Holding

The Court held that the Chief Minister's arbitrary nominations constitute an abuse of power and are invalid; nominations must be made strictly on the basis of merit.

Summary

The case concerned nine seats reserved in the medical colleges of Jammu and Kashmir for candidates from Bihar. Thirty‑five applicants applied, and a merit list of seven candidates was prepared by the Controller of Examinations, which included the petitioner Surendra Kumar. The Chief Minister of Bihar, however, recommended a different set of ten candidates, without disclosing any merit‑based criteria. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 32 challenging the Chief Minister’s nominations as an abuse of power violating Articles 14, 16 and the principle of equality. The Supreme Court held that the Chief Minister’s arbitrary nominations were unconstitutional, quashed the list, and directed the Bihar government to prepare a merit list covering all applicants and allocate seats accordingly. The petition was allowed and costs were awarded to the petitioner.

Issues considered

Whether the Chief Minister's nomination of candidates for reserved medical college seats, without merit‑based criteria, violates Articles 14, 16 and 32 of the Constitution.
Whether the State Government possesses absolute discretion in such nominations or must adhere to a defined, merit‑based procedure.
Whether the list of names recommended by the Chief Minister should be set aside and a merit list prepared.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 16, s. Article 32

Subjects

constitutional lawequality before lawmerit‑based selectionabuse of powermedical college admissionsreservation of seatsstate government nominationArticle 14Article 16Article 32

Judgment

19
A

SURENDRA KUMAR

v.
8
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
November 9, 1984

(0. CH!NNAPPA REDDY, A. P. SEN AND E. S. VLNKATARAMIAH, JJ]
Constitution of India 1950-Artides 14, Ifi and 32-4d1nission to ~fedical c
Colleges-Selection to be made on basic. of 1nerit-Nomination of candidates by
Chief Minirter-Invalid

Educational Institution-Admission to Medical Col!eges·-Nomination of
candidates by Chief Minister-Invalid and abuse of power-Selection to be stric~
tly on basis of merit.
D
Nine seat were reserved in the medjcal colleges of Jammu and Kashmir
for candidates from the State of Bihar. Thirty five students applied for thes~
nine seats. A list of seven candidates was prepared by thi Controller of Exa-
minations~cum-Additional Director of Health Services for being recommended
to the Government of Jan1mu and Kashmir. The nan1e of the petitioner
figured as No. 3. Another tentative list of seven candidates had also been
prepared on the basis of merit from the candidates in the waiting list. This list
E
received nobody's consideration.
From time to time applications along with recommendations of V. I. Ps.
were received by the Chief MMlister's Secretariat and the names of ten per!'ons
other than th1 seven persons from 1he tentative list were recommended by the
Chief Minister from time to time for admission to medical colleges in Jammu
and Kashmir. F

A Hewing the Writ Petition,

HELD : 1. Even after thirty-four years of the Constitution proclaiming
equality before the law and equality of opportunity, the Chief Ministers of som~
States continue to regard admissions to Profe<;sional Co~leges and appointnient
to Government posts as their little private empires. [20F]
G

2 (i) There can be no doubt that there was blatant abuse of power by the
Chief Minister of Bihar. The list of na1nes recomn1ended by the Chief Minis~
ter is quashed. [22D·EJ

(ii) The Government of Bihar shall forthwith prepare a list according to
merit and offer successivel)' to candidates accordine; to merit the opportunity of ff
20 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985) 2 S.C.R.

A pursuing medical education in the medical colleges of Jammu and Kashmir.
The merit list shall be prepared of al J candidates who sought admission into the
local medical colleges and should not be confined to the 35 candidates who
applied for admission to the coJJeges in JammU and Kashmir. This is because
the Government never invited applications separately for the seats reserved in
the colleges of Jammu and Kashmir. [22F·G]

B 3. Until a policy is formulated and <tdopted and concrete criteria are
embodied in the procedure to be selected nominations should be made by
following the procedure of selecting candidates strictly on the basis of merit, the
candidates nominated being those in order of merit immediately next below the
candidates selected for admission to the n1edical colleges of the home State.
[2iE·FJ
Suman Gupta v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, AIR 1983 SC 1235,
'
c referred to.

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 15329 of 1984.
(Under article 32 of the Constitution)

D R.K. Garg and L.R. Singh for the petitioner.

