousted merely for the reason that the certificate of
diploma had not been produced together with the application for admission.
Nor, indeed, could government be faulted for issuing a directive to the selec-
tion committee that applications from students of the diploma Course could be
F
considered sub-ject to the condition that they would "produce the. diploma certi·
ftcate bef•re finalising the selection to post-graduate course". [87 A·B]
10. Though appellant No. 1 bas no legal claim to a seat, the overall circum-
!tances. merit compassionate consideration and the Court directed. The Kerala
University and the Indian Medical Council directed to permit hin1 to complete
his ceur::e by adding one more seat, for this year only, to the ophthalmic degree
• course. Marginal adustments by increasing one seat more is possible without G
injury to academic efficiency. [88 F-H]
11. Directed that the State of Kerala and the Principal of the Trivandrum
Medical College, who is the convener of the Selection Committee, as \.V'ell as
the two universities concerned,. admit into the post-graduate ophthalmology
cemse Dr. Naomi and Dr. Gopal Krishnan for this year. The two applicants
will be accorded admission on their reporting within ten days. [91 E-D J H
-Stote of Kera/a v. Kum. T. P. Roshana [1972] 2 SCR 974 : A. Pcriakarup-
pan v. State of Tamilnadu [1971] 3 SCR 449 referred to.
6-189 SCl/80
,
74 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 3 S.C.\l..

A 12. The 2% open seats for the candidates from all the Universities of India
outside- Kerala runs counter to the constitutional directive of equal opportunity
and the preambuler emphasis on national integrity. The State will do well to
fashion a formula in terms of the ~idelines given by this Court in Dr. lagdish
Saran's v. Union of India and others, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 831 [91A-G]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 641-644of 1980.
B
Appeals by Special !Leave from the Judgment and ·order dated
10-12-1979 of the Kerala High Conrt No. W.A. No. 22/79, W.A. No.
245/79 and O.P. No. 1586/79.
P. Govindan Nair and:A. S. Nambiar for the App,llants in C. A. No.
641 to 643/80.
c M.M. Abdul Khader and V.J. Francis for the App,Uant in C.A.
No. 644/80.;
T.S. Krishnamoorthy Iyer and N. Sudhakaran for the Respondent
No.1 in C.As. Nos. 641 to 644/80.)
Tne Judgment of the C JUrt was delivered by
D
KRISHNA IYER J., Tiie universities in the country are often
among the contributaries to the flood of litigation in the higher
courts Of the country. rais pathological condition, to Which the
healing attention of the nation's educational leadership. Toe·
above appeals before us present cb.lllen;is to tlu solum: of a1.
mission to post graduate courses in m:dicine in th, CJlleg'; of the
Kerala State. But since that State is not alone in the tendency to
temporarian with constitutional valu!s and writ p'titioas for college'"
admissions are almost a hardly annual, we d,em it our duty to p'rmit
ourselves a few preliminary observations before proceeding to the
fact-situation and conflict-resolution.
F
Principled policy, consistent with constitutional imp,ratives
(Arts. 14 and 15) must guide admissions to courses in higher professio·
nal education but Government and Universities, not infrequently
take liberties with this larger obligation under provincial pressures
and iustitutional compulsions and seek asylum in reluctant prag-
G matism miudless of hostility to constitutionality. Nothing is more
harrowing for the Court, over-burdened with increasing litigation
and thereby forced into slow motion, and. unwilling to intervene in
an administrative area, than to hamper the strategic stages of edu-
cational processes like admissions and examinations, but the Justice
system cannot run away from hearing and deciding questions of
H unconstitutionality, especially !when educational~authorities shape
policies, change rules and make peace with the crisis of the hour,
ignoring the parameters of the National Charter. We make these
CHARLES K. SKARIA v. c. MATHEW(Krishn{l Iyer, J.) 75

-0bservations driven by the painful experience of facing this situation A
year after year, from State after State. If higher education bids fare-
well to national vision and equal opportunity-the two fundamental
criticisms levelled before us in these cases-what hope is there for
constitutionalism save surrender to provincialism and lobby power
leaving the fortunes of students of advanced learning to litigative
astrology annually ? A national consensus on this issue is long B
over-due and we venture to suggest that the Union of India will
actively involve the academic community and the States, and put
the problem on the urgent national agenda and reach solutions
constitutionally permissible and agreeable to the genius of the States
vis-a-vis post-graduate courses. No State nor University can despise
the Constitution nor leave in 'inglorious uncertainty' or myopic c
ad hocism the career of its talented human resources.
Back to the facts. The Kerala State runs three medical colleges
with post-graduate degree and diploma courses in two of its uni-
versities Trivandrum and Calicut. The selection is made from among
candidates guided by the prospectus issued in this behalf and the D
Selection Committee makes the selection, the principal of the Medi·
cal College, Trivandrum, being the convener hereof. A notification
inviting applications was published in the Gazette dated 27-2-1979
wherein the last date for receipt of applications was set down as
March, 31, 1979. Candidates were considered on the basis of
their merit, but the concept of merit was broadened in such man- E
ner that marks were allotted for various attributes including mill·
tary service, membership of the Scheduled Castes and Tribes, and,
were relevant to the point raised in the present case, holding of medi·
cal diploma. One of the post-graduate courses offered by two
of the colleges is in opthalmology and we are concerned directly
with the competitive claims among the candidates for this course F
.~ .. only. Right at the outset, we wish to make it clear that we con·
fined ourselves to the comparative merits of the candidates for the
post graduate degree course in Opthalmology and do not wish to disturb
any other course lest there should be upsets beyond what we intend.
The competitive marks admittedly provided for 10% to dip·
Joma-holders in the selection of candidates to M.S. and M.D. G
courses in the respective subjects or subspecialities. We are not
• concerned with the other aspects of the selection process such as
percentages in favour of candidates belonging to the scheduled
castes and tribes (10 %). Again, 20 % of the seats were set apart
for the teaching staff in the medical colleges.
H
One of the bones of contention between the parties in the
High Court related to candidates from universities outside Kerala.
76 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1980] 3 S.C.R.

