' ..

II ,

PRITAM DASS MAHANT

v ..

• SHI~OMANI GURUDWARA. PRABANDHAK COMMlTTEE

ianua; y 16, 1984 - ' \ .

[D. A, , DESAI, R. B. MISRA AND RANGANATH MISRA; JJ.] ,

' ' . _)~ 'Sikh Gurudara Act, 1925, as a1J1e11ded by the A111end111e11t Act I of 1959- SeCtion 16(2)-WIJtfler the institution Dera Bhai Bhagtu wGs a Sikh Gu'rudwara?.

Whethef mere recittiotz of Guru Granth Sahib withotit anyihing nwre ?-Distin_ctive ieatures of Sikhism and Sikh te111ples-Court's ciuty to racord poSitive findings, in tet111§

OJ SectiOn 16-Appreciution of the evidence of a witness.- -Ti1e fact that he be!Ongs

to~ particll/ar polilial Party o~· the other does 1101, change .the veracity.a/ his.evidence. """'(

Sixfy five persons claimin~ to be meffibers f the 'Sikh community moved a:n application before the State Goverment under Section 7(1) of the Si, kh 'Gurudwara

Act, 1925 to hayea.ieligious institution in yillJ.ge Ramga:rh (also known <is Bbagtuana of. Faridkot tehsil, 9.eclared to. be a Sikh Gurud\vara:. -The State Goverrtment -nOti.fied the said applicatiori in the Punjab Governillent Gazette in terinS of Stion.

7(3) of thi.! Act on 18th October, 1963~ Upon this the appellant made ap application under Sectioi1s 8 atid 10 of ihe Act clain1ing that the institution was µota Sikh Guru- Y- 'dwara but an Udasi ii1stitution known as Dera Bhai Bhagtu. The applic'ation W?-s :-4.

_r:efetred tO the Sikh Gtirudwaratribunal for.adjudication. The petition Was esistcd

by the rsPOndcnt Shiron1ani Gurdwara Prabandhak coOOnittce on thi-cc groUnds:

~· (i) that, the <ip.pelbnt as not ompetent to move': hi:: petition urider section_ 7 or' t~ --I'--..

' Act as he was not a hereditary offi.Ce-holder, (ii) that the provisions of the Act arc noi ·. ultravjres the Constitution; and (iii) that thi"institution in disput~ was a· Sikh Guru- ,,,.. dwara. The Tribunal held against the respondCnt arid in favour of the -ppellant on Contention(!). Since the second Contention wasnot preSsed and the thfrd questio)l ' _was the

0 only issue, the Tribunal held-that the institution was a Sikh Gurudwara." ·

lnappal, ths Pu.1jab and Ha:ryana High Court confirnied the Tribunal's findings. :-t .Hence the appeal by Special Leave of the Court. . .

Allowing_ the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1. Thi religious institution, Dera Bhai Bhagtu is not Sikh Guru- 'dwara. on th~ materials on record: the findig~ recOrdd byt he Tribunal as well as the High COurt are wholly unsupportable to satisfy the tests indicated in Jaw for .deternlining.'thc character Of the institution ... l5_81D]

~ 1.2. -'The fiindings.of the High Court clearly shOw that the.four impo.rtant and ost relevant.aS_pects of the case as disclosed in. the eidence were comPlcteli oyerlooked.Or side-traked.by the "High Court. Thy are: (i' there a; c Satnadhs . on the premises of the institution; (ii) _there are idols and photos of Hindu _deities; (iii} Bhai Bhagtu was a Udasi' Saint; and (iv) suCcession was frcim Gurq, to. Chclai ) ' .. •·

' .

• . - ' ' PR!TAM DAss'v .• GURUDWARA l'RABANDHAK yOMMlTTEE 565

Th~ petition. filed by _the ppellat .under s.8 of the._ Act contained a clearavcnnent that the_ institution' had beeri set up.b)r.Bhai Bha£, tu who was a _:Udasi Saint and t4e presence of th.rc.c Sainadhs of (1).Bhai .Bhagtu, (2) Baba Para~ Rain Ji; and (3) Mahant Sahib"DassJi, was also asseitcd. In the written statement the resPondent, after' a vage denial, had admittedthe institution to have been founded by Bhai Bhagtu. Pritani Dass, the <ipPellant did support his case. OrdinarjlY his evidence would have been treated a'S interesied as he happens to be. the party b'ut his assertions ; "have ben _well corroborated."The same is sti:engtheied by the evidence of all-re!i_on~

dent's witnesses. The eVidence of witnesses cJe<i, rly indicates: (i) that there are atleast to samadhs in the premises. 'of the" institution,....one being of. Bhai Bhagtu and the other.of hi.s moth¢r; (ii) the. existence of the "idol or Baba Srichan~, the founder of the U<lasi Sect in the pre1biscs. clearly the Sikhs'\VOuld notpepnit the idol of Baba Srichand in a Gurudwaa, while Udasis would oi:"dinarily install such an idol to perptuate the neil1ory of the founder of heir sect; (ifi) the sucession .was from Guru to Chela; aUd (iv) there are photos of Hindu deities in. the institution. These faCtS without an.Ything n1ore .wOuld be sufficient to reject the case bf the respondent that the institutiOn is a Sikh GufudwaFa. [579A-C; G; 580G-HJ . ·. . .

/· . 1.4. Fron1 the verY fact thilt-Guru Granth sahib was fecited in he intitution 'i1ci support can b~ drawn for the claim that. the institution as a Sikh Gurudwara. lt is w.il established that Udasis are midway b"etween Sikhs on*-the ·.one band ilnd. t!1e 1-lindus on the other. Srichand son of Guru Nanak; the founder of Sikhism, 'had_ broken awa.Y and set up the Udsi sect. [581 B-C]. . . . . . ' . , .

. 2: I.

Although. for the -purpose of historical rcseafch and analysis on the subject like Sikhs arid Sikh tcrriPies., the forrn of a coitrt of Iii.w is not ideal,· yet, if the statute enjoins the coutt to decide such questions tfie court has gdt to dischar£c. . . ' t - ' ' . . the responsibility. [569D]. . . . · ·. ·- ·

2.2.

The court• has been called upon to decide whether the institution ill . ciuestion is a s.ikQ,, G:un.id wara:- While conSidcring this qu.estion the Court has to take into consideration all the cir.cu111stanceS. which favour or milita.te against the inStiWtion being.a Sikh Gurudwara . .In the vCry nature of thigs and ii1 view f the requirenients of Sub-s.(2) of s. 16 it become.s necessary to conSider whether the in- Stiiution_ being in charge of an udasi saint, the eisten& of samadhs. f Uda:; i saint~ and , W.orsh.ip thereof, o' the existnce of the id6ls and absence of a gr.lnthi<lnd sUcce~ sion t6 the ii:istitution from guru t6 chela_ are all relevant considc'rations and the Court has. to_ consider them if there. is evidenCe on th~ record. In the "instant. case. evidence h<is been ad_duced on behalf of the appellant abollt .the existence of sanH'l;(:lhs: and th;;: Various idols, the' ab_sence oi a granthi and succession to the.institution fion1 guru to chela.· The appellant cannot, therefore, be prevented from urging the aforesaid circumstance~. (573F-H.; 574A] ·

2.3.' Courts Ca.nnot discard "the ev.idc'iice Of itnsses. or" one side by s.in1ply saying thaf the oial testirnony is interested and 'hardly ally credible, -when witnesses on either side have come to depose on o.lth. Here, the grounds on Which the evidence. addllced on behalf of the appeftant bas been discarded may equa'.Ily aply to the evidence aduced On behalf of _the respondent. ·rhe Court should. h<ive considered the worth of"the evidenCe of each witness .and should have given reasons for dis be- . lieving the same on _merit.: A bald observati6ll that the Witrisses producid on behalf fo the _appe~!ailJ _are interested must oe deprecated:. The courts hd to decide te

, .

'" ....

question in,_view of .the provisions of sub-s.(2) of s'.16 of the_Act and they had to reJOrd a Positive finding inthe light of sub-s.(2) of s.16. Unless the ~14itn falls within one or the other of the catcgoiies enumei; ated in stib-scction(2) of s.16, the insti(utioi; cannotb.:: i:le~Jal:-ed to be-a ikh Gu_rdwara [577B-D; 578CJ . ·

 3.l. 0.1J. of thi 11iJ3t, r.i; citllting aspcts of Sikhisn1 fa the pro:.:.css which bcg<1.n with h:.i-.lll'l G..1iu~,·contl.'luo!d durin~ th; pcrjOd of duality iti which thefe . '.Were hun1:ttl Gun; ts and a collection of'sacred wrlti~1gs :and ended \Vith the prCsnel ""

situation ln which fl:lil' authority is cjo'incd _by-the sClipture. Jn. every rt:spcct the scripture is what the aurus \Vor~. [569GJ ' .

. . \ .. . , . aoth the Gur~1s t~(J the Book deserv~ i"espectt \Vhich they are accorded because of the Ban~ \Vhich 'they xpress, 'theord of divine truth." Therefore, it was possible fur Guru Adan, the fifth-in the hi1man line, to bow before the colli::ction vhich. he had cotnpiled ad .inst.ailed in the. newly.· built Darbar Sail.ib in jG04 for he was ac.kn.owledged the higher authority of the B:lni due 10 the'pec:sonal i111portance and "significance' 'v\lich he possessed as GUru .. [5691-l; 570AJ

. .

. .l'he. Sikh oLirus have n1uh }h co • .(nmon.W.iih thr preCeptors ip indian .. tradition.but .their history and contribution is. distinctive.

They~\verc 'not Bhihntins, they did not se~ their caliing to be that of expounding VCdas~ they taught in vCrna~ cu!a( n.it S;.nskrit ;1nd their n1essage was for everyone. Th.ey Were "ten in nutnber e'ach re_; naining f'ait, hfui to the teachingS of Guiu Nanak, the firSt Gufu arld when. lhcir line wis c;1ded by a conscious.·ctecision of Guri'.1 Gobind Singh, the1ast Guru,

suCession was ii1vesfod in a collCction of teachings .which' was given the title of Guru Gra!Hh Sahi6.This i~ now the G.uru Ofthe Sikhs. [570B-C]

' <; An iiripoi:ta1\t CharaCteristic of the teachings of the Siich Guius is thefr ciuphasis

upn the message, the Ba1; L 1t is this st1:ess .\\1hich rri<i..dc possible". the transfer o1 GurushiP to the sripture. The human Gurus .\cr1: the iristru1nents thrOugl1 whc1i1

tlic, voice of the God bea1ne audiblci. [57QDJ~

' . ', . . ..

The holiest book of th~ Sikhs ; s G~~U Grin th Sahib co111Pi!cd b; the Fifth ~; stCi,.

Guru.Ai:ia.11. 1t is t.he Bible of Siklis. After giving, his followi:rS a central plcc OJ worship, Hari-Ma:ndir, he wanted to give thein a holy 'book. So he collected the

hlnnS of the first four' Gurus and to "these he added his on. , Now this Sri Guru

Ganth Sahib is a living Gru of the Sikhs .. Guru mealls the gilid, c. Gur Granth ·. Slhib giYes .Jight and sho\VS the' path to. the suffering hun1anity. Wherever a believer in' Sikhism fa.in troub!~ OT is depressed he reads hyrii."ns from the Granth. WhenCver the Sikhs needed guidarice or couns(; il, they. should assemble before the d-ranth in all siricerity ad decide their future line of action in the light of teachings o.f tjlc

Mstcr, as' embodied ill the ci-ranth-. The noble ideas e1nbodi.cd in .the Granth would

iiv~ fot ever arid sho~ ve0plc .the path tO bfisss and-happiness. [570E-F; 571B]

 • 3.2. , Teinples re found almost in every reiigion but there .arc.'so1nc ilifferenc¢s bctwcen,, thc .Sikh ten1p1cs; and .. those Of other religlons. The. Sikh Qurudwaras have the follo\ving distinctive 'features: f57JCJ , , . f . '

L , Sikh. teinples ire nr the place of idol worship a.s the H:inqu temples.are. , . Ther~ is no, place for idol wOrship in a Gurudwara. The ntral object of worShiP

'. '

. '

 PRIIAM oAss.v GURUbw/,.RA, PRABANDHAK COMMITTEE .567'

in a GurudWar<i fa Stj Gur~ Granth Sakib; the hol.Y book. The pattern of wo-rShiP consist& of two 'main iteins: reading of the .holy hymnsfollOwed bY their cxplaiiation

by sorri~ learned n1oi.n; not necessa'rily a partiCular Grµthi .and thell singing of sOmC r..i.ssages fron1 the Holy Gra1itJJ.. The. fOr'ni.er is called Katha and the seco_nd is caJld l<irtau.--A Sikh thus .\vorship_s the 1-IoIY- Words that.are :Written in the Granth Sahib, . the word.S or shabada about ihe Etcrllal. Truth Or God.-No id'ol or painting of any

Guru can be ·.;,,, orshippcd. [571CD] ·, •

2: Sikh warship iii. tHc Gurudwara i_s a co~'rcgatiO.na:.l worship, whereas~ -Hilldu tniples an/meant for indivi<lLial worship,,.A ikh:does the individual \vors!UP 'rat ho1ne when hC recites- Gu:rbani daiiy. So~ scriptu.fes meant for this purpoe are . Japji; Jaap, Rcliras,' Kirtan So.hila.: Sa!1gat is the collectitc body of Sikhs who_ meet

every day in . the . Gurudwara. {571E-F] . . ' ' ·· ' ·. : · . ·, . " ' .

