ORDER
1. Is the criterion prescribed by the respondent-Medical College for admission to the Radiographer’s Course arbitrary and unfair? This is the short question that arises for consideration in this case; A few facts may be noticed.
2. On July 9, 1994, the College invited applications for admission to the two-years Radiographer’s Course for a total of 10 seats. It was inter alia provided that a candidate should have secured at least 45% marks in the Matriculation examination and that he should have passed the said examination with Physics and Chemistry. These with higher qualification (with Physiscs and Chemistry) were also elgible. The petitioners who had secured 78.3% and 68% marks applied for admission to the Course. They having not been selected for admission have approached this Court through the present writ petition. They urge that the criterion adopted by the respondents is unreasonable, arbitrary and violative of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16
of the Constitution.
3. The respondent contests the petitioners’ claim. It has been pointed out that in the year 1990-91, the criterion for selecting candidates, was laid down. According to the criterion, the merit list was prepared on the following basis:–
(1) 50% of the percentage of marks obtained by a candidate in the Matriculation examination.
(2) 20% of the percentage of marks obtained in the higher examination.
(3) Maxmimum 5 marks will also be awarded for distinction in sports in accordance with the prescribed criterion.
The final merit list is to be prepared by adding the marks secured against (1), (2) and (3) as noticed above. It has been further pointed out that about 1400 candidates had applied for admission against the 10 seats. The petitioners had secured a total of 39.16 and 34 marks respectively. The last candidate who was called for selection for admission in the open category had secured 53.35 marks. Accordingly, the respondent urges that the petitioners have no cause which may be remediable through the present proceedings.
4. Mr. Ramesh Hooda, learned counsel for the petitioners urges that the criterion adopted by the respondent is totally arbitrary and unfair. As a result of this criterion, the basic qualification of Matriculation has been made redundant. He further urges that the criterion is even contrary to the stipulation in the advertisement. The claim made on behalf of the petitioners has been controverted by the learned counsel for the respondent.
5. The short question that arises for consideration is — Is the criterion adopted by the respondent arbitrary and unfair?
6. The purpose of laying down any criterion for admission to a Course is to select the best out of the available candidates. No criterion may be perfect. It may be possible to find fault with any criterion that may be prescribed. So long as the criterion is objective and ensures primacy of merit, the courts
would be reluctant to interfere. What is the position in the present case? The candidate is given credit to the extent of 50% of the marks secured by him in the Matriculation examination. In case he has passed a higher examination 20% of the marks secured by him in the said higher examination have to be added. The final merit list is prepared on that basis. Credit is also given for distinction in sports. Apparently the basic qualification is considered. Further, the criterion ensures credit for higher educational qualifications as also distinction in sports. It is uniformly applicable to all candidates. It may be that a candidate who has passed Matriculation-examination with a fairly high score may have to yield place in favour of a person who has acquired a higher qualification. This by itself is not enough to hold that the criterion is arbitrary or unfair. Basically, the criterion for admission to a Course has to be prescribed by the academicians. They are the best judges of their needs. They are aware of all relevant factors which should enable a candidate to qualify a technical course. The criterion is basically a question of policy. If the appropriate authority on examination of the matter thinks that only 50% of the marks secured by a candidate in the Matriculation examination should be taken into consideration and further weightage to the extent of 20% marks secured in the higher examination should be given, it cannot be said that the criterion is grossly arbitrary or unfair. That being so, it is not possible to accept the contention raised by Mr. Hooda that the criterion is arbitrary or that it is violative of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution.
7. It is then submitted that by the intro-duction of the impugned criterion, the qualification of Matriculation has been rendered redundant. It is not so. A person who pass the Matriculation examination (with Physics and Chemistry) is eligible. When those with higher qualifications are not available, persons who have passed only Matriculation examination are likely to be admitted. However, when persons with higher qualifications are available, those who are mere Matriculates cannot claim an indefeasible right to get admission.
8. Equally lacking in merit is the submission that the criterion is contrary to the advertisement. The advertisement merely prescribed the minimum qualification which the candidate must possess before he is considered as eligible for admission. The mere possession of educational qualifications confers no right. The inter se merit has to be determined on the basis of the marks obtained. This has been done in accordance with the criterion which was laid down in the year 1990-91 and has been followed since then.
9. Before parting with the judgment, ft may be pointed out that according to the criterion as reproduced in the written statement, a candidate who has passed the B.Sc. examination gets no weightage of marks irrespective of his score. Mr. Jaswant Singh, appearing for the respondent could give no reasonable explanation for this omission. It is hoped that the authorities would consider this aspect of the matter. However, it has no relevance so far as the present case is concerned as the petitioners are merely Matriculates and have not passed any higher examination.
10. In view of the above, there is no merit in this writ petition. It is consequently dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
11. Petition dismissed.