Articles 14 and 15 do not recognise state frontiers or the cult of 'the
"sons of the soil', if we may speak generally ar.d ever-simplisti-
cally. The necessary implication of the constitutional mandate
is that every basic degree-holder who fills the bill can apply for '
admission for post-graduate courses. But t)le Kerala State, in its
wisdom, provided a niggardly quota of 2 % of the total number of
• seats for candidates from the entire countcy. minus Kerala-not a
catholic approach informed by nationalist generosity, if we may
say so with ;some trepedition. By way of aside we may ob·
serve that other States, observed with provincial impulses, are
equally parsimonious is no validation of a violation of law, if
it be so. Anyway, the prospectus provided that "instead of open
c competition, 2 % of the seats under general merit are set apart for
candidates coming from out side Univer~ities other than Kerala and
Calicut."
Another facet of the forensic right before the High Court
needs to be mentioned before we proceed to a formulation of the
D issues debated in thls Court. While clause 12 of the prospectus
frowns upcn late ard/cr cldccti\·e £tplicaticm, clrnfe 13 ftatcs :
Certificates to be prcdtcrd :-In all ca<es true
copies of the following documents have to beprcduced :-
xx xx xx]
(k) Any other certifcates required along with the
application.
Clause 13 in the form of application for admission contains an expla-
nation which deserves mention in this context :
NB : Attested copies of the statement of marks at
each professional examination and those of othe1:
documents should be attached with every application.
Here also specify whether a diploma holder or having
Military service or Rural service and also whether certi-
ficates to this effect have been produced.
(emphasis added)
G While the prospectus is a fairly comprehensive repository of
of the directions issued by the State Government in regard to the
selection of candidates, the opening passage in paragraph 4 thereof
contains the following statement :
"The selection of candidates will be made according
H to G.O. Ms. 280/76/HD dated 14-7-1976 as modified from
time to time which shall be deemed to have incorporated
ibid"
CHARLES K. SKAR!A v. c. MATHEW(Krishna Iyer, J.) 77

(This power to modify is not arbitrary and can be exercised only A
reasonably). Apparently in exercise tof this power and making
a realistic appraisal of the examination-situation in the Calicut
and Kerala universities, the Special Secretary to Government issued
a communication to the Selection Committee, the operative portion
whereof has relevance to the discussion that is to follow :
It is noted that the result of the Diploma Course. B
conducted in Medical College, Calicut will be published
before the last date for the receipt of application to the
post-graduate course, while the result of the students of
Medical College, Trivandrum wiU not be available before
the last date for receipt of appliation to post-graudate
course.
c
Thus the students of Medical College Trivandrum are
placed at a disadvantage, I am therefore to inform you
that it has been decided that applications from the stu-
dents of the Diploma Course, Trivandrum may also
be considered and that [10% weightage may be given D
to the post graduate students of Diploma course in
Medical College Trivandrum, subject to the condition
that they will [produce the [Diploma Certificate before
finalising the selection to post-graduate course.
The learned single Judge who had specially examined the Govern-
ment file in this connection, with an eye on the legitimacy of the
processes involved and the sufficiency of the notings and consultations
made, came to the conclusion that the rcommunication never re-
presented the decision of the Government and was in conformity
with Secretariat practice. The learned single Judge summed up his
view thus : F
There is thus no inherent lacuna or illegality in the
proceedings which led to Ext. P3. I hold that Ext. P3
was validly issued.
Nothing presented to us persuades to a contrary view although
we may presently advert to what, with a slant, the Full Bench of the
f G
High Court had to say, in appeal, on this aspect of the matter
Mistrust of Government, implicit in the judgment of the Full Bench
in appeal, is violative of comity between instrumentalities and
T
is not permissible unless substantiated by facts, It has been
well said that susp1c1on is ;the upas tree under whose
shade reason fails and justice dies. We permit ourselves these H
ob;ervatio:i.; oJ.ly bi~au;e th: lem1:i C!iief '.Justic: wil.o spJke for j
the Full B:nch did use words which did not indict but did suspect:
78 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 3 S.C.R,

