Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
B.P. Sinha, C.J., J.R. Mudholkar, K. Subba Rao, N. Rajagopala Ayyangar and Raghubar Dayal

JUDGMENT

K. Subba Rao, J.

1. These two appeals raise the question of the validity of the orders madeby the Government of Mysore in respect of admissions to Engineering and MedicalColleges in the State of Mysore. The facts may be briefly stated : In the Stateof Mysore there are a number of Engineering and Medical Colleges - most of themare Government Colleges and a few of them are Government aided Colleges. TheState Government appointed a common selection committee for settling admissionsto the Engineering Colleges and another common selection committee for settlingadmissions of Medical Colleges. The Government by an order dated July 26, 1963,marked as Ex. C in the High Court, defined backward classes and directed that30 per cent of the seats in professional and technical colleges andinstitutions shall be reserved for them and 18 per cent to the ScheduledCastes and the Scheduled Tribes. On July 6, 1963, the Government sent a letterto the Director of Technical Education in Mysore, Bangalore, informing him thatit had been decided that 25 per cent of the maximum marks for the examinationin the optional subjects taken into account for making the selection ofcandidates for admission to Engineering Colleges shall be fixed as interviewmarks; it also laid down the criteria for allotting marks in the interview. Itappears that a similar order was issued in respect of Medical Colleges. Theselection committee converted the total of the marks in the optional subjectsto a maximum of 300 marks and fixed the maximum marks for interview at 75. Onthe basis of the marks obtained by the candidates in the examination and thoseobtained in the interview, selections were made for admission to Engineeringand Medical Colleges. Some of the candidates whose applications for admissionto the said colleges were rejected filed petitions under Art. 226 of theConstitution in the High Court of Mysore for quashing the orders issued by theGovernment in the matter of admissions to the said Colleges and for a directionthat they shall be admitted in the Colleges strictly in the order of merit. TheHigh Court, after considering the various contentions raised by thepetitioners, held that the orders defining backwardness were valid and that thecriteria laid down for interview of students were good; but it held that theselection committee had abused the powers conferred upon it and on that findingset aside the interviews held and directed that the applicants shall beinterviewed afresh in accordance with the scheme laid down by the Government inExs. C and D and in Annexure IV, subject to the directions given by it. Two ofthe petitioners have filed the present appeals against the said order of theHigh Court.

2. We shall now proceed to deal with the various contentions raised bylearned counsel for the appellants.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the Government did notissue any order to the selection committee in charge of admissions to MedicalColleges prescribing the marks for interview or fixing the criteria forallotting the said marks. Annexure IV dated July 6, 196........