' 3. • Gurudwai:a is .a plaCe WhCre a cOpy of GutU Gr'anth Sa'l;, ib is inStalled. ·, • The Unique. and distinguishillg feture wold always be the Nishan Sahib, a fiagstff ,.

With a. yellow fla8; of .Sikhism flying. from it. This srvCs as a yn1boi of. the Sikh

'presnce. It enables the travellers, whether th6y. be Sikhs or not, to know where hOspitality is aviilabie. There rriay be. conip1exity Or rooms.· in a Gurudwara for the bail- ding may also. Se_rve <; lS 'a school, or, where children are taught the rudi.ments. o'r SikhisI_U .· .•. :a~ well as.a rest centte for travellers. Often there Will be a kitchen where food ~n.

-~ be prepared though_ langar itself might take place in the yawning. omees the Gurudwara will also be. usecfas a clinic. But itspivotal point is tho place of worship and .ihe .111a'in roo1n ilf be that in Which ihe Guru Granth Sahib .is installed where

- the comrrfunity g:a; thers for "diwan: Th~ focal pin, t_i°q thisroom ... Will be the bok itst:lf

, ' [571j3H; 572A]

3.3.. The sine qua. nJ11: for an i~Stitutio'n being a Sikh Gurudwara is that ihere should be esta.blishcid GLfru Granth Sahib and tl, le w.orship of the same by the con•• .gregatioll." aild a Nishan Sahib aS_indicated in the earlier part of the Judgment. ..

~ E, There may be other rooms of the. institution nleant fOr oth"er purposes but the crucial _test is the existence of Guru ·.Granih Sahib and the worship_.thereofby the Congrega- tion nd Nish<i.n.Sahib. It is'nOfnccesaty that.there lust bea.gra"nthi in a Ourud- .. :.wara. Any learned person, can, read Guru Granth Sahib and explain to the cong[e- · . . . ' . gation; .[572BC] . . > ... .

,'II Hem Silwfi and Others v. Basant Das & Anr. (1935,36) L.R. 631 rA 180; . . ,. . . . . ' ' ,.

F -Baw, a lshar Dass'& Others v. l)r. Mhan Singh.and Others, AIR 19"39 Lah .. 2~9

.,,~Arjan $1i1gh v. Inder .. DaJ:. 15 Lah. 4,47; · •

'Harnani Sir!'ih v.;, Gurdial-· Singh _[1967] ,2 SCR:7_39 .. ., ,, ' ' . . . . . ' .

Mahai11 Dharq.on [Jas e(c. v._ State of Pimjab & Ors. [l.9751 3. SCR 160 .

Solum Das v, Bela Singh & Ors. AIR 1934 Lab .. ISO . referred .fo • G

C1v1L APPELLATE Jii.R1SoICTioN : Civil Appeal No. 1983_of 1970 . . . . ' . , Fro.m Judgment and Decre dated 29-7·69 of the "Purijab & Haryana'; Eligh Curt in F.A.O, No. 35/66. :. ,, ·. .

. . ' • , '

, B

.. t

' '

, Naimit Ll, K. V{1sdev and .Mv. V. Gr()verfor the appellant.

V.M. Phadke and Harl>ans Singh for the responde1it.

' ' The Judgment of the court was deiivered by

• I •• • • MtSRA, J. The _present appeal by special leave is 'directed aginst the Judgment andord6r dated_ 29th July, ,1969 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. ' . , .

The dispute in this appealcentres around a . religious institu- . : _., ._ tion in village; Ramgarh {also kn9wn. a Bhagtuaa), tehsil Faridkot, If district Bhatinda. This village was previously. in the erstwhile Nabha • ;: State which merged with Pepsu and after the reorganisation . of the States, became a part of the Punjab State in 1956. Sixty-(ive persons cfaiming to be members of the Sikh, community moved ai1 application. before the State Government under .s. 7 (!) of the Sikh Gurdwara Act._ "f 1925 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), .as ameiidecj by the Amend-· ment Act I of 1959, to have the institution deelared to be a Sikh Gurdwara. The State Goyernment notified the said applic'ation in the Punjab Gazette in l>rms of s. 7 (3) of the Act.on 18th 6ctober, 1963.

Upon th1s the appellant, made, al1 app'lication under SS. 8 and 10 of the Act claiming .that the institution was not a Sikh Gurdwara but an Udasi institution known as Dera Bhai B iagtu: This. application was ...4, referred by the State Government to the Sikh Gurdwara Tribunal for. adjudication. It was , cbntended by the appellant that throughout its kng history the institution has been an. Udasi institution. This ~" institution was not established for use by Sikhs for pub.lie worship. .• not was it founded in the memory ofa Sikh Martyr, saint or ahistorical person. It has never been used for public worship by the Sikhs. The institution wast he Dera of Udasi Bhekh and t!J, e objects of worship i' _ are idols of Gola ahib and of Baba Sricharid, and the various sama<!hs.

The petition was resisted by'the respondent Shiromani Gurdwara' . Prabandhak _Committeeon three' grounds: (l) that the app.ellant was . not competent to move the petition under s.7 of the Act because he

. was riot a hereditay office holder, (2) that the .provisions of the Act are not lira vires the Constitution, and (3) that the institution in dispute,

was a Sikh Gurwara. • . , : . · . . i . ' -. ' ' '

- ' On the pleadings _of tli.e parties the Tribunai framed three issnes": •.

(1) w!JFther the provisions of te Act are ultra: vires the Constitution,

·\.'

...

. ' '.· ,' . ·~ .· ·· .. ' .

PRL'fAM DA~S ·,., GURUDWARA PRABANDHAK COMMITTEE (Misra, J.) 569

(2) whetherth~ appellant iyas~ hereditary office holde~. and(3) whether the institution in dispute was a Sikh Guradwara. Issue No. 1 was notpressed and, therefore, the Tribunal in. conformity with. the previous decisions held the Pf<;>visions of th~ Act. to bf intra vires the.Constitution. On the second issue the Tribunal r<icorded a finding in favour of the appellant. On the third issue, the Tribunal held that the disputed institution was a Sikh Gurdwara.' ·

'B .

. The.app~Uant feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the Tribunal tooh up•ti, e matter in appeal to the High Court and the High Conrt in its turn confirmed the findings of the Trbunal and dismisse.d the . atppeal by the impugned judgment .. The appellant. has now comt; to . his Court on obtaining -special leave and the only issue that' survives for consideratfon by this Court is issue No.3 , that is; whether the : institution .in dispute is a Sikh Gurdwra. .

Befre .'dealing with the poin\s urged by the counsel forthe parties i.t woulli be appropriate at this stage to know tlie distinctive features.

c .

of Sikhism and Sikh temples. Althongh-for the purpose of historical D research and analysison such subject, the forum of a court of la.w is . not ideal yet if the statute enjoins the. Court to deci.de such c)uestions, . ·.the Cour.t has .got to discharge the respons1bility. Section 16 (1) of • the. Act. provides: . ·

"16 (!), NDtwithstandiiig anything contained in any

. E other law in force if in .. any .proceeding before a tribunal it is . , disputed that a gurdwara should or should not be declared to be a Sikh Gurdwara, the tribunal shall, before.enquiring into any

other matter in dispute. relating to the said gurdwara, de.cide whether it should or should not be declared a Sikh Gurdwara in. accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2)." .

F . . ' . .

;: .

One of the most fascinating aspets of Sikhism is the process which, ' began With human Gurus, continued during the period of duality in which there. were human Gurus and a collection of sacred ; vritings and ended with the present situation in which full autliority is 'enjoined by the scripture. In. every respect the scripture is what the Gurus ; vere. . ,_ . . - . . .. .

. .. ' -

- . . . . ; . . - · Both the. Gurus. and the Book deserve respect, which they are : aceorded becau.se of the Bani which they express, the word of divine

truth: Therefore; it was possible for Guru Arjan'; the fifth in 'the human line to bow before the collection which he had compiled and installed • , • • '' • < • ' • - • -· ' H

. 570

. .

' .{ . . ' . . in' the<imvly bui.lt Darbar Sahib in 1604 for , he was acknowledged the highe,· au\hoiity of tho Bliliduo to the p'Tsonal 'importance and ·significance which he. possessed as Gur~ .

. ' The 'Sikh Gurus have much in con\mon \Vith. other preceptors in Inqiantraditio.n but their htory and contribution is distinctive, They were. not Brahmins, they cl.id not sc; e .their calling lo be that of expoi111~.i!1g Vedas, they taught in vernacular not Sanskrit and their message was for everyone: They" were .ten in number each remaining . faithful to the teachings of Guru Nanak, the first Guru and \\'hen their line \yas c1; ded, tiy. a conscious decision of Guru Gobind Singh, the last Guru, successin was invested in a co!lectfon of teachings which was given 'the :title of Guru Gra'nth Sahib. This 1s is no;.v the Guru of the . ' ' . .

Sikhs.. '

, An important characteristic of the teachings of the .Sikh Gurus . is thir emphasis upon .the .message, the Bani. It is tliis stress which ma.de possible the transfer of Guruship to the scriptur.e. The human Gurus were the instruinenis through whom the voice of God became audible_, . ' r • • . • • . . • •.

The holiet book' of tl; e Sikhs is Guru Gra;1th Sahib compiled by the Fifth Mater, Guru Arjan. It is the Bible of Sikhs. After givillg his 1follo\Vers a central place of worship, Hari-mandir, he wanted to i:; ivethem a holy bo.ok. So he collected the hymns of the first four Gurus" and to these he addCd his own: Now this. Sri Guru Granth, Sahib is a living Guru of.the .. Sikhs. Guru means the guide. Guru' . Graqth Sahib gives light and shows the path to.the suffering humanity. , Whetevera believer in"-Sikhism is in trouble or is depressed he rads

~)'.]llll~ from the Granth. · · ·

- When Guru Gobind Singh felt "that his worldly sojeurn was .. near, he niade the fact known to his disciples. The disciple~ asked him as. to who. would be t.heir Guru in future; The Guru immediately ' placed five pies and a coconut b.efore the holy Granth, bowed his head

e.fore it and said:-· ' , ·

. : '~The Eternai Father willed, and I raised the Panth. . • .

All ipY Sikhs are ordained to believe the Grant? is their preceptor. ·

!fuve faith in the-holy Grailth as yolir .Master andco nsider it~ lhe visible manifestation. of the. Gurus.· He who hath a pl!re heart will seek guidance from its holy W?rds".

...

• PRITAM nAss v. dUJiDWARA i>RABANDHAK COMMITEE(Misra, J.) 571 '

- .. ~- ' .. . . '• . . '.. ·. . .. . . ""'

_;), . The Guru repeated thse ords and told the di; ciples. not to A . grieve at his departure. H ."was true thaHhey wculd. not see, hi~ body

 .in its physical manifestation but .he wJuld be ever present among the Khalsas. Whenever the: Sikhs needed.giiidance or. counsel, tney should · assemble liefore the Gr.anth in all sincerity and dec{de their future line of ction in tho light of teachi;1gs or the Master, as embodied in the Granth, Tho noble ideas emboc(ied i.~ th~ Granth would:live for ever B artd show people the pati, to bliss and happiness. '

. . .

Temple.s are fou.nd almost incvrv teligion but there. are s; me differences between the Sikh temples and th6se of other religions. The Sikh Gurdwars have the foll(iwing distinctive .features:

~ ..

'i. , Sikh temples are n:it the place of id0l worship as the Hindu .temples are. There is no place for idol. worship 'in a Gurdwm:a. The .central object of worship in a Gurdwara isSri Guru Granth Sahib, the

holy. book. TJ"te paitern ofwJrship conists of two main items: reading of the holy hymns followed by their explanation by some learned man, . . . . . not necessarily a particular Granthi and .then singing of some passage~ from the Holy Granth.' Th; forme"r is called Katha .and the second is; cal)ed Ki\tan. A Sikh thus worships the Hofy Words thtpre wrilfon ' in the.Granth SJhib, the Words or Shabada about the Eternal Truth ·.or God: No idol or painting of any Gu; u ca1.1 be worshippecl.. .