A We wish to record lthat it was stated for Res-
pondents 4 and 5 in W.A. No, 222 and 245 of 1979 [that
the marks of the Diploma Test were communicated to
the principals on J before the last date for receipt of
applications and received by them on :31-3-1979, There
wa~ nothing to show whether [the communication was an
8 open or an authenticated one and we are _doubtful to say
no more whether at ~acquisition of qualification for
eligibility and weightage, ![subsequent to the last date
for application can save an [applicant who did not have
these on_the said date. We ;are clear that Ext. P3 :cannot
have the effect of overriding [the effect of clauses 12 and 13
()
(k) of the Prospectus.]
,(emphasis supplied)'
We will scan the soundness of this criticism in due course.~
It is fair to state now that we have sketched the backdrop, what
the further facts are and what the High Court's verdict is. We may
D abbreviate the narration because we substantially agree with the
main legal point decided by the High Court. Regrettably, its ulti-
mate direction has thrown the academic year in post-gradute Opthal-
mology into disarray and even wastage, Welfare-oriented judicial
process must be constructive in its objective, must be geared
to: order as its goal and must pave the way for resultant con-
I! tentment, avoiding negative writs which, in practice, prove to
be congealing commands, Indeed, the High Court, on the crucial
question, has more or less correctly stated the law regarding denial
of opportunity for 'outsiders' and consequently found the ad-
mission to the courses all wrong, but through its judgment, has
jettisoned students who are half-way through their courses and
F directed fresh admissions on new policies yet to be evolved, with
little chance of any one getting through the examinations or
even admissions during this academic year consistently with the
university regulations and governmental tardiness. We cannot
countenance such negativity without some effort at rescue through
G the court writ since a whole year of opthalmology study at the post•
graduate level may well be lost to the State, what with the enormous
investment in running such courses that the universities have laid
out and the people's need for such specialists, The ~Full Bench deci-
sion of the High Court, in its '.ultimate effect, has left behind it a fall-
out of demolition :
·_ B As a result of our above discussion and conclusion
_we allow N.A. No, 222 of 1979 and set aside the judgment
of the learned Judge and the rank list for admission to
CHARLES K. SKARIA v. c. MATHEW(Krishna Iyer, !.) 79

;\
the post-graduate courses in Opthalmology, and quash
the selections made on the basis of the said list.
We were rather distressed at having to quash the
selections of budding youngsters to the specialised
courses. Such thoughts prevailed with us in the Full
Bench decision in State of Kera/a and Anr. v. Rafla Rahim B
)
(1978 KLT 369). While the petitioners in those cases
won the battle, they were denied the fruits of victory.
We see no ground for a repetition of the same treatment
to the petitioners before us. Particularly it is so, because
some of them had filed the writ petitions before the selec-
tions, and some had obtained interim orders that the selec- c
tions shall be finalised only subject to the result of the
writ petitions in this court. We cannot lightly pass over
these aspects. We would accordingly quash the selections
made and directly a fresh selection to the courses, in accor-
dance with law and in the light of the observation contained
D
in this judgment.j
Whatever might be the passion for correct Jaw . and pro-
vocation on account of rgovernmental indifference, the court, in
our view, must use its p.ower to correct error and promote order
and not strike down an illegal error without going forward to
affirmative action which may minimise injury generally. Indeed, the E
judicial process, in its creative impulse, must hesitate to scuttle, salvage
wherever possible and destroy only [when the situation is be)lond
retrieval-life-giving facts forgotten by the High Court when quashing
the admissions for the year. This positive perspective justifies the final
dincticn that we frrne in the ccrckding rara cf this jccgn:rnt, if we
may anticipate the nature of the relief we have moulded. F
Some more facts may now be narrated merely to illumine
the ground on which we are disposing of these appeals. Indeed, our
anxiety to hasten the pace of justice and reduce the damage to the
courses under way has persuaded us into hearing full arguments at
the earliest stage conceivable. Having recently discussed a similar G
issue in Dr. Jagadish Saran's case (1) we desist from elaborately
examining the merits of one of the major issues raised here. Abrid-
ged facts, condensed examination and brief directions will suffice,
although arguments have been full and helpful.
The number of seats for the post-graduate degree course in Opthal-
mology available for the year 1979-80 was six, of which one belonged H
(!) [198012 s.c.R. 831
80 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 3 S.C.R •.

A to a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidate, another to a tutGr
working in a medical college. Tae State was left with four seats.
The High Court has clarified th1t one of the stu:bnts, Dr. Gopi-
y
mthan N1ir, wis so m!ritorio·1; that no,, chatleng>d his admission.
Three seats and six contenders, was the musical chair !cenario.
The story thus begins with three seats for post-graduate opthal-
R
mology and the whole exercise is confined to allotment of these seats
in conformity with the equal op?ortunity rule which is constitutionally
inviolable. The seleCtion committee, acting on the gaidelines,
had to award 10 marks extra for those who had a post-graduate
diplom>-1 reasonable .recognition of an additional accomplishment
c relevant to the object of excellence in the pnt-graduate degree
course. So, no one has attacked the propriety of this addition.
On the contrary, both sides have relied on this qualification, the
battle being over the subiidiary issue of whether the appellants before
us, whose admission to the courses has been undone by the High
Court were entitled to reckon in their favour the possession of a
D diploma the certificate for which was issued to them only after the
last date for applications for the post-graduate degree. We. will
presently state the events which give rise to this argument. Right
or wrong, the Selection C):nn'ttee did admit three students who
undoubtedly p)mssed diplo:nll ani, if th' m1rks eligible on that
score were to be tacked on, the selections were unassailable except
E at. the instance of candidates from univmities outside Kerala and
- one of wJ.o:n did .suoce>sfully ch1\lenge the selections b>fore the High
Court.'
Had the final shape of the High Court's order been left int'.\ct it
would have meant tbt all those doing their course would be out
F and the elaborate process of framing fresh rules would iuvolve
discussion and debate, consultation and formulation, and then invi-
tation for ap;ilications, only to fild that, at the end of this e'\cunion,
everybody has missed the bus since time does nJt stand sti'l until
government implements the High Court's will.
The major target of attack before the High Court was the 2 %
G reservation for the entire country's candidate pJp'.llation from
outside Kerala in what w1s c11ie;i the "op:n mJrit pJol". TO.: r01.sQn
for the nullilication of the pmimo'1ious 'percentage for '0·1t;1de'
candidates in the op!n m erifpool has p:en stated by the High Court
•
thus :
H Despite our anxiety, we are afraid we cannot salvage
the principle of selection introduced by the. GJVern m;it
under clause 5(c) as a'llounting to a rat10nal clasS1fi·
CHARLES K. SKARIA-v. c. MATHEW(Krishna Iyer,!.) 81

