Ms. Esther Kavitha vs The State of Tamil Nadu and Others

The prayer in the Writ Petition is as follows:

to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction in the nature of writ directing the respondent to give one seat in

Diploma Course in Cinematography conducted by Film and T.V. Institute of Tamil Nadu for the petitioner in the academic year 1991-92 and pass

such further or other order as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper and thus render justice.

The petitioner, who belongs to backward community, after completing the Higher Secondary Examination in March, 1991, applied for the

admission for the Diploma Course in Cinematography for the academic year 1991-92. It seems the petitioner got an interview card and she was

called for an interview before the Selection Committee on 18-11-1991. After the interview, it seems, in the interview she was not asked any

question. But it was alleged that she was asked how did she come to know Mr. Ashok Kumar, a famous Cincmatographer as Cinematography

apprentice and about the girl who is now working under him. It seems the results were published on 10-1-1992 and when the result- were

published the petitioner came to know that she was not seleted. At this stage, the petitioner has come up to this Court with the above said prayer.

It is alleged in the affidavit that in G.O.Rt. No. 637 Information and Tourism (F.T.I.) Department dated 16-11-1991 a Select ion Commit tee

constituted for conducting interview for admission of students to various courses conducted by Film and T.V. Institute, Madras for the year 1991-

It is alleged in the affidavit the procedure is stated to be followed in selecting the students to various courses. In the selection procedure, the 1st

respondent has allotted 50 marks for qualifying examination and 50 marks for aptitude and general ability, and apart from this 30C seats will be set

apart for women candidates in each category of the reservation. It is alleged in the affidavit that in the present case the petitioner has applied for the

diploma course in Cinematography and the total number of seats available in the above course is 10 and as such, according to the G.O., minimum

3 seats have to be allotted to backward community and out of these 3 seats available for backward community one seat has to be allotted for

women candidates, but, the Selection Committee did not allot any seat for woman candidate in the category of backward community as per the

G.O. and as such the entire mode of selection is vitiated. It is alleged in the affidavit that 50% of marks were allocated for oral interview as against

50% of marks allocated for qualifying examinations and the allocation of such high percentage of marks for oral interview is against the principles

laid down by the Supreme Court in many decisions especially in Ajay Hasia and Others Vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and Others, It is also alleged

in the affidavit that she was interviewed just for 3 minutes and no question was put before her for assessing and examining the capacity and calibre

of the petitioner and according to the petitioner, the interview itself is a make-belief affair and the Government has not prescribed any guidelines to

be followed by the Selection Committee as to how the marks should be awarded in the oral interview and it is left to the whims and fancies of the

Selection Committee and so, it is stated, the selection is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner suggests some sort of

mala fides also in the affidavit.

Raju J., when issuing notice of motion on 21-1-1992 has given a direction to the respondents to reserve one seat if it is available pending further

orders.

Mr. V. Raghupathy, learned Additional Govt. Pleader appears for the respondents with instructions. No counter-affidavit is filed.

The learned Additional Government Pleader, who appears before me on instructions did not dispute the facts. The learned Additional

Government Pleader states that the petitioner has applied for Cinematography course for 1991 -92 and she was called for an interview. It is stated

by the Government Pleader that 50 marks are awarded for the qualifying examination viz., Higher Secondary and awarded 50 marks for the

interview by the Selection Committee in the respective fields and marks are awarded. It is stated by the learned Additional Government Pleader

that 52 candidates belonging to the category of Backward Community who attended the interview on 18-11-1991 and the petitioner is one among

them. On instructions he states that mention is made in the admission notification that 30% seats will be reserved for woman candidate in each

category only to attract more girl candidates to show their interest in the field of film industry and that the general condition of 30% reservation for

woman candidate is, normally applicable to recruitment purpose only and not applicable to admission to educational institutions, and according to

the Additional Government Pleader even the 30% reservation for women candidates out of the stipulated 30% reservation for Backward

Community does not work out even a single seat. It is also stated on instructions that the condition of selection of women candidates is only based

on the performance in the interview and the 3rd respondent has no obligation to select the petitioner. It is stated that the selection has been made

purely on merit and as such there is no room for any discrimination. The learned Government Pleader states that the petitioner''s performance is not

up to the mark and hence she was not selected.