2 .. Sikh worship.in the Gurd;,, ara is a congregational worship, " \.. .• whereas Hindu temples arc meant for individual worship .. A Sikh ~.oes

''. ., -, the indivic.ual.worship at home when he rcitcs Gurbani daily: Some ·

scriptures meantfor, this purpose are Japji, Jaap, Rehras .. KirtanSohila.

Sangat Is tl1ecollectivc body of-Sikhs who meet every day in the Gurd•

' . ' - ' . .

wara .. .\ . ·,\·

. , 3 .. Gurdwara is a place where a copy of' Guru-Granth Sahib is installed. The unique'and distinguishing fature would always. be. the "Nishail Sahib, a flagtaff with a yellow flag of Sikhism flyin'g from it.

This serves a:l'a symbol of.th~ Sikh presence. It enables the travellers,_ whether they be Sikhs r nt, to know where hospitality is .aailable. ·· There may be complexity of rooms in a.Gurdwara for the. building

rti.yalsoserve as' a schooi, or where children are taughi the .. rudiments

of Sikhism as welhis a rest centre for travellers.

Often •ihere will be ·. a )dtehen where food can'be.prep3red though Jnngar itself might ti.kc place iii the yawning. So.metimes tlie Gurdwara will also be used as a clinic, But its pivotal point is the place of worship.and the main room .. . - . . .. ..

: E

will be tl{at in hich the Guru Granth Sahib is installed where the

.· communiiy gathers. for diwar!.: _The. focaf poi.nt in this room will .be the book itself. ·

From the foregoing discussion it is evident that the sine qua non for an' institution befog a Sikh Gutdwara is that there spould be established Guru Granth Sahib and the worship; of the same. by the congregation, and a Nishan Sahib as indicated in the. earlier part of the judgment:'There may be .other rooms of the institution meant. for . . other purposes but the crucial test is the existence o.f Guru Granth

Sahi.b and the worship therebf by the congregation and Nishan Sahib.

It is not ncssary th.at there must be a granthi in a Gurdwara. Any learned person can read Guru Granth Sahib and explain to the-congregation.

With this preliminary about the distinctive features of a Sikh _temple we proceed to deal with the contentions of the counsel for the parties. ·. ·

• ' Shri Nlunit Lal, counsel for the appellant contend.ed that the High. Court has misread the evidence and that'has itiated its finding.

He referred to the material porticns .o(the judgment and , the evidence of the parties to support. his contention. On perµsal of. the judgment.· and the r~Jevant evidence we do not find any misreading of evidence by the IJ:igh Court: This contention, therefore, has no .force. We, however, nnd that the High Court proceeded on the assumption that. adniittedly Bhai Bhagtu was a Sikh saint ana that the disputed institu-. tion was established in his memory. This would be evident from' the f9llwing observation made by he High .Court.

l . /,

"On an overall coilsideration of this aspect we are ina, clined to• accept the contention cf Mr.

Shan!· that admittedly Bhai.Bagt_u was a Sikh saint and this. institution was' established in !is memory arid as such the case of the respondent wauld •

als~, come within the amblf of s. 16 (2) (iv) of the• Sikl1 Gun\- . . dwrira Act". , • "' '

But this observatibn is not warranted from the pleadings or the the evidence of the parties. Pritam Dass, the appellant, as P.W.S, in

his deposi\ion has categorically stated: ''Bhai Bhagtu was an- Uda.si Fahir" . .In the pleasdings also .the appellant set up that Bhai 1\hagtu was.an Udasi saint. and the in.stitution was a Dera of the Udasi sect, . i . . . . . . -' . . .

• . _j' . .r-.....r "·

' ,...

.....

PR!TAMDASS.V; GURUDWARA PRABANHDAK COMMITTEE (Mi<ra, J.) 573 . . . '

. . . .· '. . . while the respondent, on the. other hand, in its reply sta!e<l that Bhai Bhagtu was a Sikh aint and. the institution was established In the momory of that Sikh saint. In this state of pleadings and the evidence , adduced by the. parties.it will not be corr, eGt to say that admittedly Bhai Bhagtu was a Sikhsaint and that this institution was established in his memory. Rthe~ this was the only disputed question to bfi decided bv the Court. Thus while holding, that there is no misreading of evidence we find that. there is misreacjing of the pleadin¥s of the parties.

It was next cotended for the appellaf\t that ihe appellant 6f udasi set being incharge of the institution in question, the succession to the institution being from Guru to Che la, the institution. being recor ded as Dera of Udasf'sect in sme of the revenue recods, the existence and worship of 'vario.us fdJ'ls.and sainadhs within the .precincts, of the institution and the absence of a: granthi in the institution are all ip.-compatihle wi.th the institution being a Sikh Guidwara.

• .. ' .Shri M:. N. Phadke appering for. the respondent n th.e other harid has contended that'(!) the points which were never urged in the courts below could not'.be allowed t0 be raised for the first time in this c;; ourt; (2) in a11y 'case the existenoe ofsaniadhs ai; cl. idols within the precinots of the institution and thl worship thereof, and the absence. of a granthi and the ; uccession to the institution from guru to chela are not destructiv;'of the institution being a Sikh Gurdwara; (3) the finding of the H.igh Co.urt that the institutiofl in question is a il<h Qurdwara is fully warranted by.the .evidence on record, and (4) the nature of the institution has to be decidedi'n•the light of sub-s.: (2) of s. 16 of the Sikh Gurdwara Act. · . '•

The Co.urt has been clled upon to. decide whether te institution in question is a Sikh Gurdwara. While. considering this question the

Court has to take into consideration all the circumstaces which favour or militate against the institution ing a Sikh Gurdwara. In the v; ry nature of things arid in view of the requirements of sub-s. (2) of s. 16 it blcomes necessary to consider whether the institution being in charge of an Uadasi saint, the existence of samadhs o(Udasi saints at\d worship:thereof, or the existence-'of the' iclbls and. absene of a' granthi and succession to the institution from guru to chela itre all rnlevant consideratio, ns anil the court has to consid" them ifthere is evi<; lence on the record. rri the instant case evi~.ence has beenadducd on behalf of the appealla., nt abut the existece of samadhs and the various idols, the absence of a granthi and suc9ession to the i.nstitution . .. . . . - . ~

' '

574 :

SUPREME COURT REPORTS. [lcJ~4l 2 s.c.~.

A from guru to chela. We see no reason why the appeallant be prevented •. froni'. -urging the aforesad c!rcumstances, ' ~

Ch tho quostion whether the existence of samadhs and of the . - . # . idols and the absence of a granthi or succession to the institutioil from 'gunl'to chela militates aginst the institution being a Sikh Gunl.wara the counsel for the parties have dduced evidenc.e iii support .of .tleir respective contentions. The counsel for. the parties have also cited cases insupport of. their re.spectie conteritios. .·. ·

" ..The counel for the appellat relied' on' Hem Si;1gh & Ors. v. . JJa.<ant Das & Anr<ll, In that case the qustion for consideratoin was .

whether Udasis are Sikhs. The courfhcld that Udasis areno't Sikhs for the purpose~ of .Sikh Gurdwara Act. Although Guru Nanak founded Sikhism as a new religion by sweeping awaf idofatry and polytheism, Sri Chand; "the son of Guru Naiiak the founder of the Udasis, was hhnself not a Sikh but a Hindu. No rcconciliatlpn bet\Veen the Sikhs and the U<hsis ever took place. The Udasis are in consequence not Sikhs,· hut. schismatics who separated in. the earliest days of Sikhi.si.n and never morged with the foliowors of the .Gurus. .. , ' . .

, Reliance was next placed upon Bawa lshar Dass & Ors. v: Dr. Mohan Singh & . Ors<" The .. Court h.eld: ·

. '""it. has' been established that the ·.Mahants- have all along been Udasis, 'that the-institution was an Udasi monastery, that.the Guru Granth Sahib was read there by the UdasiMahant

ad that Sikhs. may have attendee! thes~ readipgs but that all other ceremo1)ies; observed by Udasis and Hindus, were performed at the institution, fi cannot be held from the n1ere fact that the lJdusis also read the Guru Granth Sahib a book which . they d0 venerate, that tho Sikhs.should be associated i-n the mana~ . gemenf of this geritiine.Udosi insfituli0i1. It was held.by a Division B'nch of this Court in 15 Lah. 247101 that the Udasi order

cnstittes a separate sect, ' distinct, from tl\e orthodox Sikhs and that though they -have retaiiied many Hindu .beliefs ar.1\ practices, .yet in the wider sense o.f the term they:may also be Sikhs'. They occupy an intermediate position between strictly orthodox Sikhs and Hindus. The Udasis are in fact a monastic . ' . r .

(1) [1935-36] L.R. 631 !.A: 180.

(2) AIR 19j9 Lah. 239. . •

 , (3) Arjan Singh v. lnder Das .

. ..

' ; . • •

.··:r'

\. '

: i :....

• . . . . . . . . \

PRITAM ass v .. GURm{ARA PR~BANDHAK coi.imrE~ (Misra, J.) 575 •

order in their origin and are folio{Yi:rs of Bawa Siri :Cfoicl.. son of t'1e first Guru. Though they worship smadhs, etc. they~

d~ reverence .the.Granth Sahib without completely renouncing Hinduism. They are often in charge of the village Dharamsala or GJrdwara, which is .a Sikh institution, but in othe, r cass tlie Sadh and his qhelas constitute a monasetry or. college: Owing to their intcrl)lediate position, it is possible for Udasfa t~ be in" charge of~ Sikh Gurdwara, properly so callad, but it . c'.oes not follow that thlt institution is a Sikh Gurdwara and not a tius Udasi institution lllerely because the G\nth Saliib is r.eap.". ·

 In Harnain Singh v:.Gurdial decisions this Court held:

Singh''' 01i ari analysi• of various

, I .

'°'T;1e; e d'cisio"'. cleariy indicate. the . principlo that though the Sikh. Guru Gr'anth Sahib i_s read 'in the shrines managed b¥ " the m:mbers :ofih; Ud1si sect, that was not enogh to hold V'at those shrmes were Sikh Gurdwaras. In the case before-us, the 1nore fa.ct that at some stage there was a Guru Gran'th Sahib i.n

tfiis Dera cannot.thus lead to any con~Iusion that'"this institution Vias ffieant for; r belonged -to,.-the roJlowers,. of the Sikh r, e1igion. :· Clearly, the Dera was miatafoed for. an entirely <1.istini sect b9wn as, the Ni'rn{aia Sadhs who 'cannot be regarded as Sikhs and, consequently, in their mere capacity of foll@wers of Sikhs religion residing in village Jha~,'.awal_a,. the plaintiffa/respcindents could not be held to have sitchim interest as could entitlei hem

to institute the suit t!nder s. 92 of the Cod• of Civil Procedure."_

 Shr.i P1adke appearingfo,"the re•j1odent.o~ the 'other hand . . . h 1~ citd.M,., fiant Dharam Das etc. v. State of Pun/ab & Grs.'2> .. . D, aling with the tenets of the Sikhs this Court observed:

 "Ti1e Sikhs believe in the ten Gurus.:__the last of whom was 'Guru Gobind Singh. They further believe 'that there is no otl; cr,

Guru after Guru Gobind Singh ;.vho enjO{led on his followers that after him they should consider Guru Granth Sahib as tho Guru. They .do not sbscribe to idol worship and polyteism, nor do they hav' any Samadhi in their shrines. The teaching pf Sikhs was against asceticism.' They believe ih Guru Granth 'Sohib., which is a Rosary of sacred poems, exhortations; etc.

(l) r1961(2 s, c.R. 739.

(2) (1975) 3 s.c;.R. 160 ..

.- .

·.D.

E ..

F .

~: A

''c

' .

. I . ,. ' '

Duing :th~ time of the Sikh Gurus the Gurdwaras were under their d\rect supervision and conirol or. under their Masends or• ' missionary agents. After the death 6f Guru Gobind Singh the , .Panth ls re'cognised as the the corporate representative or'the Guru o)l earth and thereafter they were managed by the Panth through their Granthis and other sewadars who were under direct 'S'upervision of the locai Sangt or congregation.-' The posi!ion of the Gurdwaras changed during British regime. The

~: ·~. ' .- '_" mahants who were in charge pf the Sikh Gurdwaras could either be a S\kh Mahan! or., Udasi Mahan! .... Though there v; as no ·.

reconciliation between the Sikhs and Udasis, it did not matter ;_J" if the M1hant ofa Sikh Gurdwra was not a Sikh Mahan! because •. , the' PaAtbc.or Sarigat exercised control over the 'Gurdwaras". j

~ ·.