cation based on intelligible differentia having a rational A
; nexus with the object sought to be served. Whether
intentionally or otherwise, it strikes us as clever device to
oust the 'outside' University Graduates from the general
merit pool and to confine them to an illusory scheme of
reservations.
B
We have dealt with the policy of institutional reservations paring
down the availability of seats for candidates from other universities,
in Dr. Jagadish Saran's case (supra). Although in that decision we
1tltimately desisted from striking down the formula · adopted by
the Delhi University with a view to avoiding a stalemate for
the year, we did direct that University to reconsider the whole pro- c
blem of admissions and reservations in terms of Arts. 14 and 15
and concretise the constitutional guidelines in that behalf. Having
regara to the ratio in the above case, we are not inclined to reverse
the view of the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in the judg·
ment under appeal in so far as it has taken the view extracted above.
Even so, we feel the need to pursue the matter further because we D
must design the relief with the least disturbance and not annul the
ccurse for the year as a legal consequence.
The scheme of reservation of a paltry 2 % for candidates in the
wrole country outside the two universities of the State has not been
substantiated as sufficient fulfilment of Arts. 14 and 15. Funda-
mental rights· of candidates do not depend on -the grace of goverii::' E
ments and Indians are not aliens in their own motherland when asking
for seats on the score of equal opportunity. A host of good reasons
may weigh with the State in formulating preferences, reservations
and other cases of choice provided they do not outrage Arts'.'14'
and 15, or, indeed, as suggested by this Court in the Thomas case(J.)
may promote the process of equalisation as a dynamic phase of
equality. What is paramount is equal opportunity for each.
The Government, in its wisdom, made provision !for scheduled
castes/tribes, backward classes, students from the colleges of Kerala
and other categories and, after working out these enclaves of exclu-
sivism and immunity from national competition on sheer merit, G
wound up with a magnificent 2 %of the total seats by way of homage
to "equal opportunity" open to all Indian candidates put together
(less Kerala candidates).
Can it be that, while sloganising against the parochial doctrine
of "sons of the soil", States policy in higher education does not
H
.concede'.more than 2% to Indian candidates qua Indians who are

(I) Kera/av. N. M. Thomas, [1976] 2 S.C. C. JJO.
82 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 3 S.C.R.

A not otherwise sheltered by the dykes of reservations ? The High
Court was obviously dissatisfied twith the governmental policy
of 2% for "open"' seats which was more a mockery of national in-
tegrity, read with equal opportunity, than a sincere respect for the
foundational faith enshrined in Arts. 14 and 15. You cannot lay
wreath and claim to garland if we may put the point in poignant
B imagery. Therefore, the High Court struck down the formula for
selection because it regarded that a higher proportion of seats for all
in "open competition" was a constitutional necessity. We do not
delve into this aspect at greater length or scan the pros and cons of the
point canvassed because we have already decided in Dr. Jagadish
Saran and Ors. v. Union of India (Supra) what guidelines should govern
c admissions to medical colleges at the higher levels. We, therefore,
do not propose to interfere with the holding of the High Court
that 2 % for "outsiders" is not sustainable in law. But, we must,
even here, caution the Kerala State that an enlightened policy of ad-
mission to institutions of higher studies in harmony with the cons-
titution must be formulated if it is not to be guilty of contributing
D
to the confusion in college campuses and "student litigation" which
paralyse educational life.
Even though we desist from demolishing the reasoning of the
High Court on the trivial 2 %, we cannot appreciate the negative
stance or note of nullity adopted in the final relief. Remedial juris-
E prudence is benign judge power. Law in action being a healing art,
we must strive to avoid driving out the students half-way through
their course and to see that no costly seat for advanced studies in
which the community as a whole has a stake is wasted. We do not
think the court should give up the search for alternatives. Actually,
we persuaded counsel on both sides to make a constructive
F approach. So viewed, it became feasible for us to reach a reason-
able and viable solution to the problem, as will be presently explained. ___..l
In conclusion, we agree with the High Court that 2 % in the 'merit
pool' for 'outside' candidates is not shown to be rational and so
the 'outsider candidates (to use the High Court's expression) should
have been considered even beyond 2 %. But how far and under what
G conditions is for the State to consider. (see Dr. Jagdish Saran, supra).
Now we come up against the other limb of the argument which
appealed to the High Court. The three candidates already admitted to
the Opthalmology course secured their. seats on the basis of 'diploma
marks'. Had they no diplomas they would have been screened out.
H The High Court.has taken the view that the diplomas of the appellants
should have been excluded from consideration by the Selection Com-
mittee. Why? The ground is given by the Full Bench in appeal thus:
CHARLES K. SKARIA v. c. MATHEW(Krishna Iyer, J.) 83