Mr. V. Venkataswami, learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the Government having issued a G.O. calling for applications for certain

courses in the Film and T.V. Institute for the academic year 1991-92, has clearly stated that 30%. of the seats will be set apart for women

candidates in each category for reservation. Learned Counsel further points out that in this case no woman candidate has been selected, and out of

the ten seats in the diploma course in Cinematography three seats have been allocated to the Backward Community and one seat ought to have

been reserved for the woman candidate. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner it has not been done and as such the entire selection

procedure is vitiated.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner further contends that the mode of allocation of 50% of marks for oral interview as against 50% of marks

for qualifying examination and the allocation of such high percentage of marks for oral interview is against the principles laid down by the Supreme

Court in many decided cases. According to the learned Counsel, the selection has to be set aside on this ground also. That apart, the learned

Counsel points out that in the G.O. it is stated that 50% of marks are reserved for aptitude and general ability and no guidelines have been fixed by

the Government with regard to the award of those marks since that 50% marks are allocated under two headings i.e., aptitude and general ability.

As such the learned Counsel states that the Government Order has got to be set aside as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Per contra the

learned Additional Government Pleader on instructions states that 30% reservation for women candidates cannot be applied to the case of

admission in an institution. It is merely intended for reserving for recruitment for service. However, when a question was posed to him he states, out

of 10 seats, 3 scats have to be reserved for backward community and out of the three seats one seat has to be allotted for woman candidate. The

learned Government Pleader is not able to convince this Court why that reservation has not been done. Apart from the learned Government

Pleader defends the allocation of marks for the interview as not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and according to him, sufficient guidelines

are given in the Government Order and as such the selection is perfectly legal and valid. The writ petition has got to be dismissed on the sole

ground for not impleading the selected candidates in this writ petition, according to the learned Additional Government Pleader. The learned

Additional Government Pleader, producing the admission list, states that for the Cinematography course a female candidate has been selected in

the MBC/D.T. category though no lady candidate is selected in the Backward Class.

I have considered the arguments of Mr. V. Venkataswami, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing

for the State. It is seen that a Selection Committee was constituted for admission of students for the academic year 1991-92 into the Film and T.V.

Institute of Madras by G.O.Rt. No. 637 Information Tourism Department dated 16-11-1991 for selection of students the marks to be taken is

100 and out of 100, 50 marks are allotted as marks for qualifying examination and 50 marks for aptitude and general ability. The rule of

reservation is applied and for the backward community 30% is reserved. It is stated in the G.O. that out of the above reservation 30% of seats will

be set apart for woman candidate in each category. Para 4 of the G.O. mentions the rule of reservation and also states that out of the reservation

30% of the seats will be set apart for the woman candidate in each category. In this case for a diploma course in cinematography there are 10 sets

courses with duration of three years. Out of 10 seats 3 seats have to be given to the backward community and if 30% reservation is taken into

account one seat has to be set apart for woman candidate. I am not able to see any reason why it has not been done. I do not think the contention

raised by the learned Additional Government Pleader based on instructions that the reservation of 30% of seats will apply only to recruitment and

not for admission to backward community students. I am of the view that the argument is made out of frustration when the G.O. itself speaks that

30% of the seats will be set apart for women candidates in each category. On this ground alone the selection can be set aside.

Apart from that, 100 marks are awarded for selection and out of these 100 makrs, 50 marks are allocated for the qualifying examination and

50 marks are allocated for the aptitude and general ability. Here again no guidelines are fixed by the Government as to how to award 50 marks for

aptitude and general ability. This, I am of the view, can pave the way for discrimination and arbitrariness for the selection of candidates. A common

heading has been fixed how to award marks. Hence the heading ""aptitude and general ability is given. Apart from that, the reservation of high

percentage of marks is held to be invalid by the Supreme Court. In Mohinder Sain Garg Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Others, the Supreme Court

has considered the entire case law on this aspect of the matter. While doing so, the Supreme Court observed, referring to Minor A.