Next r; liance was placed o Solian , Das v. JJc/a Singh & Os.M ' . : ,_ ,, - . It - - ' ., ' ' ' . - Dealing with\s. l6(2ff of the Sikh Gurdwara Act the Court oberved:

I '

:· " " . ._,.,..;,. ":Thedocumentary evidenc.e therefore establishes, that the dharams.ala has been a place of public worship since 1853, and that such worship has been connected with.the Gran th Sahib· · I' am prepared to accept th evidence of the objectors that the '\' . existenc~ of a samadh dates only from recent times, morethan

pobab!y after t!,1e Sikh Gurdwara controvetsy had beconie acute a1id he. imprtance of a samadh had l:i'een realizec\ by the .lJdasi Mahants, I hold therefore that the evidence supports tile conlusion of the majority f the Tribunal that this institution , falls withins. 16 (2) (iii) of the Act".

~- ' . .

~ . ' , In view of the divergen! cases cited by the cou'nsel: f,)r the parties we have(jto take into consideration the distindive features of a : :Sikh Gurdw:{ra .as discussed in the :earlier part of the' judgment., so '

viewed; the 'disknce and worship of Gum Granth Sahib and the exi', stence of Nishan Sahib are the determinative factors. " ·

The Tribunal c!id not take into consideration the oral evidence adduced by the parties. Eight witnesses were prcduc<) en behalf - . ' ' ");' . ' . . .· ', of the appellant while six.witnesses were produced on behalf of the the respondent'. The High Court also did not give a proper deal to the oral evide)ie addt; ced by the appellant., The only consideratin

given by'the 'High court to the oral testimony of the witnesses on

~ - . _, . behalf, of thefappellant was in the following terms: . , ,

(I) AIR 1934 Lilh. 180."

' ' '

.. ,,

• <

"(.

,·:.I..

' ....

. ;·.

P'IUTAM DASS v. GURVDWARA PRABANPHAK COMMITTEE (Misra, J.) 577. r • . '' 1 •

. . . ( ._' ' ,. ·. '-- - ' ' " -, 'lit ' . "As regards the oral testimony on . the point that the

I'. A . ' - ' '• . '. ' . . _,. institution was a Dera ot an Udasi Sadhu, the same is obi- • ·. ously inte1ested, and hardly credible. The Tribunal has not attac thed any weight to the mi; and we are wholly in agreement .

' . with the finding 'of the ,1)ribunil. on that poi.nt." . . .

 The witnesses, on either side have cgrneto depose on oath. The .. &rounds on which the evideqce adduced on behalf of the ·appellant. J has been: discarded mafequally apply to the evide.nce adduced on. be- ' :Jialfof the respondent The Court should have considered the worth '"- of the evide.ne of each witne. ss and sh. ould ]lave given reason.s for d. is- .

-- . . \ believing the same on merit. A bald .observation that the' witnesses.

produced on' behalf of the .. appellat are interested must be deprecat\:d. .

'.;, . ' . ' ' ; - ' Even otherwise the.co.urts below have no.t approached the case . from .the correct angle. (The. our ts hail to cl.eciile the question in view . . efthe pr0visions of mb-s.(2) of s. 16 of the Act nd they had. to recor_d

a psitive fitiding in the Iigllt of sub-s. (2) of s. 16,) which reads: ·;.~,.. ' .

")6 (2) If the tribunal finds that the gurdwara_,, . . . . - ' . - . -

 .. (i} was es\ablished by, ; r i~ memoryof.any of the Ten Sikh.

Gurus,.or in commemoraticil of any incident in the life of _: any of the Ten Siklj Gnrus and was used for public worship ··.by Sikhs, before and at the 'time of the presentation of the : of the petition nnder 'sub-section (I) of section 7 ;'.or . . ' . . ..

(ii) owing to some tradition co'rlnectecl' with one of the Ten Sikh .

Gums, was used. for public worship predominantly by Sikhs, • before and at the time of the presentation of thepetition .. u.nder sub-section•(I) of scctio~ 7; or . . . ' \ . . ' (iii) as etablishedfor use by Sikhs for thepu; pos~\f pblic .

worship and was usd for such worship by Sihks, before

and at the time of.the presentation' of the petition under .

Sub-section (I) of section 7 qr. - · ·

\:' .

.G.

(iv) was established in memr~· of.a Sikh martyr,'saint or histori- . 1

. cal person: and was used for public worship by Sikhs,'before:

and at the time of the pfesenttion of the petition under H sub-section (1) of section 7; or ·~ · .

. \ . "

·. ;-'\_

_ "'

SUPRE~JE COUQT REPORTS [198~] . 2 s.c.R.

(v) owing to some .incident connect"d with the Sikh religion was

, used for public worship predpminantly .my Sikhs, before ' ad at the time ti~ the presentation of the petition under

si1b-section (1) of section 7; . . . ' '

the. tribuna1 shall decide th.at it shciuld be declared to be a Sikh , , Gl\rdwara, and record an <:rc\er accordingly." . .'

Uhless the.claim falls within one-or the"other of the catO:go1ies enumerated in sub-section (2) .of' s: 16, the institution: cannot be declared to be a .Sikh Gurdwara.

, The Court hacl, therefore, first to consider as pleaded by. the parties, as to whether Bhai Bhagtu was a urlasi saint or a Sikh saint, . and then. to decide on the basis of evidence whether the institµti.on in question is one or. the other of the types indiated'. This was the only.

, question for consideration before the High Court but. unfortunately it assumed, what was to be proved. '

' Oo t!1~ fo1'egoing discussiqn we are satisfled that the Hi; h 'court' has not given a 15ro]l, er deal to the matter and has not considered the or, al evidence .add.riced on behalf'of the parties. Nor has it approached case.form the cotre.ct perspective of law. .- • .

Ordinarily, iii a situation as here, the matter should have gone.

bak. to he High Court for rec.ording findings on the bai:Sis of appreciation of evidence but, we are not incl ind to remand the matter as it is a very old dispute. We .-a're, ihrefore, prepaJed to take that,, burden o'urselves and finally decide the. dispute.· As would.· appear, parties were aware of the nature of ciaim and the tvidence . - - . , ' . ' \ ·.to oe led' and, therefore, par.tie~ concentrated their attaention_ on .the aspects which would be decisive of. the poiflts in dispute. It is unfortunate that the Tribunal and the High Court did not keep the " . proper perspective in view whils dealing with the matte1.

. ; O• behalf of the appellant Rain Saran Dass, P W I, Charan Dass, PW 2, Bishan Dass, PW 3, Jagraj Singh, PW 4, hajju :Ram,

PW 5, Zora Singh Patwari, PW 6, Surjit Sin1ih. PW 7 and the appel- lant; PW .. 8, were examined. On. behalf of the respondent, Hardev Singh, RW I, B1chan Singh, RW 2, Ba!bir Singh, .RW 3, Balwant Singh, R W 4, Hazura Singh, R W s: a11d Gurdial Singh, RW 6, were' . '-. ' . - exammed as witnesses.

' .

"f.·

• I ' PRITAM DASS v: GURDWARA PRABANDHAK COMMI:rTEE. (Misra, i.) ~79

• ' < • '

' _,,,;,· . .

Th_e finding of the High Court as extracted hereinbef9re clea-

A . . rly show tilat the four tmpqrtant and most relevant aspects of the "case ·

as disclosed in the evidence were completely ovrlooked or side-tracked by the Hlg'1 Court, They are . : (i) there are Samadhs on tiw premis?S _of th' institution; (ii) there ate idols and photos of"Hindu deities; (iii) Bhai BhagtU was a Udasi Saint; and-(iv) succession was frdm Gurll so Chcla .. The petition filecl by the appellant under , ,. .B

s.8 of the Act co11tained a clear averm?nt that the instituiion \lad' ' been set up by Bhai Bhagtu wl\o was a Udasi Saint and the pre ... sence of three Samadhs of (1) Bhai .Biiagtu, (2J Baba Paras Ram Ji "~ and (3), M"fhant Sahib. Dass i, was' also. asserted. In the . wrilteq

statement the' respontlcnt, after a vague denial, had admitted the in'.titutiOn to have been foundect' by Bhai Bhagtu.. ' . .

. ' .

PW I, Rani Saran Dass stated that there 'was an id0l.ofBaba Srichand in. the institution and there were pictures of Lord Krishna' a1\d oth"r Hincl.u deities. .This '.statement wao elicited in crossexaininaticin made by the respondent.

PW 2 has. stated that there is ah idol of Baba. Srichand and. Gola Sahib in the institution and 1 D they are objects of worship.

PW 3, Bishart Dass; referred to the, idol of. Baba Srichand. PW 4, Jagial stated that there. were three or fouc'Sarn"dhs on the premises of . the institution and those are objects elf \vorship. , There wa~ no challenge to this statement in. examiaati9a-in-chief by cro'ssexaniination .. P\Yi 5 as _asked iii cross examination whether there . were Samadhs on the. premises of the .-'";;'. . inslituti~:nd his answ'C is revealing. He stated that there are ·-three Sa ·:is on-the premises of the institution and there is a. dome over tl10 Samadh of Bhai Bhagtu. He .added t)lat there are other pictures of Hindu deities and Hindu festivals are celebrated, in the instituti9rl. PW 7, Surjit Singh, the local Sarpanch stated that the

'. '1. institution -.yas of ljdasi Fakirs, He also stated that there is a: Samadh

. F of\Bhai Bb.agtu on the premises of the institution and it is an 9bject of worship. He indicated that the Samadh ofBhai Bhagtu was worshipped .iil a grand ; cale while the other two Samadhs were not .treated qn equa.l basis. Thete was no cross-examinatio~. o.f this wit • . ness on this aspect. Pritam Dass, the appellant did support. his case,,

Oridinarily his evidenc~ would have been treated as interested as he G happens to be the party but his assertions have well corroborated .

• Coming to the respondent's side:· the first witness Hardev Singh in his examination-inchief stated tha.t there is a Samacih of Bhai Bhagtu in the institution and another Samadh of his mother. On the basis of

: H . this adission of the. principal witness of the respondent there can be

. . . ' I. : ' . ·.

I. '

_:~·

-~-

' ' '

•.,.,.

.B.

''' ' ' .--/ 580

, SUPREME COURT.REPORTS [1984] 2 , s.c.!l. I no ; doubt that Samadhs eist within the institutio~. At the hearin~.

' . . . . . - I ,_; ' counsel had pointed out that this .witness was a ll).ember of the Commu_nits Party. We do not think _that would at all be a proper /V~Y of appreciating the evidence o(the witnesses; He was a witness called by the respondent and was notl declared hostile, if he made admissions in his examination-in-chief. On the other hand, the fact that he dots not belong to .the groups of either party and is a Communist would lend credence to his evidence as coming from an, impartial source.

Thenext_witness; RW 2, Bachan Singh admitt.i'd the existence of the 'Samadhs but denied that the Samadh of Bhai Bhagtu was an objet ·

'' \,..,

of worsliip. RW 3, Baibir Singh, admitted pie presence of Samadh of _;,.j,:-

B_hai Bha'gtu as also oC:his mother. It.is in the evid<ince.cifthis witn•u '\·. that he also belongs to the C:omoiun!st Party. What. we hvo &aid about RW I 'equally. applies. to thls )vitness: RW 4, Balwani "singh aditted the_ presence of Bhai Bhagtu's Samadh; while_ RW S, ·

 Hazura Singh stated that' there were two Samadhs oh the premiwr-, one of Bhai Bhagtu and the' other of his mother. The last witness, RW 6, c; urdia( Singh in his eidence admitted the existence offue tw" Samadhs--o-of Bhai }lhagtu and liis mother. ' ·

• I • . . • " This'. analysis of the evidence clearly indicates that it has been ·

'"( '

unquestioriably established without the' slightest shadow or'a doubt that there are at least two Samadhs on the premises of the institution--. . , . one being of-Bhai Bhagtu and the other of his mother; ' .

. .

Th~ existence of the idol of Baba Sricand, the' rofder o~ the~--~. ' Udasi sect in the premises. also ; eems to bjivebeen fully establisheli. ' • - . As already stated, Sikhs would not permit the idol of Baba Srichand ' in a Gurdwara while Udasis would oridinarilyinstall such an idol to perJ?eluate the memory of the' founder of their sect. '' ' ' --r

' What emerges from this disu'ssion is tliat as found by the .Tribu

1 nal; .the succession was from Guru t.o Chela1 that Bhai Bliagtu was a Udasi Saint and there are Samadhs on the premiseso11e of Bhai G Bhagtu' and .the other of hls mother. Evidence 'shows that there are photos of Hirtdu deities in the illstitution. These. three fads, • Without anything more, would be su:(llcient to rejectthe case of.the respeorident i that the institution is aSikli Gurdwara: We" would like to, reiterate , i that existence of Samadhs and succession from Gum to Chela would'

H . ·

.. I clearly b~ destrhctive of ~Iiaracer .of, , the institution.' as S!kh. ·.

Gllrdwara because they are 1ncons1stent with. the tenets of the Sikh . ' \ ' ,. ' ' ';- ' . . - ,_ -· .