Under clause 13(k) of the application form, which we A
have extracted earlier, all certificates required had to
be produced with the application. Clause 12 enjoins
summary rejection for non-compliance. All of which, only
~eem to indicate that the diploma certificate of weightage
must accompany the application. Where it did not, as
I in this case, accompany the application, there was no
right in the Government or special Secretary to over
look the defect and direct the weightage to be given even
to those who did not have the diploma as was attempted
to be done by Ext. P3 letter referred to earlier. Assum-
ing, without deciding that the 'Prospectus' and the noti-
fication ware a 'law' we would remind ourselves of the c
caution administered by the Supreme Court that an un-
announced law like Ext. P3 cannot bind, and that it is
against the principles of natural justice to penalise a citizen
on such 'law vide Har/a v. State of Rajasthan (AIR
1951) SC 467. If acquisition of qualification for
D
eligibility or weightage were to be looked into subsequent
to the last date, we should think that only an open and
official or authentic declaration of result by the university,
or perhaps on official intimation of declaration of result
alone can serve the purpose. The direction in Ext. P3 to
give weightage to the Kerala University graduates would E
certainly not serve the purpose, and was wrong and illegal
and has vitiated the selection.
Bluntly expressed, the comt took the rather pharisaic view that
"the diploma certificate for weightage must accompany the appli-
cation. · Where h did not, as in this case, accompany the appli- F
cation there was no right in the government or Special Secretary
to overlook the defect and direct the weightage to be given even to
those who did not have the diploma as was accepted to be done by
Ext. P3 letter referred to earlier". An oblique suggesfoi; that
the Government Secretary's communication was not authentic
and, therefore, invalid is also part of the reasoning of the G
learned judges. With great deference, we express our difference~
It is common case that the diploma holding students who had
been ·given admission to. post-graduate opthalmology by the selection
' committee had secured higher marks than the diploma-holding
students who had been refused admission by that committee. But
the High Court cancelled the marks awarded to the three students H
who had been granted admission by the selection committee on
round that their diploma certificates were not obtained before
84 SUPREME ·COURT REPORTS [1980] 3 S.C.R.·

the last date of application, the intimation to the selection com-
mittee by the Secretary to Government was 'unlaw', and. there-
-fore, the special marks added to their score had to be deleted. If
this stand of the High Court were right, the three students who were
currently doing their course would have to get out and since the
entire selection had formally been set aside, no one also w@uld be
B able to get any admission until revised rules were made. The up-
shot would be that the three seats available for higher opthalmology
would be wholly wasted and the 'losers would be the students and
the State. Should this be ? We think not. The real reason, apart
from' some suspicion, which weighed with the High Court in dis-
regarding the diplomas was that the prospectus and the prescriptions
c there in were law and could not be deviated from even a wee-bit and,
therefore, the non-production of the certified copies of the diplomas
along with the applications for admission excluded the candidates
from eligibility to the addition of 10 marks. Even if it were not law,
an official declaration of university results, not official communication
D to the selection . committee would· be essential. In our view, this
over-stress on literality undermines the substantiality of the guide-
lines in the prospectus. Here the learned single Judge was right. ...
There is nothing unreasonable nor arbitrary in adding 10 marks
for holders of a diploma. But to earn this extra IO marks, the dip-
loma mnst be obtained at least on"or before the last date for appli-
E cation, not later. Proof of having obtainedia diploma is different
from the factum of having got it. Has the candidate, in fact, secured
a diploma before the final date of application for admission t0 i'he
degree course ? That is the primary qnestion. It is prudent to pro-
duce evidence of the diploma along with the application, but that is
secondary. Relaxation of the date on the first is illegal, not so on the
second. Academic excellence, through a diploma for whic1' extra
mark is granted, cannot be denuded because proof is produced only
later, yet before the date of actual se/ection. The emphasis is 011 the
diploma, the proof thereof subsetves the factum of possession of the
diploma and is not an independent factor. The prospectus does
say:
(4)(b) : 10% to Diploma holders in the selection •
of candidates to M.S., and M.D., courses in the respective
subjects or sub-specialities.
13. Certificates to be produced :--:- In all cases true •
copies of the following documents have to be produced :-
H xx xx xx
(k) Any other cetificates required along with the
application.
CHARLES K. SKARIA v. c. MATHEW(Krishna Iyer, !.) 85

This composite statement cannot be read formalistic fashion. Mode A
of proof is geared to the goal of the qualification in question. It
is su bYersive of sound interpretation and realistic decoding of
the JO!escription to telescope the two and make both mandatory in
point of time. What is essential in the possession of a diploma before
the gi•ien date; what is ancillary is the safe mode of proof of the quali-
fication. To confuse between fact and its proof is blurred pers- B
picacity. To make mandatory .the date of acquiring the additional
qualification before the last date for application makes sense. But
if it is unshakeably shown that the qualification has been acquired
before the relevant date, as is the case here, to invalidate)his merit
factor because proof, though indubitable, was adduced a few days
later but before the selection." or Un a manner not mentioned in the c
prospectus, but still above board, is to make procedure not the hand
made but the mistress and form not as subservient to substance but
as superior to the essence.

