K.P. Bhandari, J. - (1.) In this case, the Motion Bench directed that the writ petition should be fixed for hearing on 19.3.1990. I heard the counsel for the petitioners at great length. The petitioners' counsel vehemently challenged the validity of the procedure of selection for admission to M.D./M.S. Course on the ground that 30 per cent marks have been arbitrarily allotted to be awarded by the Selection Committee. The petitioners' counsel strongly placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ajay Hasia etc. v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and others, AIR 1981 SC 487 .
(2.) Mr. Jawahar Lal Gupta, Senior Advocate, has argued this matter for two days on behalf of the University, respondent No. 1. He is still on his legs. The arguments are likely to continue for a few days more. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the selection for admission to M.D./M.S. Course is going to be finalised by the University on 31.3.1990. They submitted that the interview and finalisation of the merit list for admission to M.D./M.S. Course should be stayed till further orders. Mr. Jawahar Lal Gupta, Senior Advocate, counsel for the University, has strongly opposed this request.
(3.) Without expressing any opinion at the stage of hearing on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that prima facie the petitioners have made out a case for consideration of this Court. It would not be appropriate to allow the respondents to continue the interview and finalise the merit list during the pendency of the writ petition. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that, in the interest of justice, it is a fit case for grant of interim stay.;