. --~ .

i,_.r .. , .. .\

• . - '}.,

~~-,• . ._ -

~ ,

PAITAM DASS v. GUR~WARA:PRABANDHAK COMMITTEE (Misra,!.) 581' . . . .

religion. The issue before the High Court as . also the Tribunal' was • whether the institutiOn Dera Bhai .Bhagtu .was a Sikh Gurdwara. . -- ( ·.. ' - ' '

ileference to ; nother aspect would be relevant here. Counsel for the respondent-emphasised the, featnre that there. was evidence .. to, 'show that Guru Graiith Sahib was recited and read in this institution. . It.is wellestblislied that Udasis.are mid:way behveen Sikhs 0n the one hand aitd Hindus 'on the .other. Srichand, son of Guru Nanak, the founder of the .Sikhism, had, as already indicated, broken away and set up 'the Udasi sect. Udasis ile venerating Guru Grantk Sahib, - retained Hindu practices and -~!so showed their veneration to the

.~ Samadhs: From -the very fact. that .Guru Grant4. Sahib' was recited -

'ih this institution, no; support can be drawn, forifh~_.claim that the. institution was a Sikh.:· Gurdwara. . . ' . -

: On the fuateriaTS on record, we_ are .of the view that the findings

rec.01:ded by the Tribunal as a.lso the High Court are wholly unsllppor-,,

- table to satisfy the tests indicated in law for determining the character of the inttitution. We allow the appeal, _reverse the decision of the . Tribunal as , upheld by the High Court and declare . that Dera '

Bhai Bhagtu is not Sikh Gurdwara. In the circumstances of the case there would be .no order as to costs. , . -

S.R.

A.ppeal allowea.

/ --

-I -

- \

-.·~:

; ' I

.c:

•, ~

i&.'

PRITAM DASS MAHANT

SHIROMANI GURUDWARA PRABANDHAK COMMITTEE

DESAI

R. B. MISRA

Sikh Gurudara Act, 1925

Section 7(1)

Act, 1925

Bhai Bhagtu

on the premises of the institution; (ii) there are idols and photos of Hindu _deities; (iii} Bhai Bhagtu was a Udasi' Saint; and (iv) suCcession was frcim Gurq, to.

Baba Para~ Rain Ji

Bhai Bha£, tu who was a :Udasi Saint and t4e presence of th.rc.c Sainadhs of (1).Bhai .Bhagtu, (2) Baba Para~ Rain Ji; and (3) Mahant Sahib"DassJi, was also asseitcd.

Pritani Dass

Baba Srichand

Srichand

Guru Nanak

s. 16

Ganth Sahib

Gurudwai

Solum Das

Bela Singh

K. V{1sdev

V.M. Phadke

Harl>ans Singh

Faridkot

Pepsu

s. 7

s. 7

18th 6ctober, 1963

SS. 8 and 10

Sikh Gurdwara Tribunal

Gola ahib

Baba Sricharid

Shiromani Gurdwara

Section 16

Guru Arjan

Sikh Gurus

Guru Gobind Singh

Guru Granth

Graqth Sahib

Guru Granth Sahib

Sangat

Nishan Sahib

Guru Granth Sahib

Nlunit Lal

Shan

s. 16

Bhai Bhagtu

. N. Phadke

s. 16

s. 16

Sikh Gurdwara Act

Guru Naiiak

PRITAM ass

Misra

Sadh

Udasfa

s. 92

Guru Granth 'Sohib

.lJdasi Mahants

Sikh Gurdw:{ra

Gum Granth Sahib

s. 16

s. 16

section 7

section 7

section 7

section 7

Rain Saran Dass

Charan Dass

Bishan Dass

Jagraj Singh

hajju :Ram

Zora Singh Patwari

Surjit Sin1ih

Hardev Singh

B1chan Singh

Ba!bir Singh

Balwant Singh

Hazura Singh

Gurdial Singh

PRITAM DASS

GURDWARA PRABANDHAK COMMI

Bhai BhagtU

Bhai .Biiagtu

Baba Paras Ram Ji

M"fhant Sahib. Dass

Rani Saran Dass

Baba. Srichand

Gola Sahib

Bishart Dass

Jagial

Surjit Singh

Pritam Dass

Bachan Singh

Baibir Singh

RW 3, Baibir Singh, admitted pie presence of Samadh of _;,.j,:-

Bhai Bha'gtu as also oC:his mother.

Balwani

to thls )vitness: RW 4, Balwani "singh aditted the presence of Bhai Bhagtu's Samadh; while_ RW S, ·

 Hazura Singh stated that' there were two Samadhs oh the premiwr-, one of Bhai Bhagtu and the' other of his mother.

urdia( Singh

Baba Sricand

Bhai Bliagtu


---- . c

. -G

582 ....

JA:VfD RASOOL- BHAT & ORS; ETC.

-· "' . v.' : -STATE OF JAMMU &'KAS!-lMJR AND ORS.

February 16, 1984 ' "

(0. CH!NNAPPA REDD¥, E.S. VEN](AJ:ARAMIAH AND R:B. MJSRA, JJ.]. .-. . .

EducationaJ. lnstitutions-Adniisston to .

. M; dical. Colleges-AJn1ission to-Viva vote 1est-W!ieti1er Court Could io .into relewu.1cy of qiestions pu1'o candidates. ·· . . -~ . - . . .

Nat, ura/justice: .Medical Col/eges-Ad111issionto_:_Ca11did.tte elated to Mrnber of Selection Com11litee-SeleCtlo11 whethei vitia(ed. • .

The' State Governtnent issued an adveitiS111ent _inviting. application for ac!mis sion -to t)le fir.st year MBBScourse in the two medical colleges in'.the State. Jt ·.Was nlentio'ned therein that the candidates would have to appear ina written'tcst which would be followed by a ViYavoce test and that 85 points were _allowed for thewritten test 'and 15 pOints -were Vivavoce test. The 'SeleCtion con1mittec for the selection. was constitut.cd t_o conSist of the Chahn1p.n of the State. Public, Service Co1nmissi'on as Chainnan; and two members. vii., the Principals of the two -Medicil Colleges .. The quorun1 for a nJeeting of the Cori1111ittee was stipulated as the chair.man and .one me1nber. When the Selection Corrimittce held its -first n1eet i.ng Orle Or the 1nnbJrs, thC Principal of the College inforn1cd the~ Com'1nittee that as his daughti::r was one of the cartdidates con1peting for adn1ission, it' would nOt be desirabl~ for him to bC associated, at ny stage, with the wrlttcn test, arid that he, would not like to be preseht when liis.daulihtcr \Vas interviewed>The Com1nittce took'note of ih_e inform<j.tiorl and agreed with the suggeStion ...

. The petitioners in their writ petitions under Article 32, questioned the seleCt ion'ofcani:lidates for admission: It -was .. contendcdoi1 their behalf that.: (l)the entire selection_ was vitiated by th(: prescrice on the Comi:nittee of the father of a caddida.t~, and this was a 'gross violatiOn of one the .principles of najural Justice :

(2) the entire procedure was ad as the marks obtained by the candidates at the qualifying examination (T.DC.:_art I Medical group) were not taken into account and 'not giVen any We_ight3.ge; (3) the viva.....:.....voce test provided for 1points for . general kno"'.ledge and general 'inteIIi£-ei:iSe whereas it \\{ould have been_ mOre appro- . priate to test general knowlege ail(( general ii, telligencc' of t; andidate by holding..·

a written instead of a viva-voce test;. (4f gerieral knowledge and general intelligence ere not matters to be tested in a written exaininatiOn; ·(5) there . w_as delay in the-annOuncement of the results and the delay made the seICction suspect, and (6) the regulaiionS made by the , Indian Medical' Councii prescribed .thilt the marks obtained in the -qualifying examination Should be taken in to Conside1ation. . . . . ' :DismiSsing the writ petition ; . - HELD: 1. I{ is not unusual for Candidates.related to inembers ofthCService Commissiou. or othe'r Selecticin Committee t~ sek . elnp~yrneu~ .. -_Whenever St1ch a

' '

. . \

. } I.AVID RASOOL.V._J & K S~ATE (Chinnappa Rei/4y,_J.) 583 .

\' sitution arises, the' praCtice genreally is for, the' n1en1ber concerned io.exuse himstlf ~- <. .wlreii'thc parti'cular candjdateis interVieWed.

Iri the iristant cas~, .the Pricipa[ of th~·. Medicl college, wf1osc d~Ughter Was a canOfctai~ for adffiission to the Medical College .informed the Selection

Committee at the very outset about fhis f<Lct 3.nct told theQl that h~ woUJd 'not ·have anything to do with the writtentest and woul.i not be present When his daughter as inierviewect.-." The other members' -of the Selection COmtrtittee

cepted th'C sugges'tion Of the PrinciPal\ and did not addrc;:ss the G.overnmnt 'to appoint a sllbstitute member of the Selection. Committee, since ihc Govern-' .4.. ment had :(ixcid the quor 1 um -for a meeting of te Selection Committee, as_tbe

 1.

Chairman and one o her member and it was possible to have a qudru_m -{ without ihe Pfincipal. The procedure adopted by the SeleetiOn Cornri::iitteC aod ·

~ ... - ' the. !member' eonCerned was -m. accord with. the quite well-known.and generally accepted procedure adoptCd by the Public- Service Coihmissions 'everywhere.

- ' - ' . . .

Nagarajan v. State of Mysore, Jl966J3- S.C.R. 682, . referr. d. to .. [5%A-CJ

2. It is no't for.the Court tCI ·sit'.!. in judgmcµt. Over tc nature of the ...... ·- questiol1s t? be put' by, the membefs of. the_ Selection' Committee.

'f'F _'It is for the, members' of the. Seleqtion Committee, to dec_ie what they should ask and so ong as the questions arc notSuch as to indicate-that the intefvicw' \Vas nothing but. a ake--belicve, 'the matter mUSt be allov.ed" to rest . there. It i~ not the function oftheCoµrt to weigh e:aCh questioll io find out the extent

to which it is ·~\.:.latedto aptitude,·. general knowledge_ or gerieraJ ntclligencc. If tl1e . question is riot fJ.ipparit, it is not for the cOurt to say that the question was irreleVant

and ShO'qld not have beeti. asked. at any -inierview. Perhaps. irrelcv.allt questiolls , may also~ be asked to explore the candid3.te's capacity' tO detect: .irrelcyancies. lt is j..... not for the Court to clain1 to hself the task of determining the na, ture of the questions

 _ ./to be pi.it to candidates., apPearing t an i1:1terview .. , The persons consti.tuting the _; .. ?" Selection Co111fQ.ittect who. may generally be assumed _to be n1en i of experience. and

...--t~. _ knowledgCable in regar4 to men and nlaiters may st1rely be expe-ctCd to pu~ the fight

questios .. In th absence of rnalafidcS, th~ mitter, is bet left t~ the-n1. [58.9E'.GJ

. ' ":3{i) Th qutin a-S to the subjects in wlic~· ~~ entran~ test may be heI~ is hardly a natter fof the Court, unless, of course, ihe subjects arq_ sO arbitrarily chosen as to.\.ave not. the slightest-cnneciion witli the objeC~ of , th~ exami1a1ion.

Such a ; ituation is Uot likely to arise B.s:the authO}itieS rllay be expects:ci" tO .act reasonably. Again it.is 1; ot fof the COurt to lay .down whether an interview test

sliouldbe held .at 'all or how illany marks -hould be allOted for the intei-v:ieW test.

Of coufse,. thernai:-ks n1ust-be. mini_mal so as .to :H.void charges of arbitrarinCss bllt not necessarily al\vayS. There may be. posts and appoihtrrients whefe. the only proper method of selection may be by an interview test Even iii the case of admission to

/ F

higher degrees courses, it may sOnietimes be necessary to allot a fairly high percentage. ' . G of nlarks for the interview test. -That'is why rigid iules cannot bC laid down in these.

atters, ahd.· not by -purts .. The , experts ae generally the -best.judges:. TheCourts

~: duty IieS in pretenting arbitrariness and. denial ofeqUal opportunity. [592C-E,592B]

. -3ii) , s interfere when the risk of arbitiariness 'is so high that" arbitrafiness is inevitable .. AgaifJ. the Court is not the best judge of.what questi9ns :ffiay be asked at .the inter-view. All that is' 'nc6ssary is that the questions should not be H.

_. ... amere pretence. [592F] · , ..

'_,. . '•

, .

', -

' Ajay Hasia's case, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 7.9 ;' Chitra 1i"ekha a1!d Ors. 11. State of Mysore and Or_s.. [1964) 6 S.C.R. 368; A. Peeriakaruppan v.

