- (1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) Alleging political patronage and extraneous considerations the nominations of private respondents namely Ms. Ravneet Kaur, Ms. Munu, Ms. Radha Mehra, Mr. Samarjit Singh Chatha and Sh. Sharanjit Singh and Mr. Amitoj Singh Multani for admission to M.B.B.S. Course have been challenged in Civil Writ Petition Nos. 11372, 11838, 11839, 12041, 12152, 13110, 12238. 12438, 12529, 12697, 12794, 12927 and 12993 of 1994 with a prayer for issuance of a direction to the respondents to nominate the petitioners in these petitions in stead of the earlier nominated candidates. The nomination of the private respondents is the offspring and made in pursuance to the "guidelines for the nomination on the discretionary seats" which provides to make nomination on the following lines :- 1. The candidates of such families which are related to political workers/publicmen/officers who are bearing responsibility for dealing with law and order problem directly or indirectly; 2. Such candidates for whom it is difficult or impossible to go out of the State due to security reasons under the law and order problem; 3. Such candidates who are connected with the terrorist affected families; 4. Such candidates whose families are unable to send them out of the State for education due to financial problems; 5. Besides the above, any candidate who is considered fit and eligible for nomination, Admission will be given to such candidates who fulfil the minimum prescribed qualifications." It is alleged that the guidelines are unconstitutional, illegal, without any basis and tailored to suit the heads of those only who have been nominated vide the orders impugned in these petitions.
(3.) After referring to catena of authorities of the Supreme Court, a Division Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 3763 of 1993 "Anter Preet Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, 1995 2 SCT 377" , decided on September 26, 1994 and broadly held that no reservation by way of nomination can be made. It held, "in fact, no provision of the Constitution has been referred by the learned counsel for the respondents to support the policy of nomination." It further concluded by holding. "Even if for a moment it is conceded that the Government can make nomination for admission to the post-graduate courses, such nominations must withstand the test of reasonableness and fairness. The doctrine of 'equality' which is all pervasive will have to be kept in view even while making nomination. Nomination in favour of the candidates, who are related to the political workers, Public men or officers who are bearing responsibility for dealing with law and order problem directly or indirectly, or the candidates who cannot go out of the State for education due to financial problems, has got no nexus whatsoever with the selection based on merit. This policy of the object of selection. The last category of nominations takes within its fold all types of candidates. A total free hand has been given Government does not bear any rationality with the to the Government to nominate anybody according to its choice. It is impossible to discern any rational principle or policy behind nomination of the candidates at the sweet Will of those in power. Merely because one happens to be a Member of a family which is related to a political worker or public men or an officer, who is dealing with law and order or who is connected with the terrorist affected family or one who cannot go out for studies on account of financial problems, cannot be a ground for giving admission to the post-graduate course so as to stultify the chance of a pre meritorious candidate. The unfettered, unbridled and unguided power which the Government has assumed in the garb of nomination is a total antithesis to the doctrine of 'equality'. We can do not better than quoting the observation of the Supreme Court in E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1974 AIR(SC) 555, while giving a new dimension to the doctrine of 'equality' embodied in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court observed : "From a positivistic point of view, equality is antithetic to arbitrariness. In fact, equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies; one belongs to the rule of law in a republic while the other, to the whim and caprice of an absolute monarch. Where an act is arbitrary it is implicit in it that it is unequal both accord, political 10 and constitutional law and is, therefore, violative of Article 14......." In his inimitable while Krishna Iyer, J. dissected Article 14 in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 2 SCR 621 and held that : "That article has a pervasive processual potency and versatile equality, egalitarian in its soul and allergic to discriminatory diktats. Equality is the antithesis of arbitrariness and ex-cathedra ipse dixit is the ally of demagogic authoritarianism. Only knight-errants of 'executive excesses' - if we may use a current clinche-can fall in love with the Dame of despotism, legislative or administrative. If this Court gives in here it gives up the ghost. And so it is that I insist on the dynamics of limitations on fundamental freedoms as implying the rule of law; Be you ever so high, the law is above you. New domination given to Article 14 in Maneka Gandhi's case reached its peak when in Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P., 1991 AIR(SC) 537, the apex Court declared that every State action, including that falling in the field of contract, must be free from arbitrariness and must be fair and legality of the State action is liable to be tested on the touch-stone of fairness. The Court further held that if the State action is found to be arbitrary, it will be presumed to be contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution." We agree with the conclusions arrived at by the Division Bench in Anter Preet Singh's case .;