9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of nominations by State Governments of Jammu and Kashmir and Andhra Pradesh to seats reserved in Medical Colleges of other States. 2. Criteria for selection of candidates for nominations to Medical Colleges outside the home State. 3. Discretion of State Governments in making nominations and its impact on national integration. 4. Adherence to constitutional principles and Rule of Law in the selection process. 5. Financial considerations of State Governments in relation to nominations. Detailed Analysis: 1. The judgment addressed the challenge to the validity of nominations made by the State Governments of Jammu and Kashmir and Andhra Pradesh to seats reserved in Medical Colleges of other States. The petitioners and appellants contended that the nominations were made arbitrarily without objective criteria, leading to unfair selection processes. The Court examined the background of the nominations and the objections raised by the candidates who were denied admission to Medical Colleges in their home States despite securing higher marks than the nominated candidates. 2. The Court deliberated on the criteria for selecting candidates for nominations to Medical Colleges outside the home State. The State Governments argued that the selection should consider not only academic merit but also the ability of candidates to represent the culture of their home State in the State to which they are nominated. However, the Court emphasized the need for structured controls in administrative powers, rejecting the notion of absolute discretion in candidate selection. It directed the Medical Council of India to establish a constitutional basis for selecting candidates based on merit until a comprehensive policy is formulated. 3. The judgment discussed the impact of State Government's discretion on national integration and highlighted the importance of reasonable and objective selection processes to uphold constitutional values. The Court rejected the argument that absolute power in choosing candidates for nominations serves the objective of national integration, emphasizing the need for criteria that confine administrative power within constitutional limits. It underscored the significance of reason and relevance in administrative actions affecting individual rights. 4. Emphasizing adherence to constitutional principles and the Rule of Law, the Court cited precedents to establish that arbitrary powers and procedures violate Article 14 of the Constitution. It differentiated between administrative powers exercised within defined limits and absolute, uncontrolled powers, asserting that legitimate power must be governed by reason and relevance. The judgment underscored the need for administrative procedures to align with constitutional values and reasoned decision-making. 5. The judgment also addressed the financial considerations of State Governments in nominating candidates to Medical Colleges outside the State. While acknowledging the financial role of State Governments in medical education, the Court rejected the argument that financial contributions justify absolute discretion in nominations. It cited relevant case law to support its stance and declined to revoke the nominations already made by the Jammu and Kashmir and Andhra Pradesh Governments, considering the progress of the nominated candidates in their studies. In conclusion, the Court declared the absolute and unfettered choice of State Governments in nominating candidates to Medical Colleges outside the State as invalid, directing the formulation of a constitutional basis for candidate selection by the Medical Council of India. The judgment emphasized adherence to merit-based selection until a comprehensive policy is established, underscoring the importance of structured controls, reason, and relevance in administrative actions affecting individual rights.
|