Ln/ Narain Sinha, D. Goburdhan and Jay Narayan for the
Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
E CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. Even after thirty four years of the
Constitution proclaiming equality before the law and equality of
opportunity, the Chief Ministers of some States continue to regard
admission to Professional Colleges and appointments to Govern-
ment posts as their little private empires. So recently as on
f
September 19, 1983, this Court had to disabuse this impression
in s,man Gupta v. State of Jammu and Kashmir('), The question
in that case arose this way : A Certain number of seats in the
medical colleges of one State were reserved for candidates from
other States to be nominated by the Governments of the other
States. Was an absolute power vested in the State Governments
G in the choice of candidates for nomination or was it incumbent
on the State Governments to adopt definitive criteria and follow
pre-defined norms? Pathak, J. speaking for himself, Chandrachud
C-J. and Sabyasachi Mukherji J. said :
"After considering the matter carefully, we confess,

H (I) AIR 1983 SC 1235,
SuRENDRA KUMAR v. BIHAR (Chinnappa Reddy, I.) 11
we are unable to subscribe to the view that the selection
of candidates for that purpose must remain in the un-
A
limited discretion and the uncontrolled choice of the State
Government ................. · ........ · ........................... ······
..............................................................................
To contend that the choice of a candidate selected on
the basis of his ability to project the culture and ethos of B
his home State must necessarily be left to the un-
fettered discretion of executive authority is to deny a
fundamental principle of our constitutional life .............. .
. .. .. .. .. . .. Viewed in this context, the claim of the State
Government iu these cases that the nature of the objective
' and the means adopted to serve it entitle it legitimately c
. to vest in itself an absolute power in choosing candidate
for nomination cannot be allowed to prevail. It is incum-
bent on the State Government to adopt a ceriteria or
restrict its power by reference to norms which, while
designed to achieve its objective nevertheless confine the D
flow of that power within constitutional limits. We are
not convinced that an adequate system of standards
cannot be devised for that purpose. Tested on the
touchstone of our constitutional values, the claim of the
State Government to the content of the power assumed
by it must, in our opinion, be declared invalid ........... . E

Until a policy is so formulated and adopted and concrete
criteria are embodied in the procedure to be selected, we
direct that nominations be made by following the proce-
dure of selecting candidates strictly on the basis of merit,
F
the candidates nominated being those, in order of merit,
immediately next below the candidates selected for ad-
mission to the Medical Colleges of the home State."

The pronouncement of this court has apparently not yet been
heard in the distant corridors of the Bihar Secretariat. It appears G
nine seats are reserved ia the medical colleges of Jammu and
Kashmir for candidates from Bihar. Thirty five students applied
for the nine seats. A list of seven candidates was prepared by
the Controller of Examinations-cum-Additional Director of Health
Services for being recommended to the Government of Jammu
and Kashmir. He has not disclosed on what basis he prepared H
22 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985) 2 S.C.R.

A the list but the name of the petitioner, Surendra Kumar, figured
as No. 3 in the list. It appears that another teatative list of seven
candidates has alio been prepared on the basis of merit from the
candidates in the waiting list. This list received nobody's consi·
deration. We have it from the counter-affidavit filed by P.K.
Khare, Officer on Special duty-cum· Under Secretary in the Chief
B Minister's Secretariat, Patna that 'applications along with re·
commendations of V.l.Ps. were received from time to time by the
Chief Minister' and from the counter.affidavit filed by M. Dass,
Controller of Examinations-cum-Additional Director of Health
Services that 'the names of ten persons other than 7 persons of the
c tentative list had been recommended by the Chief Minister from '
time to time for admission to Medical Colleges in Jammu and
Kashmir.' Neither the counter-affidavit filed by M. Das nor
that by P.K. Khare ~ives the least indication for the basis of the
selection made by the Chief Minister. There can thus be no
doubt that there was blatant abuse of power by the Chief
D Minister of Bihar. Whatever excuse there might have been in
the past, there can be no such excuse after the judgment of this
court in Suman Gupta's case to which, we find, reference was
made in the file now produced before us. Shri Lal 1'.arain Sinh~.
who appeared for the respondent frankly told us that he was un·
able to support the action of the Government. The list of names
E recommended by the Chief Minister is quashed. As already
directed by us at the co!lclusion of the hearing, the Government
of Bihar shall forthwith prepare a list according to merit and offer
1 successively to candidates according to n1erit the opportunity of

pursuing medical education in the Medical Colleges of Jammu and
Kashmir. Lest there be any misunderstanding the merit list shall
F
be prcpare!I of all candidates who sought admission into the local
medical colleges, as was done in Suman Gupta's case and should
not be confined to the 3) candidates who applied for admission to
colleges in Jammu and Kashmir. We give this direction because
admittedly the Government never invited applications separately
G for the seats reserved in the colleges in Jammu and Kashmir. The
respondents will pay the costs of the petitioner which we quan·
tify at R•. 1000.

We desire to add by way of expression of our concern and
H
SURENDRA KUMAR v. BIHAR (Chinnappa Reddy, J.) 23'
regret that this is not the first occasion that such interference and
abuse of power at such high level has come to the notice of this A
court from the State of Bihar. In Chandrika Jha v. State of
Bihar('l it related to the constitution of Board of Directors of Co-
operative Society ; here it relates to nomination of candidates for
admission to Medical Colleges. But in both there is clear misuse
H
of power. Tho less said the better.

N.V.K. Petition allowed. c

ll) · -(198412 'S.C.C; 41. ,.