 4(i) Tle Selcctin Co1n1nittee appa:rentl; r 'bought it would be better .to have ' . va comrµon entrance test. It appears to be a perfectly reasonable procedure. Even otherwise it is always open to a Selection Co1nn1ittee to insist on taking into consideration marks Obtained at the exan1ination held by it and eXcluding from Considera'.'tion 1narks obtained in examinations held by Other bodies. There is nothing-' wrong in this procedure, [595C-D]

4(ii) It wa's a matter for .the Selection. Conm1ittce to decide whether ., gfneral kno\Vledge and general intelligence could be more appropriately .tested in the vivavoce tCst or in the written test. That is not a matier 'for the court to decide: [595F].

5. There ,.was in fact no delay in The announcement of results and the suspicion, if.anY, was uounded. [595G] ' . ' -

6. 'The regulation of the-Indian Mddical Council prescribing tha.t the marks otbiained, at the qualifyipg examination should be taken into consideration has no application becatise, ithere are two Medical colleges .in the sta'.te. Though only one Board conducted .. the qualifying exan1ination, the examinations ere conducted. separately for Jamr'nU and Srinagar areas and. on tv-io different occasions.

Moreover, 'the-regulations of the Council haYe been held to be directory and ilot mandatory by this Court. [597 D-E) .

' Madhya Prdesh. ;_ Kr. Nivedita Jain [1981] 4 S.C.C. 296, referred to. - ,_ ,,------ - OmGINA'L JumsmcTION : WRIT PETITION (C1v11)Nos. 13325-37. 13366, 13683 to 13687 ef 1983, 256-260 & 579-81 of 1984 (Under article 32 of the Constitution of India).

~ '

. .__,_ ' __,. ' Ani/ Dev Singh, As/wk S.en and S.B. Bhasme R. Satish; S.S. Gupta, J.b. Kotidhar 11nd S.S. Khanduja, for the Petitioner's.

Y.S. Chitale, G.L. Sanghi, S.N. Kacker •and V.M. Tarkunde. 'Alta/ Ahmad for Respondents.

The Judgment of .the Court was deiivered by ..

CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. Writ petitions questioning admissions to the medical colleges at Srinagar. and Jammu appear to have become an annual feature in this court. In the previous years, there was some" justification. It does not appear to be so this year. In these writ petitions, the selection of candidates for. admission to the two medical. colleges at Srinagar and Jammu as well as the _nominations by the

Governmentof Jammu & Kashmir to medical colleges outside the State are in qustio\l On Max 24, 1983, the Governmen.t ofJammu

...

.JI

' { -

I•~•

• ' ' ..

' . . ~-·

...

JAVID RASOOL v, J & K s:rATE (Chinnappa Reddy, J.) ·.' 585

.· & Kashmir issed an advertisement inviting applications from per-

A .. manent residents of Jammu & Kashm'rState 'for admission to• the first year MBBS in the medical colleges it Jammu & Srinagar. One

of the conditions of eligibility was that a candidate should have passed the "First toe (Medical Group) xainination from Jammu & Kashmir . Boardof School Eduction wi!h ·at less than 50'.Y., oft.he total marks' in English , and Science subjects taken. together" ... There w&s some re: · B laxation in favour candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, etc. with 'which we are not no\;; coricernd, We are also riot concerned in these. wiit petitions with the 'reservations' made in favour of various , lasses. We are only concerned with the sea!s or. places available for ' open competition. The adve.ftisement expressly .mentioned, that the . candidates would have to appear in a wriiien test of 'TDC-Part I Stan-

.. C 1

. dard' comprising of two papern," one' paper consisting of .the subjects, .· Physics and Chemistry' and the other, .Biology -and English, It wao; - alsomentioned in'the advertisment that the candidates would be requ- , ired to appear at a' Viva-voce examination .. _on 7th July, 1983, the . Government of Jammu & Kashmir.published a notification called the · Jammu & Kashmir Government MediCal Colleges (Siection of Candi-. , D •" •' . _ _,) dates for Admission tb First Year MBBS _Course) Procedure Order 1983, Paragraph 4 of the . order which is relevant is as follows:. - .

,_,:

I "4. Merit :-:-:The inter-se•merit of the candidtes determined on the basis of the following:- . . . - .

'(i) Written test

(ii) Viva voce

' .

Total

., 85 Points

.. 15 Points

 100 Points '

shall , be

:..----:<.,...-..

The points earmarked for .. viva-voce will . further be sub- . divided into the following factors: . ' ' ' . ' ' . ~' .,. ,. .

\· '

(a) Apptitude

(b)G.K.GI

8 Points.·

•· . ; . 7 Points

. ~~~~-'--~~~~~ Total.' .. 15 Points" ,,

>. ..

':1'

- E

'i86 [l 984] 2 s.c.R.

: 011 26th August 1983. a Selection Committee was constituted consisting of the, Chairman of the Jainmu and Kashmir Public._Se1'ice ' Commission as Chairman nd two members, namely, the Principals t of the two, Government Medical C~Ilegcs at Srinagar and Jammu.

The quorum for a meeting of the Committee was• stipula, ied as the Chairmanand one.member .. On the. same day by another notification it was directed that the Selection Committee should arrange and conduct the written test andevo\ve its own procedure for appointing examiners and for .. the yonduct of. the examination, etc: n.e Selectio1; 'Commiitee held its first meeting , on September 2, 1983 when one of t]1e members~ the Principal of the Government Medical College; Srinagar informed the Committee'that his daughter was one of the candidates and that it would not be desirable for him to be associated, at any'stage, with the written.test to be conducted by the Corrimittee and further that he would not like to be pfesenr when his daughter was interviewed. The Committee took note of the information and agreed with the supgestion. As tlic.Govrnment had also fixe(L1 quorum for a rrteeting of the Committee, it was not conside.red necessary to have a substitute member appointed. Thereafter a &tailed' procedure was evolved for the written test and intcrviews.'_The Charirman waautho Tised to consult the Chairman of the Jan:unu & Kashmir Board of School Eduction and select the required number of cxainihcrs and paper-settors. The written test was conductd simultaneousiy at Jammu & Kashmir on Septembe_r 22, 1983. The written test was followed by. interviews from September 26, 1983 to October 11, 1983. One important factor wl\ich requires to be.mentione.d here is that the marks secured in the written test by the respective cari~.idates was not available• to the Selection1Committee when the Committee interviewed the candidates .. The Committee met again on October 25, 1983 by which time 1 - ' - , the results of the written test were also available. The Selection Committee proceeded. with the task'or'finalising the selection. Jhe selected candidates were sent indiviudal intimations and on December 3. 1983, a notification was published by tlie Government of :rammu & Kashmir informing the public that the.result of the written test/Viva Voce:held

fr admission to the First year of the_ MBBS Course for the Medical Colleges of the State was available in the offices of the Principals of the Government Medical Colleges atJamtnu and Srinagar. Candidates were also told that marks card would be issued on payment of a fee . of Rs. ~/- and that any candidate interested in seeing his/lier answer book could do so on payment _of Rs. 20/- as fee for each paper. Some of the facts mentioned above were taken by us from the counter affidavits filed on behalf of th<> Government of Jarrrrnu & Kashniir and were ncit admitted by the petitioners. Wedo not however have the slightest

. _

 .

...

. '

. JAVID RASOOL v. J &KSTATE (\hinnappa .Reddy, J.) 587,

. .· . . ; ' .' ·, ' , doubt about the coriectness of these facts, as they are fully supp0rted . . l)y tontepraneous official records,,

The. petitifjers,'have fil, ed these writ. petitons inipunging .the : se/ection made 'by the Committee .on various grounds. Jn their-peti~. !ions, they have inc1.ulged in serveral , allegati.Ons and insinuations for whic there is no basis whatsoever. Shri Anil Dev Singh, .learned coun. . sel for some of the petitioners raised .th'.ee tonteptions: The first was ·

'that the entire selection was vitiatecl~ by the. prese, iJce o_n the C_ommji- . , 'tee (if the father of a candidate.' The second contention was th2t tho

ntire. procedure was.bad ciS the .tnarks 0b!.aii1ed by the- Candidates

·~·· at the qualifying examination (TDC, PartfMedicai Group) were not taken into.account and not given , any, weightage whatever; The third contention was that the viva-voce test provided for 7 points for general knowledge 'and general intelligence wher.eas it would have been more. appropriate to t, est:the general knowledge and general intelligence of

''l"'

candidates by holding a written test i, nstead of a viva voce. test. Shri Anil Dev Singh also general 'y submitted that the viva voce , test was a rnere manoeuvrdesigned to bring in candidates who had.fared badly iii the written test Shri A.K. Sen, le.arned counsel who appca; ed for .'some of the other petitioners made only 'one 5ubmisionand it '..Jas.that . . 'the viva voce est .. Iiad wofked in an unreasdnal; Jc 'arid arbitir:fy n-·: nner; ir{Jact and as a matter of principle'. -He i:- 1aboraTfd tf:r subndssiori by arguing that though the two papers in. the writt•:n te~V curried

550 marks, they were reduced to 85 points as against 15 points for the ·\; viva voce test. The .result, according to him, was ihat candidates who ;'i.. got a lead of 20-?5 marks in the writtentes1 had to'bow dc\\n to f3ndi,

~ dates who got a lead of 3 or 4 points in the viva vcce test as the marks . . . ' '- ' . ' .

...

·~

' '

obtained in the written test were reduced to points in the ratio of 550 to 85. Sh.ri Sen also 'submitted that the questions put lo the candidates .at .the iliterview were not designed to(test.ithH aptitude or general

hnow!edge or general intelligence and for that reason, the selection"

was vitiated, He suggested that the final results bcre 'c!c c; uont lesti.C 'inony t? te ij_ustice dQne tO t_he_ miority_comunity in -te State.~·

\ ~- We find no substnce whatever in any .of tlie subm'issions made by Shri Anii Dev Singh and Shr, i A.K,.

Se11. We may straightway

observ.e tat the .insinuatio1i that the interviews were so cn, ductd as to do injustice to 'the minority community appears to us to be unchari- . table and impetuous. We find that there ai; e candidates belonging to both the majority and the minority communities among the cndi-· dates who were able, to' secure admi.s'sion because of the points scoed by them in the viva voce , test, as.also amongst the candidtes who

'' '.

' \

' '

.. ----·

•. -.

A failed to secure admission because of their low score in the viva voce test. The inconsiderateness of the allgatioif is evident from the fact that the marks obtained by the candidates in the writien test were not even available to the Selection Committee when, they conducted the viva v.oce test. This circumstance is sufficient to repudiate the broad allegation freely made by Shri' Anil Dev Singh that the viva voce test B was designed to facilitate tlie selection of candidates who had fared badly in the written test.

The submission that the questions put ti:> the candidates at the intervie\v were not designed to test either the aptitude, general hno\'{- ledgeor gerieral .intelligence of the candidates is equally without sub-· stance. In the writ petitions, no such averment was made nd no instances were given. In the petition a general allegation was made thaUhe viva voc; e test had been abused to dilute the otherwise high merit of the. petitioners. On behalf of the respondents, one of the members of the Selection Committee;· Dr. S.L. Verma, Principal of the Government Medical College, Jammu filed a counter-affidavit in which, he stated'. ....... Notless than six minutes were. spent on each candidate though

0 in certain cases interview lasted for more than. ten minutes. All the candidates were. fully and fairly assessed and it is denied that .the candidates. were interviewed only to mainpulate the results. The candidates were questioned by the members , of seJectfon Corµmittee only in respect of factors of interview prescribed in SR0-380 dated 7-7-1783 and the entire process was above board and extremely fair. I submit that. the result of the written test became available to .the members of the selection committee only after. the interviews had . been completed", After this couhter-affidavit had been filed, some of the petitioners chose to file 'rejoinder affidavits' to suggest that their 'interviews lasted for about two to three minutes only and that questions relating to the aptitude, general knowledge or. general intelligence of the candidates were not asked. It was .stated that some some of the candidates were asked the names and occuptions of their /

. '' ' . parents or brothers, and some were asked why he or she wanted to becbme

0 a doctor and so on.Aarti Kaul stated in her affidavit that1 G she was also asked to give an example of Collard (?) of the human' body, that she replied that it was blood and she was then asked what the constitution of blood was, to which s\le replied "Plasma Haemoglobin RBC Serum''. Rajesh Gupta,.another cano.idate, stated that his interview lasted for .two or. three minutes and apatt from questions 'relating to the name and oocupatin of his father and brothers, h~'was

also asked to define 'absolute zero' and 'international ampere': He answered both the questions. He claimed that he was asked no que- . ' .

