Asif Hameed and Ors. vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors.

Facts

In 1986, several unsuccessful candidates challenged the admissions process in government medical colleges in J&K. Following that in 1987 the High Court upheld the selections that year but called for the creation of an independent statutory body with three members to handle prospective admissions in a fair way, free from executive influence. Again, discrepancies arouse with regard to 1988-89 admission process in the said colleges. The selection process was governed by the Jammu & Kashmir Government Medical Colleges Procedure Order, 1987 (SRO 291), which outlined the roles of the Competent Authority and an expert committee. Consequently, a case was filed before the High Court. The Jammu and Kashmir High Court set aside the 1988-89 MBBS/BDS admissions, ruling that the selection process violated its earlier directive to assign an independent body to conduct the admission free from executive control. Further found that the competent authority, required to consist of three members, did not appropriately convene to review candidates, making the selection invalid. The State and selected candidates have appealed against this decision before the Supreme Court.

Key Takeaways for Students

Legal Issue

• Whether the admission process in the medical colleges conducted as per the Jammu & Kashmir Government Medical Colleges Procedure Order, 1987 (SRO 291) be held valid?
• Whether the High Court has the power to issue directions to the State Government to constitute 'statutory body' for conducting the admissions process in the government medical college?

Holding

The court ruled that the selection process for admissions to medical colleges in Jammu & Kashmir, held by the competent authority and the appointed committee, was valid. It was determined that the competent authority could function with two members instead of three, as it was not a statutory body and was performing executive, rather than quasi-judicial, functions. The court dismissed the argument that the selection process was flawed due to the non-participation of one member, noting that there was no statutory requirement for all three members to be present, and no bias was shown against the candidates. Besides, the method of conducting the written examination and viva voce (interview) for admissions was found to be objective and fair, minimizing the risk of favouritism. The court further reiterated the doctrine of separation of power, stating legislature holds supreme authority in its designated sphere under the Constitution, including the exclusive right to determine when and on what subject matters laws should be enacted. Courts cannot issue directions to the legislature in this regard. Therefore, it held that the High Court erred in issuing directions in 1987 and reiterating them in the judgment under appeal. Finally, the court upheld the fairness of the selection process.

Final Decision Appeal allowed

Ratio

Guided by the doctrine of separation of power, the court’s role in reviewing State actions is restricted to ensure they conform to constitutional or statutory powers, without intervening in policy matters, unless those actions exceed their legal boundaries.