Peeriakaruppan and Sobha Joseph Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, , thus:

In Minor A. Peeriakaruppan and Sobha Joseph Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, a bench of three judges considered the question of

admission to certain medical colleges in the State of Tamil Nadn where 75 marks were kept for interview out of total marks of 275. It was

observed as under: SCC p. 44, para 13)

Earmarking 75 marks out of 275 marks for interview as interview marks prima facie appears to be excessive. It is not denied that the interveiw

lasted hardly for three minutes for each candidate. In the course of three minutes interview it is hardly possible to assess the capability of a

candidate. In most cases the first impression need not necessarily be the best impression. But under the existing conditions in this country we are

unable to accede to the contention of the petitioners that the system of interview, as in vogue in this country is so defective as to make it useless. It

is true that various researches conducted in other countries particularly in U.S.A. show that there is possibility of serious errors creeping in

interviews made on haphazard basis. C. W. Valentine on Psychology and its bearing on education refers to the marks given to the same set of

persons interviewed by two different competent Boards and this is what is stated in his book:

''The members of each board awarded marks to each candidate and when he was discussed and average marks agreed on;

When the orders of merit for the two Boards were compared it was found that the man placed first by Board A was put 13th by Board B when

the man placed 1 st by Board B was 11th by Board A.

It was further observed : (S.C.C. p. 44-45 para 15)

While we do feel that the marks allotted for interview are on the high side and it may be appropriate for the government to re-examine the

question, we are unable to uphold the contention that it was not within the power of the government to provide such high marks for interview or

that there was any arbitrary exercise of power.

The Supreme Court referred to the case Miss. Nishi Maghu and Others Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others, , it is held as follows :--

Reserving 50 marks for interview out of a total of 150 (100 for written examination and 50 for interview) does seem excessive especially when

the time spent was not more than 4 minutes on each candidate."" The Supreme Court again considered the Ajay Hasia and Others Vs. Khalid

Mujib Sehravardi and Others, and the Supreme Court ultimately held in that case that allocation of more 15 per cent of the total marks for the oral

interview would be arbitrary and unreasonable and would be liable to be struck down as constitutionally invalid and in Koshal Kumar Gupta and

Others Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir and Others, the Supreme Court upheld the reservation of 85 marks for written examination and 15 marks

for viva voce test following the dictum laid down in Ajay Hasia and Others Vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and Others, . Even in Periakaruppan''s

case and Ajay Hasia''s case, though the Apex Court of the land has held that reservation marks are on the high side, did not interfere with the

selection made and actually refused to exercise the discretion considering the possible hardship to selected students. So the Apex Court of the land

settled the law now that allocation of more than 15 marks would be arbitrary and unreasonable especially when 100 marks are fixed for selection

by interview. But, so far as the question of mala fides is concerned I am not satisfied with the vague allegations made in the affidavit as if some

political interference has been made and seats are not allocated to the petitioner. I do not see any reliable material before Court to prove that there

has been discrimination or manipulation of interview marks.

However, as I have already stated, that the first resopndent has not reserved 30% of the seats to the women candidates and the first

respondent ought to have reserved one seat for woman, I am not able to see from the select-list that any woman candidate has been selected in the

backward community quota. I am satisfied on the facts and circumstances of the csae that the failure to reserve 30% of the seats in the category of

woman candidate vitiates the entire selection. Further, I am not inclined to exercise my discretion to set aside the selection though the selection

made is vitiated on the grounds stated above. I am satisfied that this is a fit case where a direction is to issue to the respondents to consider the

case of the petitioner for admitting her in the diploma course for cinematography for the academic year 1991-92 and pass orders with regard to

the selection of the petitioner on or before 16-4-1992. This writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.

Order accordingly.