Before the selection committee adds special marks to a candi-
date based on a prescribed ground it asks itself the primary question :
has he the requisite qualification? If he has the marks must be added.
The manner of proving the qualification is indicated and should
ordinarily be adopted. But, if the candidate convincingly establishes
the ground, though through a method different from the specified one,
he cannot be denied the benefit. The end cannot be nndermined
by the means. Actual excellence cannot be obliterated by the choice
of an incontestable but unorthodox probative process. Equity shall
overpower technicality where human justice is at stake.

The present case is a capital illustration of nominalism battling
with realism for judicial success. Both sides admit that the appel- F
lants before us had secured diplomas. They further admit (ignoring
for a moment the submission on 2% for outsiders) that if the diploma
scores were added1 the applicants, by the measure of marks; deserve
to be selected. provided the diploma obtained in the examination held
in 1979 is within time. Then, why did the High Court upset their
G
selection? Because the certificates of diploma were not attached to
the applications and communication by the Registrar of the University
; to the selection committee was an unauthorised mode of proof, deviat-
ing from the,prospectus, though authentic in fact. Two flaws vitiate
this ,·erbally virtuous approach. True the prospectus directs that
certificates shall be produced along with the applications for admis-
H
sion. The purpose obviously is to have instant proof of the qualifi-
cat10n.
86 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 3 S.C.R.
. I
-A We are aware that when a statute vests a pubhc power and
conditions the manner of exercise of that power than the law insists
on that mode of exercise alone. We are here unconcerned with that
rnle. A method of convenience for proving possession of a qua- •
lification is merely directory. Moreover, the prospectus itself per-
mits government to modify the method, as the leanred single
·8 Judge, has pointed out. In this view, we see nothing objectionable
with the government directive to the' selection committee, no(in the
communication to the selection committee by; the university, nor
even in their taking)nto consideration and giving credit for diplomas
although the authentic copies of the diplomas were not attached
to the application for admission. A hundred examples of absurd
·C
consequences can be given if the]substance of the matter was to be
sacrificed for mere form and prescriptions regarding procedures.

It is notorious that this formalistic, ritualistic, approach is un·
·realistic and is unwittingly;traumatic, unjust and subversive"'of the
purposeof the exercise. This way of viewing problems dehumanise&
the "administrative, judicial and even legislative processes in the
wider perspective'of law for man and~not)man for law. Much of
hardship and harassmant in~Administration flows from over-emphasis
on the external r~ther than' the essential. We'thinkjth(governmentand
the selection committee rightly treated as directory (not mandatory)
E the mode of proving the holding of diplomas?and an mandatory
the actual possession of the diploma. In actual life, we know how
exasperatingly dilatory it is to get copies of degrees, decrees and deeds,
not to speak of other authenticated documents like mark-lists from
universities, why, even bail orders from courts and government orders
from public offices. This frnstrating delay was by-passed by the State
F
Government in the present case by two steps. Government in·
formed the selection committee that even if they got proof of marks
only after the last date for applications but before the date for
selections they could be taken note of and secondly the Registrars of
the Universities informed officia!y which of the candidates had
G passed in the diploma course. The selection committee did not
violate any mandatory rnle nor act arbitrarily by accepting and act·
ing upon these steps. Had there been anything dubious, shady
or unfair abont the procedure or any ma/a fide move in the official •
exercises we would never have tolerated deviations. But a pros-
pectus is not scripture and commonsense is not inimical to inter·
B preting and applying the guidelines therein. Once this position is
plain the addition of special marks was basic justice to proficiency
measured by marks.
CHARLES K. SKARIA v. c. MATHEW (Krishna Iyer, J.) 87

We thus reach the conclusion that the three candidates who
had been eventually admitted by the selection committee could not
be ousted merely for the reason that the certificate of diploma had not
• been produced together with the application for admission. Nor,
indeed, could government be faulted for issuing a directive to
< the selection committee . that applications from students of the dip-
I loma course could be considered subject to the condition that they B
would "pro.duce the diploma certificates before finalising the selec-
tion to post-graduate courses". The equity of this instruction of the
government comes into bold relief when we realise that no party
in this Court has a case that the candidates admitted by the selection
committee did not secure a diploma in opthalmology.
c
Even so, there is a snag. Who are the diploma-holders eligible
.for 10 extra marks ? Only those who, at least by the final date for
making applications for admissions possess the diploma. Acquisition
of a diploma later may qualify him later, not this year. Otherwise,
the dateline makes no sense. So, the short question is when can a D
candidate claim to have got a diploma? When he has done all that
he has to do and the result of it is officially made known by the
.concerned authority. An examinee for a degree or diploma must
comp/et; his examination-written, oral or practical-before he can
tell the selection committee or the court that he has done his part.
Even this is not enough. If all goes well after that, he cannot be B
credited with the title to the degree if the results are announced only
.after the last date for applications but before selection. The second
condition precedent must also be fulfilled, viz., the official com-
munication of the result before the selection and its being brought
to the ken of the committee in an authentic manner. May be,
F
the eimmination is cancelled or the marks of the candidates are with-
held. He acquires the degree or diploma only when the results are
officially made known. Until then his qualification is inchoate.
But once these events happen his qualification can be taken into
account in evaluation of equal opportunity ;provided the selection
committee has the result before it at the time of-not after-the selec- G
' tion is over. To sum up, the applicant for post-graduate degree
course earns the right to the added advantage of diploma only
if (a) he has completed the diploma examination on or before the
last date for the application, (b) the result of the examination is also
published before that date, and (c) the candidate's success in the
diploma course is brought to the knowledge of the selection com- H
mittee before completion of selection in an authentic or acceptable
manner. The prescription in the prospectus that a certificate of the
88 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 3 S.C.R.
. '
A diploma:shall be attached: to the application for admission 'is direc-
tory, not mandatory, a sure mode, not the sole means. The delays
in getting certified copies in many departments have become so
•
exasperatingly common that realism and justice forbid the ini-
qnitons consequence of defeating the applicant if, otherwise than by a

