J.M. Srivastava, J. — This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the 'normalisation' policy in selection of candidates for admission to various professional courses in the reserved seats for Tripura, and also seeks a direction to the respondents to select candidates for said courses strictly on the basis of marks obtained at the qualifying examinations and treat the students of the Central Board of Secondary Education hereafter the Central Board at par with the students of the Tripura Board of Secondary Education hereafter the Tripura Board and other Boards. 2. Briefly, the facts are that the Government has reserved seats in different professional courses for students from Tripura. According to the petitioner, the seats are reserved by the Government of India, whereas the respondents say that some seats in addition have been obtained by the Government of Tripura, The selection is made by the Government of Tripura. The qualifying examination is the Higher Secondary Examination, i. e. 10+2 conducted by the Central Board of the Tripura Board or any other similar Board. The petitioner is an association of Guardians of the students for the 10 + 2 examination of the Central Board, described as the "Central Board of Secondary Education Guardians Committee". 3. Until the year 1986 for the academic session 1986-87 the selection of candidates for nomination by the Government of Tripura for admission to said professional courses, was made on the basis of marks obtained by the candidates at the qualifying 10+2 examination. In the year 1987, for the academic year 1987-88, the Government of Tripura adopted a policy known as "Normalisation Policy" for the said selection of candidates. The petitioner's grievance is that this policy is in viola tive of right to equality and is bad in law. The petitioner, therefore, has prayed that the earlier system of selection purely on the basis of marks obtained by the candidates at the qualifying examination should be restored. 4. The respondents-the State of Tripura, and the Additional Director of Higher Education who is the convenor of the Joint Selection Committee for professional Higher studies in Tripura, have in their counter-affidavit submitted that since the method of examination and evoluation for some subjects under the Central Board is different from that under the Tripura Board. 4. The respondents-the State of Tripura, and the Additional Director of Higher Education who is the convenor of the Joint Selection Committee for professional Higher studies in Tripura, have in their counter-affidavit submitted that since the method of examination and evoluation for some subjects under the Central Board is different from that under the Tripura Board. The marks obtained by the candidates at the respective Higher Secondary Examinations did not truly reflect the 'academic merit' of the candidates and accordingly after due consideration, the system of 'normalisation' was adopted and notified in July, 1987 and on its basis selection for admission to various courses was made. It has been submitted that the new policy and system is quite rational and is more realistic and hence the petitioner's grievance is not justified. 5. There is an association of tie Guardians of candidates for the Tripura Board and the said association has intervened in this petition and has filed an affidavit-in-opposition in support of the action taken by the respondents. 6. We have heard Shri A. M. Lodh, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Shri S. Barman Roy, learned Advocate General for the respondents and Shri S. Deb, learned senior counsel for the mtervenors, 7. The question which arise for consideration are that whether the comparative academic merit of the candidates could be determined on the marks obtained at the respective qualifying examination, i. e., Higher Secondary Education Examination of different Boards, and if not whether the system evolved by the respondents is reasonable and satisfactory. 8. In so for as the first question is concerned, Shri A. M. Lodh; learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that for the courses, the qualifying examination are the examination of different board and hence the marks obtained should naturally be considered safe basis for selection, we are unable to agree. Eligibility after passing the examination is quite different from selection out of the eligible candidates. We are here concerned with the process of selection for finding out the best in acadraic merit. We therefore cannot accept this submission for the petitioner, 9- Shri Lodh, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Government of India has provided the reserved seats and accordingly the Government of India's instructions should be followed. We are here concerned with the process of selection for finding out the best in acadraic merit. We therefore cannot accept this submission for the petitioner, 9- Shri Lodh, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Government of India has provided the reserved seats and accordingly the Government of India's instructions should be followed. Annexure A/2 is a letter dated 9th December, 1986 and in its para 3, it is stated that "the sole criteria for selection will be the academic merit of the candidates, subject to any special orders issued with the concurrence of the Government of India." In para 7 it was stated that the above criteria for the selection and nomination of candidates against the MBBS/BDS seats reserved for the Central Government should be strictly followed. This direction from the Government of India only speaks of selection on the basis of academic merit of the candidates, but now the academic merit of candidates is to be determined, has not been spelt out. 10. Shri Lodh has invited our attention to the last sentence of a notice for Admission to the Regional Engineering College (Annexure A/3) wherein It was stated that the selection of candidates shall be made strictly on the basis of marks secured in the qualifying examination. This stipulation in the notice relates to admission to the Regional Engineering College and is not relevent for the present purpose, for the reasons that it is not in respect of the seats reserved for the candidates of Tripura, with which the present petition is concerned. 