Asif Hameed and Ors. vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors.
1989 INSC 176
Case Summary
Facts
In 1986, unsuccessful candidates challenged the admissions process in government medical colleges in Jammu & Kashmir. In 1987, the High Court upheld the selection process but recommended the establishment of an independent statutory body to oversee future admissions without executive interference. Discrepancies arose again in the 1988-89 admissions, which were governed by the Jammu & Kashmir Government Medical Colleges Procedure Order, 1987 (SRO 291). This order outlined the responsibilities of the Competent Authority and an expert committee. A case was filed before the High Court, which subsequently invalidated the 1988-89 MBBS/BDS admissions, citing non-compliance with its earlier directive to establish an independent body free from executive control. The High Court also found that the competent authority, which was supposed to have three members, did not properly convene, rendering the selection process invalid. The State and selected candidates appealed this decision before the Supreme Court.
Issues
Whether the admission process conducted under the Jammu & Kashmir Government Medical Colleges Procedure Order, 1987 (SRO 291) was valid.
Whether the High Court had the authority to direct the State Government to establish a statutory body for managing medical college admissions.
Relevant Articles
Doctrine of Separation of Powers: Emphasizing that legislative functions fall exclusively within the domain of the legislature, and courts cannot interfere by directing the enactment of laws.
Constitutional Authority of the State: Highlighting the role of the government in structuring its admission procedures within legal limits.
Judgment
The Supreme Court ruled that the admission process carried out by the competent authority and the appointed committee was valid. It held that the competent authority could function with two members instead of three, as it was not a statutory body and was executing administrative functions rather than quasi-judicial ones. The court rejected the argument that the absence of one member invalidated the selection, as there was no statutory requirement mandating the presence of all three members, nor was there evidence of bias. The written examination and viva voce process were deemed objective and fair, minimizing favoritism. Furthermore, the court reaffirmed the doctrine of separation of powers, stating that the legislature has the sole authority to determine the need for laws and that courts cannot mandate their enactment. The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by directing the creation of a statutory body. As a result, the appeal was allowed, and the fairness of the selection process was upheld.
Comments