B
certified copy, he satisfies the committee about his diploma. There
is nothing improper even in a selection committee requesting the con-
•
cerned universities to inform them of the factum and get the proof
straight by communication thocefrom-unless, of course, this facility
is arbitrarily confined only \o a few or there is otherwise some capri~
cious or unveracious touch about th(process.

c Judged by the above tests it is conceded that while the Calicut
University's diploma-holders had completed their examination
before the last date for M.D. applications and produced the certifi-
cate before the selection, the Kerala University diploma-holder com-
pleted his diploma examination including public action of results
only after the last date for applications and,'. produced the certi-
D ficate before the selection. By this token he is ineligible for admission
because his diploma result was published only after the last date for ·
applications. The accident of time has cheated him even as in human
affairs generally, be it individual or collective, fortune ebbS:and flows,
influenced critically by happenstances of time and circumstances
of life. That is the relativity of Life, if one may look at problems
E philosophically. We, therefore, hold that appellant Nos. 2 & 3
are entitled to admission and their appeal must succeed. By the same
token the appeal of appellant No. one must be dismissed.

To dismiss an appeal is merely to declare that judicial remedy
will not issue and not that by other processes justice should not be
F
sought or granted. From the humane perspective and with a view to
helping appellant No. one and to pursue his relief through the
University or other appropriate State agency, we directed the
impleadment of the Indian Medical Council which is the statutory
body concerned, at the national level, with higher medical degrees and
G courses. The Medical Council has not appeared before the
court though its presence would have helped the forensic process
to heal the fractured academic course. But we cannot wait longer. It
behoves the State to give academic justice-not legal remedy-to '
appellant No. 1 if circumstances permit, having regard to the fact
that, with diploma qualification, he has spent months iu doing liis
H opthalmology degree course. In law he fails, in justice he need not,
if marginal adjustments:by increasing one seat more were possible with-
out injury to academic efficiency. What we mean is that though
CHARLES K. SKARIA v. c. MATHEW (Krishna Iyer, J.) 89

appellant No. I has no legal claim to a seat, the overall circumstances A
will merit compassionate consideration, and we direct the Kerala
University and the Indian Medical Council to permit him to com-
plete his course by adding one more seat, for this year only, to the
Opthalmic degree course.
On this basis there is one seat vacant in the Trivandrum Medical a
I College. To whom should it be allotted? There are three 'outsiders'
and there is one seat available. Ordinarily, the best applicant is one
who bas the highest marks and the seat must be awarded to her i.e.
Dr. Naomi J. Vettath. She has not filed any writ petition although
denied admission. Among the three only Dr. Gopalakrishnan has
}- chosen to challenge the rejection of admission. So Sri T.S. Klishna- C
murthy Iyer contends that the only seat available for allotment should
be confirmed to the only applicant who has cared to challenge by writ
petition and those who have not cared to impugn the admission
scheme in c0urt should be ignored as having given up the pursuit.
Shri T.S. Krishnamurthy Iyer relies on the ruling in A. Peria-
D
karuppan v. State ofTami!nadu (1) to support his special plea to award
the seat to Dr. Goppala Krishnan, who has got less marks than the
non-litigant Dr Naomi. Hegde, J in the above case did observe ;
There are about 80 persons, who, we are told, are
in the waiting list. Some of the unsuccessful applicants
had moved the High Court of Madras for relief similar to E
that sought by the petitioners herein. But it appears, their
writ petiti0ns have been dismissed. Some out of them have
intervened in the petitions. Other non-selected candi-
dates have evinced no interest in challenging the selections
made. In the circumstances, it is reasonable to assume
that they have abandoned their claim and it is too late
for them to press their claim. ·
Certainly, this limited approach strengthens the submission of
Shri Krishnamurthy Iyer. The force of the reasoning in Peri-
akaruppan'e case ('upra) consists in the probability that a party
who does not litigate manifests apathy for the enforcement of his G
\. rights. The logic is simple. He ·who . does not promptly pursue
his remedy may reasonably be assumed to have lost interest in gaining
admission to the course. If this were a universal prop0sition, Dr.
Gopalo krisbnan could be allotted the only vacant seat. But, on a
suggestion from tli.e court, the Principal of the Medical College,
· Trivandrum ascertained the wishes of Dr. Naomi J. Vettath and Dr. D
(I) [1971] 3 S.C.R. 449.
7-189SCI/80
90 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 3 S.C.l<.