11. The fact that the selection of candidates until the year 1986 had been made on the basis of marks obtained does not mean that the system was free from difficulties or that it was a safe and reliable basis for determination of comparative academic merit of candidates for the reasons that firstly there is undoubtedly some difference in the syllabus and also the method of examination besides the standard of question papers and evaluation of answer scripts. In a vast country like ours with different Boards for Higher Secondary Educations besides the Central Board the difference in standards of examination and in evaluation is natural and is bound to exist. 12. In a vast country like ours with different Boards for Higher Secondary Educations besides the Central Board the difference in standards of examination and in evaluation is natural and is bound to exist. 12. The respondents have placed before us a comparative statement of percentage of marks obtained by the candidates who had stood first at Higher Secondary examination of the concerned boards for the year, 1987, which is as under : "COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF HIGHEST MARKS OBTAINED BY STUDENTS OF DIFFERENT BOARD IN THE EXAMINATIONS. (H.S.) OF 1987. T.B.S.E. I.C.S.E C.B.S.E. English 165/200== 82.5% 95/100=95% 91/100= 9,1% Physics 183/200=91.5% 95/100=95% 100/100=100%. Chemistry 176/200=88% 95/100=95% 100/100=100% Mathematics- 188/200=94% 99/100=99% 100/100=100% Sociology 154/200=77% 95/100=95% 100/100=100% The above statement shows that there is quite a difference in the marking system for example under Tripura Board maximum marks are 200 whereas in others maximum marks are 100, and in evaluation of answers too there is difference which is not such as may be ignored whereas under Tripura Board the maximum marks obtained were:,77%', 82. 5% ,88%, 91. 5% and 94%. Under the Central Board for the same subjects the marks obtained were 100%, 91%, 100%( 100% and 100%, It may thus be obvious that considerable difference in marks obtained by the first candidate in the said examinations existed. Besides, the respondents have submitted that some parts of the examination in some subjects by the Central Board, there are objective type of questions in which by their very nature, the candidates sometimes obtained even cent percent marks which is not the case in the examination held by the Tripura Board where the questions are descriptive types and consequently, the marks obtained could hardly ever be cent percent. 13. The Supreme Court had occasion to consider similar question in relation to admission to Medical College and in Dr. Oinesh Kumar and others vs. Motilal Nerhu Medical College, AIR 1985 SC 1059 , Where it was observed as under : ''Some of the State Governments and Universities, we are informed, are proposing to fill-up the minimum 30% non-reserved seats for the M. B, B. S. course on the basis of the mark obtained by the students at the qualifying examinations held by different States and/or Universities, totally ignoring the fact that the standard of judging at these different qualifying examinations cannot, by its very nature be uniform. Some Universities may be very liberal in their marking while some other may be strict. There would be no comparable standards on the basis of which the relative merits of the students can be judged. It would be wholly unjust to grant admissions to the students by assessing their relative merits with reference to the marks obtained by them not at the same qualifying examination" where standard of judging would be reasonably uniform but at different Governments or Universities where the standard of judging would necessarily vary and not be the same. That would indeed be balatantly violative of the concept of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution." The above observations of the Supreme Court are relevant and we think,,are applicable in the present case. 14. We have considered the respective submissions of the parties and we are inclined to think that the probability of differences in standard of examination, in evaluation, that is the standard of marking and consequently in the marks obtained by the candidates, at the qulifying examination as submitted by respondents distinctly exists and it therefore follows that the comparative academic merit" of the candidates which undoubtedly should be the basis for selection cannot be reasonably fairly determined on the basis purely of the marks obtained in the qualifying examination. 15. We think that the only way to determine the comparative academic merit of candidates for selection for admission to various courses is a common selection examination which alone shall ensure a reliable uniform evaluation of the comparative merits of the candidates. Shri S. B. Roy. learned Advocate General, has very fairly submitted that the State Government is taking steps to hold a joint selection examination, but it would not be possible to hold such an examination this year, for the academic session 1988-1989 but that in the year 1989 for the selection for admissions to the academic session, 1989-90, a joint selection examination shall be held, hence for this years, i.e. academic session 1988-89 the system of selection adopted by the Government may continue or that this Court may give such directions as may be considered proper. 