. '

JAVID RASOOE v. J & K

00STATE

0 (Chinnappa Reddy, J.) \- - . 589

stin relatillg to aptitude, generaJ.kno:.vledg~ or general Intelligence.· A-

' . . ' . ' ' - ' ' ~.' . , . . -· We are of theveiw'thatthere is no genuine basis for any compfaint in regard to the nature of .the questions which the can4idates were

asked in the. viva voce test. We accept. the statement ofD.'Vrma that the Selection Committeeput relevant qriestion to the candidates to test their aptitude, general knowledge , and general intelljgence .. Anyoe who has served on aSelection Con1mit(ee and interviewed candidate.s ·

knows that a large number of candidates are nervous and inorder to "... put them at ease.'it is wcessary to' ask thenitostart with, innocuous . _ 4-, . questions, such: as what is vour father's occupation'? whi@h part of the country do yo~ cbme f;; m ?, 'what is your m'other-tongue? and .. so on.' .Such qustions are intended to enable the candidate, to fec; l at ease and get over his nervousness. No complaint can surely to made that' candidates were put .such questions. We also fail to see. h'ow any . . complaint can be made of the fact thai questions t>n science subjects . _ ·~ were asked of candidates seeJdng admission to medical colleges, Surely

. such questions are at .least as good as questions about the name ofthe

'capital of n obscure Latin American State or .who captained India

 D , in the SeconU test ma, tchagaii1st Pakistan.in I?SO, W~ entertain on'

doubt that the questions asked .were proper and relevant. We add that it is not for the co.urt to sit in judgment over the nature. of the questions to be put by the members of the Selection Committee. It is

....

~ for 'the members of. the . Selection Co1nmittee . to' decide what questions they should ask and so log 'as the q; i-estions are not _. &uch as to. indicate' that the i;\erview was nothing but a make-believe.

-"'-we rnst allow the matter to rest ther~ .• It 'is not the function of the ·

EI'

'°Cburt to weigh eacl; question to find out the extent to whcih it is related

o aptitude, general knowledge or gep.enral intelligence. ff the question \ ..

is not flippant, it is not for the court to say.that the question was iire- ·" Jevant and should riot have been asked at an interview. Perhaps irrele' :,- . vant questions !nay also be asked to_explo're the 'candidate's capacity !> to detect irrdevancies~ It is nt for the court tolaimto.itselfthe task ·.: 'r . of determining tlie nature 9f the questions to be put to carididates appearing at an interview: The persons constituting. the Selection . Coin'mittee who may generally be assu!"ed to be. men ofle, Wrience,

and knowledgeable rn regard to men and matters my surely be expe- G cted to put the right questions. 'Jn the absence of malafides, the maatter is best'left to them." ; · -~

. ;--, /

. . . .. . / .. . .. ' . ' / Mr. Sen made a complaint that \he mrks obtained in the writ' ten 1:est :.vere reducec to pomts and this -hail ·-resulted in ca11didate• who had fared well in the interview stealing a march over •oine candi- . ' •

,_,

:H-·

. \.

'~ ,_

I n:

. H

590 SUPREME COURT R!Sl'ORTS

' dates whn had fared well .in the wriUen test. The rules require that 85 points should be awarded for the written test and 15 points for the viva voco test. Therefore, although the written tests carried a total of 5~'.) m irks, the marks obtained by each candidate had to be necessarily reduced to points onthe basi's that 85 points equalled 550 markS The gr.ievance is plainly imaginary. ·. • ' " Both.Mr.. Anil Dev Singh and Mr. A.K. Sen invited our attentiOn to the observations of this courl'•in Ajay Hasia 's'11 case in regard to the desireability of holding viva voce test !Cl) select candidates for ad1nission to p'rofessional colleges and in regard to the manner of conducting suchtsts. The Qourt after referring to the criticism levelled against viva voce test observed:. "Now this criticism cannot be said to be whoHy. unfounded and it reflects a point of view whi'ch has certainly some validity'.' The court then quoted M.P. Sharma on Public Administration'. in 'Theory and Practice'. and Gle1\n Stahl on •Public P 'Cs Jnnel Admi'nistration' a.nd observed "But, despite all this criticism, ihe oral interview mefod con1inues to be' very. much ; in vogue as l suppelmentary test for assessing the suitabi!jty of candidates wherpver test pf personal traits is con;; idered essential. Its relevance as' a .test for determ'ning suitabilty based on personal characteristics h3.S been recognis6d ih a number of decisions of this court which. 1 are1Jinding Up Jn us". The Court then quoted from rhitra Lakita and

Others v. Slate' of My.iore and Others"> and A. Pseriakarupfan v.

State of Tamil Nadu & Others<a> and observed: . / . ' . ·,

".ft is therefore, not possible to accept the contentions of the .Petitioners that the oral interview test is so defective that

eJ.ecting candidates for admission on the basis of oral intervciw in addition to written test must be regarded as arbitrary. The' oral interview test is und<mbtedly not a very satisfactory test for assessing and eva]u;1ting the capacity and calibre of candi-

' ' ' da teS, ~'ut in the absenc2 of any better test for measurin, g perisonal ,

, ch, iracterLstics .and traits, the oral iTiterviev.1 test '.must, at the , pNsent stage be regarded as 11ot irrational or irrelevant though \ ' ' . ' _it is subjective and based on first i.mprcssion_; its result is jf!ue:-iced by m1ny uncertain factprs and it is capable of abuse. We would, however, Ji ke to point out th, it in the matter of admis, sion to college or even in the matter of public employment, the

• \ I ' • 0 ' '

(3) {1971) 2 S.C.R. 430. .. .

' '

JAV!D RASO()L v. J & K STATJJ' (Chimzppa Reddy, J.) . 591.

 oral inte; view test as presently held should not be_ relied upon A. • as an exclusive test, but it niay be resorted to only as a1i additfo- .. - . . . e .. - . nal or supplementary test and, moreover; great care must. be be taken tci see that persons who are appointed iO_ conduct the_ ornl in, rview test are inen of high integrity, calibre and qualification' . . . . . . . . . .. .• . e . _The Court the_n pro.cceded to consider whether the allocation of •.. as _high percentage as 331/3 of t)je .total marks for the viva voce test did: .not render the-· admissio_n procedure arbitray. Jt was held• that . ..., ·· .it did make the skctiori procedure arbitrary but even so theselec.tio"n

_.I . was_ not _set .. aside _as 18m_onths had 'elapsed since the selection and. -'!:;' no rr, iala fids had bee1iestablished. _The court finally considered the C. "argument that each candidate wa:S not in-tervhved for more than two

r three minutes and rele_vant questions were .not asked. Taking . note. of the cii'cunisfahce , that .no affidavii had been filed either by a member pf the Seection Committee or by any other officer who_ was present at ihe interview, ihvas thought that the allegations of tne.

• .• -. ' ' '. ' >'-· ' ' ' - ' ,. .. petitioners had tobe accepted: It was then said that "if that be so, the D .' oialo iuteriew test must be hCld to be. vitiated and the selection made

on the basis ot such test must be hold to b~ -rbiirary". However, for the reason that IS months had already elapse; i., it was not thought proper to strike down the' :selections alr.ady made. Threafter the.

. ,. ··. folloWing obervation, s. \vee .. mad~: · E

, J. .. . "Vie may point out. that, in our opinion, if 'the marks allocated for the. oral interview do not exceed J 5% of the total . marks ad the candidates ·. are properly interviewed . and ...

- ~-'-:

•· .. ..

 .. releva1\t questions are aked with a view to _assessi1ig their .suit- ability.with reference to the factor~ equired tci ·.be taken into

consid, ration, .the oral interview test would satisfy the critr ion of reasona_bleness an_d non-arbitrariness. • We thii1k that it wottld. also be desirable .if the interview of-the candidates is tape-reeorded, for" in that eventhere will _be conteinpo, .

.r~cousevid~11ce to. s~()w. wl1at''were the C}_ueStions asked to ihe candidates by the interviewing committee and what were . . the answers give11 and _that will eliminate _a lot of unnecessary ·

contraversy besides acting as a clieck on the possible_. arbitrrine_ss of. the intervieWing co!llmittee". . ·

F .·

• It wold be noticed tha_t niost of the observations were. made . with a vie_; to enable the Government to devise a selection prncedure H , which would he above r.eproach, H: was never intended to lay down .

: . .

. F

--' .•

any hard and fast rules; In the very nature ofthihgs it would not .b~ . within the proviric.e or even the competence of the Couri and the.court would not venture ; into such exclusive thickets to discover ways out, . when the matte{$ ate mere appropriately kft to the. wise expertise of medica 1 academicians intllres!ed in the quality and intety of medjcal ·• . education and public administrators conversant with various adini.'

strative nd socio-economic problems."., needs and requirements. The Court's duty'iil's in preventing arbitrarines.s and denial of equal opporc tun.ity. The question as to the subjects in which an entrance test may · · be held ishardly a matter for' the cou; t, unless; 'or course, the subjects ' . . .:: are so arbitrarily c!iosen as to have not the slightest connection with

, the object of the examination.' S.uch a situation is not likely to arise : -j. . as the aut)iorities may be expected to. act reasonably. Again it is not 1 for the court to lay down whether.an interview test should be. held at . all or how many marks should .be allotted for the invefview test.

Of course, the marks must. be mininiaPso as.to avoid charges'ofarbitrariness but not necessarily always. There may be posts and appoint-.. ments where the only proper method pf selection may be by an intervew test. Even in the case of admission to higher degree courses, it may some .times be necessary to allot afrurly high percentag~ of nlllrks .. forthe interview test; For'admission tq a Ph. D course, for example, :' · ·.candidates niay have to be consumn1ately interviewed, each of them

.•. t :for a few hours;. perhaps; efore any decision can be taken a.s to 'who. inay be admitted_. That. is why we say rigid rules cannot be_ laid in t]lese matters, and not by Courts~· The xpert bodies are generaliy the bestjudges, 'An that we may say is that allocation ofa high percentage of marks for admission to.under-Graduate courses should be avoided as thee isa risk of a certain amount of arbitrariness which may lead to frustration of the very object of t_he selection. ai1d disrepute. of the .

svstem.· Courts interfrre when the rlsk of arbitrarine.ss is so high that

abitrariness is invitable. Again the. court is i1pt the best judge of .

what questions may. be asked at the interview. As mentiol'led by' us ._. oatUer; all that is nece'ssary is that the questions should nvt be a ri\ere ,. pretence. . .. . . . . ,•

AU thit we lia ve said above i~ oly to supplement wat has been said in Ajay Hasia"s case ai\d in the case .of Lila Dhar -vs. State of Raja' sthan'". In the. latter .case after refefring to the K_othari Committee's report on Recruitment Policy a_nd Selection Methods, we said: .

. .

. (I) [1982] l S.C.R. 320.

_,_._.

. .-

J AVID RASOOL V. J

' - . .. . . -. ; . .~,· . . . . . &. KSTATE (Chinnappa Reddy, J.) 593 . . . . - ~

.· ·. ''It is now well recognised that while a written examina~ . tion assesses it caJfdidate'sknowledge and intellectual ability; ·· . ari interview test is valuable io assess a candidate's oerail . · inteliectual and perional.qualitie~: whil~~ writtenexaminqtiori has. certaindistinct dvantage . over the: inter~; ew test ti1ere are yet rio writteri tests. whiCh ,<:an evaluate a candidatcs's initiative, alertness, rsourcefulness; dependableness, coope- . ·. rativeness, capaciil' for clear and logical' presentation, cffecti' .

 'VMess, in discussi_on: elfetiveness in IJleetingand dealing with others,"adaptability,. judgment, ability . to make decision, "ability to lead, fotellectual arid moral integrity:. Sbme of. the.se

qualities may be.evaluated, perhaps ; vith soine .. degree . of error,. by. ap interview fest, much depe.nding on thecoristitu- . ti oh of iJie ·.interview Board." ··

We then .re!erred to CJlrtn Stahl on .'Ptibli~ PersnneF Adlnis- .. . . tration and the United Nations Hanel.book ri Civil.Sorvice Law and

Pfactice". We furt1i"er said:

- • . ·.,.

"Thus, the written examinatio~ assesses .ihe Jna~'s inieliect a.nd theinterviw te.stthe man himself and "the twain shall njeet" .• for a proper skction.: ifbpth written exainination ancHnterview . . test are to be esseritjal feiturcs of proper.selectin, .the question

. may aris.e as to. ihe weight to be attached respectively. to them ..

In the case of.admissio11 to 'a college; :for instance, where the candidate's petscinality is yet.to develop arid it is too' erly to. idontify thepersonai qualities for which greater impo"riance may . have to be attached in later !ifo, gceate(weight h.as per. for.ce td . ·.be given to .performance in.the written examination. The imper' . '

tantc to be attached to the.interview testmust be minial..That

- ws what was decided by this Court in Perfakaruppai1 v. State' .

of Tamilnadu, Ajay Basia etc. v. Khalid Mujib Seharvardi & ors:ctc.; (supra) and other cases. on th.ii other han'd, in the case of services.to wbkh .recruitmeni has'nccessarily fobe made"from .persons• f m:; ture personality, interview test may be "the only

way,".stibject'to basic: and essenti~I acadeinic and professiori0.l . requirements being satisfied. 'ro.subjecJsuchpersons to a written

examination . may yield unfruitful and. negative re§ults, apart fron1 its being an act of cr11elty to those perso:fis, There a.re/of co Urse~ many services to WhiCh tecpJit:illerit .is made ffom: yo"unger'. cimd\dates whos~ personalities areoihhe threshdld of ct6velopc. ment nd , who show signs of great pr6Il)ise, ahd the' ·.discerning may in an intervie1~ test, catch a glimpse of.the future personality .. ·

.~·. '' .•

D .