A Joggy Joseph who are diploma-holders from universities outside
Kerala and are currently working as doctors in hospitals. Dr.
Gopalakrishnan unlike the two others, is working as an opthalmolo-
gist in a private hospital. All the three have indicated their wish to
•
continue in the post-graduate degree course in opthalmology when
the Principal enquired of them, although only Dr. Gopalokrishnan
B has chosen to assert his rights in court.
In this dilemma, we consider that while the observations inPeria-
karuppan's~ case (supra) are entitled to great weight, it is conceiv-
able that Dr. Naomi who has out-distanced the other two in marks and
is desirous of joining the post-graduates course might have been pre-
vented by indigence from litigating for her right. Such a bright ---{
student who has much more merit than the other two should not suffer
for the sole reason that she has not come to court. This ground does
not operate in favour of Dr. Joggy Joseph who has a slight edge over
Dr. Gopalakrishnan and is in general practice, not in opthalmology,
nor has he chosen to challenge the selection, in short, while we should
D be guided by the observations in Periakaruppan's case (supra) we
are reluctant to overlook the superior claim of Dr. Naomi. While
transfixed between these two candidates-Dr. Naomi and Dr.
Gopalakrishnan-for the one seat that is available, we were given
to understand by Shri Abdul Khadar appearing for the State that very
probably there will be facilities enough in the Medical Co!Jege, Tri- ~-
E
vandrum and Medical College, Calicut to accommodate one extra
candidate in the opthalmology course if it were to be confined to
this year as a special case. The only other agency which has a voice
in this matter is the Indian Medical Council which is a party before
-us but even after repeated notices has not indicated its willing-
F ness to appear. We think that a practical course which will meet
the ends of justice, following the reasoning in Pariakaruppan's
case (supra) and the realistic approach made in State of Kerala v. j~
Kumari T.P. Roshana and Anr. (1.) will be to direct the.Principals of the
two medical colleges, viz., Trivandrum and Calicut together to
accommodate two more candidates in the postgraduate degree
course fa opthalmology for this year ..
Shri Abdul Kadar, counsel for the State, after taking time
to consult his client made a statement in Court that so far as the.
State Government is concerned, they are willing to take in, for
the post-graduate opthalmology course for this year, two more ·
candidates in the Medical College, Trivandrum and the Medical
H
College, Calicut together. This means that the Government is
(!) [1979] 2 S.C.R. 974.
CHARLES K. SKARIA v. c. MATHEW (Krishna Iyer, J.) 91

satisfied that, as a special case, sufficient facilities can be found .\
for accommodating Dr. Naomi and ·Dr. Gopalakrishnan. The
Tndian Medical Council appeared in Court through one of its
• officers after a notice was issued to it 'explaining the purpose for
which that Council was being summoned, namely, to tell the Court
whether, from a technical angle, it would be feasible to direct
two more candidates. to be absorbed in the post-graduate optha- B
mology course. The officer, on behalf of the Indian Medical Council
stated that from the point of view of the Medical Council there
was no objection to that course and it would concept to such addi-
tional accommodation of :two candidates if the Court felt it just to
do so.
c
We, therefore, direct the State of Kerala and the Principal
of the Trivandrum Medical College, who is the convener of the
Selection Committee, as well as the two Universities concerned, to
admit into the post-graduate opthalmology course Dr. Naomi and
Dr. Go pal akrishnan for this year. The two applicants will report
within 10 days from today for such admission and the admission D
will be accorded to them. The Principal of the Trivandrum
Medical College will inform Dr. Naomi about this direction of the
Court.

Last there should b! any further confusion ;we make it ;c1ear
th1t the twJ c1uid1t,3 waJ aooJrding to o:rr earlb· direction will E
continu' th,ir cJum, will nJt b, foturb,d. Dr. Skaria .who got hi'
diploma frJ:n th' Trivanirrim M:dical CJlbge will be permittea'
to continue in th' lig'lt of th! o:n;nnioute con;iderations we have
earlier mentioned.
To conclude, we hold that the 2 % open seats for the candidates
from all the Universities of India outside Kerala runs counter to the
constitutional directive of equal opportunity and the preambular
emphasis .on national integrity and the State will do well to fashlon a
formula in:t:rmi'of the~guidelines '?iven in Dr. Jagdislz Saran's Case (1).
After all, Imes of poetry may drive home rules of constitutionality
vigorously (2) G
Pity the nation

Divided into fragments

Each fragment deeming itself a nation.
-----
Writ Petition No. 214of1979 decided on ,28-1-1980.
(!)
ll
(2) Khalil Gibran.
92 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 3 S.C.R •.

A Although the selection formula may be bad for violation of Art. 14,
it is possible to reconstruct for this year a practical admission for- -\
mula. That is precisely what we have done, overruling the High
Court's approach which, in our view but with all respect, is a little too •
pedantic. In the result, the appellants 2 and 3 who took their dip-
loma from the Medical College, Calicut will be entitled to continue
8 their course. Appellant No. I will move the two universities, the
Indian Medical Council and the Kerala Government for per-
mission to continue his studies in the exigencies of the case and
in the light of the observations we have made above. Dr. Naomi
and Dr. Gopalakrishnan will be assigned a seat each in one or other
two Medical Colleges by the Principal of the Medical College,
c Trivandrum who is the convener of the selection committee.
Finally, we make it clear once again that the only branch
which has fa1len for our examination is the degree course in Opthal-
mology. No other department or course is sought to be upset.
The Court is not a bull in a china shop and we restrict the order
D we have made to the solitary department of Opthalmology and wish
to leave undisturbed all the other studies in progress.
We must express our distress at being driven to patch-work
solutions because of the academic crisis created by the State in work-
ing out its programme of selection and hope that time will not he lost '\ ·
£ in giving a fresh and fundamental look at the problem so that liti-
gative history may not repeat itself.

N.K.A.

-~·.