16. We have given our most anxious consideration to the matter considering the interests of the young students. The system of selection purely on the basis of marks obtained at the qualifying examination of different Boards is not satisfactory. 16. We have given our most anxious consideration to the matter considering the interests of the young students. The system of selection purely on the basis of marks obtained at the qualifying examination of different Boards is not satisfactory. A joint selection examination alone shall be the most reosonable basis for evaluation of comparative merit, but a joint-selection examination is not feasible for this year. On careful anxious consideration, we think that for this year the system which was adopted by the State Government, i. e. of normalisation of marks may be continued for the reasons that it appears from Annexure 1-note submitted to the Council of Ministers that the State Government as stated in the affidavit-in-opposition had duly considered the matter and had issued the notification, Annexure 2. While it is true that the notification, Annexure 2 dated 22 July, 1987 which was published in the Tripura Gazette did not give the details of the 'normalisation system' and possibly that gave rise to some misgivings we think that the system is quite sensible and it appears is quite well understood in educational circles. The bulletion for the year 1988-89 of the Birla Institute of Technology and Science, a reputed Institution in the country, has been produced before us in which 'normalisation', has been explained together with the need for it, as under : "That disparity exists between the absolute marks awarded to candidates by the different examining authorities in the country is well known. To bring all such candidates on the same scale of comparison the institute for more than a decade has been practising a time-honoured and well-known system known as normalisation. It basically tries to find the relative displacement of a candidate from the candidate who stood first in the public examination which the candidate under review has passed". Briefly 'Normalisation' in the present context means that candidates who stand first in each of the qualifying examinations of different Boards are considered to be at par. The marks obtained by the other concerned candidates at the same examination are assessed in relation to the marks of the candidate who stood first at the same examination and thus comparative assessment of the candidate is made by evaluating their marks. The marks obtained by the other concerned candidates at the same examination are assessed in relation to the marks of the candidate who stood first at the same examination and thus comparative assessment of the candidate is made by evaluating their marks. This system of normalisation thus appears to us to be fairly reasonable and we find nothing wrong or exceptionable in adopting the said system, until the best system for evaluation, i.e. a joint selection examination is held in the year 1989 for the academic session 1989-90. 17. The figures of selection made in the year 1987 by the said method were produced and are as under. "SESSION 1987-1988. 1. Total No. of C. B. S. E. Candidate who applied for Higher Education Courses - 34 2. Total No. of T. B. S. E. Candidate who applied for Higher Education Courses - 462 3. Total No. of Others candidate who applied for Higher Education Courses - 14 Total 510 Total No. of seats allotted to CBSE Candidates - 11 Total No. of seats allotted to TBSE Candidates _ 88 Total No. of seats allotted to other candidates - 3 Total -102 It would thus appear that the system did work. In the absence of anything better, we see no good reason why the same system should not be allowed to continue this year too. 18. Shri A. M. Lodh, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this system cannot be considered reliable and that the procedure followed in the Birala Institute of Technology and Science, Piiani, hardly be any safe guide for acceptance of the system by the respondent Government. We think there is no merit in the submission. We have already said earlier that the system of determination of the comparative academic merit of -candidates on the basis of marks obtained at the qualifying examination of different Boards is not acceptable. The problem has to be resolved by a reasonable system for this year and we think that normalisation of marks is the only available method. However we do think that it would be better if the respondents would explain to the students and their guardians the concerned persons the scheme of 'normali­sation' of percentage of marks more fully by suitable means widely to allay fears and remove misgivings. 19. However we do think that it would be better if the respondents would explain to the students and their guardians the concerned persons the scheme of 'normali­sation' of percentage of marks more fully by suitable means widely to allay fears and remove misgivings. 19. For the aforesaid reasons, we direct as follows: (i) The 'joint selection examination' for selection of candidates be introduced from the year 1989 for the academic session 1989-90. (ii) The system adopted by the Government and notified by Annexure-2 with the affidavit-in-opposition, is quite reasona­ble and be continued for selection this year, i. e. 1988 for academic year, 1988-89. (iii) In order to inform the general public and the persons concerns and to allay misgivings among some persons the respondent State Government shall take immediate action to explain the system of 'normalisation' and how it is worked by suitable means as may be considered practicable. With the above directions and observations, the petition is disposed of. Parties to bear their own costs.