. F

594 -SUPREME com\T' REPORTS

. Iri the case of such services, where sound. selection mµst combine . academic ability with p'ersonality promise, sonie weight has to

- be given, though not much too great weight, t<;> the interview test. There_ cannot -be-any-rule of thumb regarding the 'precise . weight to be given. It must varylromservice to.service according .

t,0 the requiremets of the service, the 1ninimum qualifications .prescribed, the age group from which the selection-iii to be made, the body to' which the tasl<-of holding th!) interview test is proposed to be entrusted and a host of other.factors.: it'is a matter fer determinatiori by experts. It is a matter for research. It is not._ 4 , for Courts to proriouce upon it unless exaggerated weight has been given with proven or obvi_ous oblique motives. The Kothari _ ~: .

Committee also suggpted that in view o( the o_bvjous importanc~ · ( of the subject, it may be exami1icd in detail by the Research Unit of the Union of' Public Service Commission.". ·

. . , At this.juncture whilewe are quoting froin the earlier decision -. _, . of the court in Liladhar v. State Of Rajasthan, we may as well refer to the criticism of. Shri Anil Dev Singh that block marks should not have been _allocated. for' general knowledge and general intelligence.

Our observationsin Liladhar's case, which we have extracted below, _. answer this point. alsci: .

'.'The rules 'themselves do not provide for. the allocation of . marks under different heads .at .the in\ervi(:w test. The ct'ite.ria for the interview test has been laid down by the. -rules. It is fqr ihe intervie1ving. body to take a geceral ·

decisibn whether. to allocate mark.sunder different heads or to award marks in a single Jot: The award of marks under different heds ma~Jad to a distorted picture of the candidate on occasions. On the other hand the totality cf the impression created by the candidate on the interviewing bcdy may ' give. a more accurate picture of the candidate's personality.· It is f<;>_r the interviewing body to choose. the appropriate' method of marking at the selectjon to each service. There cannot be any magic formulate"in these matters and courts cannot sit it judgment over the, methods C:f marking employed by i1ter, viewing bodies unless, as we said, it is proven or obvious that the: method of marking was chosen wlth oblique motive.

"It is frue that in Periakafoppah's case the. Coqrt held that the n<iriail9catioff Of.mar.ks under variolls heads in the interview test was illegal but that was bccau_se the ins!ructions

-, ..

,..

. , .. ·,

• JAV!D RASOOL v. J .& K STATE(Chbinappa Reddy; J.)_ .. 595 . . . ' . . . .

 to the -Selection Committee . 'provided that marks were to c · be awarded at the interview on tJie basis of five disti11ct . tests. H was thought that the failllre to allocate markS.

under each bqd or distihCt tet~ wa'n illegality''.

The criticism thatthe Selection procedurcwas bad becalis~ the marks obiained , by the candidates at the respective qualifying exami- :., nations wore not taken into account; but only the niarks in the written test a1id. the oral test conducted by the Selection Committee, has also

 {c-, · no force. We we1'e told that the qualifying examination, that is,· the . , First TDC (M, a, ical Group) exawination was held at diffrent times

 ih Jamnrn and Srinagar. Naturally the question papers,, etc.··must have been different. The Selection Committee aprarently thought that it would be better to have a :common entrance te'st. It appears to us to be a .perfectly reasonable procedure. Even otherwise it is always.· open to a Seledon Committee to insist on taking into' c-0nsideration marks. obtained-at the examin_alion held by it only and excluding from cansideration marks. obtained ih examinations held by other bodies.

We are unable to see anything .\vrong .in this procedure. A similar . contention was negatived in Ajay Rasia's case alo where. 'it was obser- ., ved:

Ji....: . '~It is diflic.ult to appreciate how aprocedurc for admission w, hich

•• I

. C'

.. does not. take· into account the . marks bbtjlineUat the qualifying .· .J..[_, exa1nination, but prefers fo test th.e comparative merit of the candidates E by insisting on an entrance hamination can every Ile said to be arbi:.. rary"; •.· · -

. !.:., .....

Two. other submissiohs which were made in the . course of the · 'r argument n\ay also be disposed of here. Orie was.th<t_t general knowc " ·;;.ledge and, gerieral inteHigcnce were not matters to be.Jested in 4:he jva ' vocetest, but should _have been tested in a. written examination. That is not a. matter for this Court t6 .decide. It was .a matter for the Selection Committee. to de.cide whether general. knowledge ad general .intelligence could be more appropriately tested in the viva voce test or in tlie written test. The other sµbniissiori was tl; iat there was delay jn the anno.uricement of results and the delay made the .selection suspect. We .... ·, find that there was in fact no delay and.we only add that the.suspicion, ·

if any, was unfounded. _. ·

di; j _We finally come to the submission on which Shri Anil Dev-Singh laid considerable emphasis, namely, that the entire selection was vitia- ted. by the presence cmthe Selection' Committee of theJather of oe

_, ,_,

.G •

. R

G ;

~ of the candidates .. This was said to be a gross violation of one ofthe '

. principles otnatural justice. The grivance is not reaL The .Principal .

of Medical. College, Srinagar,' whose daughter. was a caric\idate; for admission to the Medic:al College informed. ihe Selection Committee at the very outset aboutthi.cact and told them that he would not have' • . anything to do. with the written test e.11d would no.t 'be present when • . . . ·,' . . . . . his daughter was interviewd; The 9ther members •of the. Selection

Committee accepted the suggestion of ibe Principal and did . not . think it ne.cessary t~ add; ess the . Governm.ent to appoint a . snbsti- ·

. ...: . '

tute •member of the: Selection Coriimittee since the Government had :1' fixed.the quo'rum fot a meetingof the Selection Co, mmittee as:th~ Chairman.and' one other member and'it was possible to have a quorum. without the .Principal of the Medical College, Srinagar. The prccedure adopted by the Selection Commit.tee ad the member .cqncerned .was in accord.with the quite well-known and generaIJy:acceptedyrocedure : adopted bi the Public Service Commissions every \\.here. It is not umisual for candidatenelated to members of the Service Commission .. er other Selection Committee t<) seek employment Whenever such

a situation arises, the practice generaJ'Jy is. for the' m<mber concerne.d to ecuse. 'himseif . when the pa1:ticlar candidate is. inter.viewed. We notice. that such a 'situation had also .been noticed by this court in: the case of Nagarjan ~- State of Mysore w where it was polnted out'that . in ihe absence of mala fides, it would not be' tight to.set aside the slec- '* tfon merely because one, of tlie c; andidates happened t" be reiated . ·

to 'a . me1nber •of the Selection Commission who had abstained froin. parliipating-in the interview of that candidate. Nothing" unusual was ~~

dne by 'lhe preseni Selection Committee, The girl's fat]1er wat not present .when she was interviewed, She was one among several hundre.d cadidates. The marks obtained by her. in the written test were not. ·

.'f. . eveii :kno,;, n: when she was interviewed, And, in fact, ;,., e .find that as

· a resu. It of her P.erformance at the "interview, slie l.st rather.than gainecl . . ~· . soine ·.places. - · · · • • I . ' .

. Great re.liance was. placed by the learned couns.cl 011 A..K,· Kraipak .·& Ors. v, Union, of india 12.i on "the question of natilral justice. We. do J; ot .think that .. the case is of any assistance to the petitioners. It was a case where one of the person~, who sat as member oLthe Selection

Board,. was. himself one of the persons to .be considered for selection:· . He participated in the deliberations of the Selection Boad when. the claims. of bis rivals were.considered. He participated in thedecisions

' (1}{1970] I S.C.C, 457,

(2) [1966) 3 S.C, R. 682.

.. ' '.

.. .

597' •

I . . . relting to the prdors'.or preference and s<mioriiy .. He particiated at . A . : . 'every stage" in the .. delibeq!.ions of the Selecti.on .Bo.ardan<l at every

rstage there 1vas a cortffict between his'hiterest arid dnty. The court bad1 '

.· no hesitation in.coming lo the :tonc!Bsion that.there was a rea~'9nab!e. .. Iikelihoqd of bias and therefore, ther, e wai a xiolatioii of the principles

of natt:ral justice. Jn the' case , before us .. the "Principal of the Medical . College~ Srinagar, dissociatedJiimself from the Written test ai{d did. :fl Ir.;. nofpartici.pa te in. the proceedings. when his daughter was interviewe<l .. . ·.When the other candidates were interviewed, he '.ctid not know 'the

::~ ; .marks bfained .eiiher by .. his dai.lghter .or by ny of the candidates. ·

. There ;.va~ no occasion to: suspet his. bona ftdes even remotely .. There .. was not eyen suspicfon of bias.leave alone a reasonable Jikelih.ood 'of bias. There was no viola.lion of the principale_s of natural justice.

. C ',·. ., ':", . ,,. _ ..

One last submissio11, which we may note: was that there was f a contravention of one Of the regulations made.by .the Indian Medical . CounCil._It was. said. that .the regulation pescrili6d that the marks . . .. obtained at the qualifying examination should be taken into .conside~·

 fatiori in States l)aviµg only one Medkru College and one University/. . D Board/Examination BJdy . conducling .the qualifying examination .. ·.

This . iegi.tfatio, n., has no. application because the<e are two Medical ._ Coilegesfo this , Sfate. Though olily one Board conductec1 theiqualify~ .. fog , eaniination; .the, examinat)ons:•were ·. Conducted. separateiy .'.for,

Jamiriu .and .Srinagar aroas and on fwo different' occasi6ns; In the );. .. second. place; these regulationshave benheld. to be directory and not E 'mariilatory by th.is court , in State of Madhya Pratfesh v; Kr. Nivediia . J.ilin; 11 >

-?' ~- \ .. . We hayeconsidered the various points 'raised by the petitioners. r. ·at sonie length, .we have said so much and we 11ave quateariom ihe

. :F previous judg1nents of thisC<iurt in exterise not because we find any ... ' : substance in' any of the contentions, but .because these .conten, tionsare '. .

b.iirig reeatedly. rai, sed in many such cases and .we desire to .discou- . .. ra.ge, the raising. of un, necessary hope'in th.e minds .cif thC. young:men : . arid wome~ seeldng the aid' of courts for itdinission into professional. collegis, ready as t\ley are t~ chich at any straw .. We dismiss all the . G: ·

Writ petitions but in the circums.tances without costs. . • . . . . . ' ..

' Petitions dismissed. : .. '

: - I • ' . '

., =:·

JA:VfD RASOOL- BHAT & ORS; ETC

STATE OF JAMMU &'KAS!-lMJR AND ORS

Article 32

[1981] 2 S.C.R. 7

State of Mysore

[1964) 6 S.C.R. 368

Tle Selcctin Co1n1nittee

Srinagar

article 32

Constitution of India

S.B. Bhasme R. Satish

S.S. Gupta

S.S. Khanduja

Y.S. Chitale

G.L. Sanghi

S.N. Kacker

V.M. Tarkunde

CHINNAPPA REDDY

Jammu

Governmentof Jammu & Kashmir

Government of Jammu & Kashmir.published

September 2, 1983

'The Charirman waautho Tised to consult the Chairman of the Jan:unu & Kashmir Board of School Eduction and select the required number of cxainihcrs and paper-settors.

Jammu & Kashmir

The written test was conductd simultaneousiy at Jammu & Kashmir on September 22, 1983.

September 26, 1983

October 11, 1983

October 25, 1983

December 3. 1983

atJamtnu

1983, a notification was published by tlie Government of :rammu & Kashmir informing the public that the.result of the written test/Viva Voce:held

fr admission to the First year of the MBBS Course for the Medical Colleges of the State was available in the offices of the Principals of the Government Medical Colleges atJamtnu and Srinagar.

Government of Jarrrrnu & Kashniir

Anil Dev Singh

A.K. Sen

Sen

Anii Dev Singh

te ijustice dQne tO the mioritycomunity in -te State.~·

\ ~- We find no substnce whatever in any .of tlie subm'issions made by Shri Anii Dev Singh and Shr, i A.K,.

Anil Dev Singh

S.L. Verma

Aarti Kaul

Rajesh Gupta,.another

Chinnappa Reddy

ofD.'Vrma

India

A.K. Sen

Ajay Hasia

M.P. Sharma

1971) 2 S.C.R. 430

Chimzppa Reddy

Lila Dhar

State of Raja

J AVID RASOOL

Union of' Public Service Commission

Liladhar

Periakafoppah

Ajay Rasia

Anil Dev-Singh

Nagarjan ~- State of Mysore

cl 011

Jamiriu

.Srinagar