JUDGMENT : A. Pasayat, J. - Two elected members to the Legislature, one to the Orissa State Legislative Assembly and holding the office of Minister and another elected to Parliament, have overstepped their limits of functioning and have interfered in the matter of selection for admission into Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery Course (in short, 'BAMS course') in Government Ayurvedic Colleges, allege the petitioners. 2. The background facts as highlighted by them are that the petitioner along with hundreds of others sought admission into two Government Ayurvedic Colleges, namely, Gopabandhu Ayurved Mahavidyalaya, Puri and Government Ayurvedic College, Bolangir for undergoing BAMS course relating to the academic year 1992-93. Applications for admission were invited on the basis of prospectus issued which inter alia stipulated the guidelines for admission, requisite qualification, age, reservation of seats, procedure of selection and many other relevant aspects. Clause 7 (b) of the prospectus clearly stipulated that the basis of selection shall be merit alone. The management of each college vests on the Principal of the respective college subject to overall control of the Director, Indian Medicines, and Homeopathy, Orissa having its office at Bhubaneswar. Out of thirty seats in each of the above two colleges, 6% is reserved for the children of green card holders, 8% and 12% respectively for candidates belonging to scheduled caste and scheduled tribe, 1 seat for physically handicapped person and 1 seat for nominee of the Government of India. In other words 21 seats belong to unreserved category while 9 seats are earmarked as reserved seats. A committee for selection was formed with the Director, Indian Medicine and Homeopathy. Orissa (opp. party No. 2) as Chairman and both the Principals as members, in terms of paragraph 7 (a) of the prospectus. Undisputedly the petitioners were applicants. The criteria followed for selection, was on the basis of career marking. Though this was not a drescription in the prospectus, but to get meritorious students the career marking system was adopted. The minimum academic qualification prescribed was that a candidate should have passed +2 Science examination. So far as Puri College is concerned, on the basis of marks secured at the relevant examination and the career marking, 29 candidates were asked to take admission by 29-9-1992. Intimations in this regard were sent on 23-9-1992. On 29-9.1992, 20 candidates turned up and took their admission. So far as Puri College is concerned, on the basis of marks secured at the relevant examination and the career marking, 29 candidates were asked to take admission by 29-9-1992. Intimations in this regard were sent on 23-9-1992. On 29-9.1992, 20 candidates turned up and took their admission. Thereafter a waiting list of 40 candidates was prepared for the remaining seats. Intimations were issued in batches and 7 candidates were given admission on five different dates. As a result three seats including the reserved seat of the Central Government remained unfilled. On 28-12-1992 the Director (opp. party No. 2) in his capacity, as Chairman issued a letter to the Principal to hold a spot selection with due notice in the notice board in addition to the intimation. On 28-12-1992 no spot selection was held and on the contrary opposite party Nos. 5 and 6 were admitted. It is not in dispute that neither the petitioners nor opposite party Nos. 5 and 6 were in the waiting list. It is also not in dispute that opposite party No. 5 is less meritorious than both the petitioners, and opp. party No. 6 is more meritorious than petitioner No. 2 although she is less meritorious than petitioner No. 1, Jyoti prakash Pant on the basis of career marking and marks secured at the relevant examination. Petitioners allege that the selection of opposite party Nos. 5 and 6 was only on account of political pressure put by the Minister, Health and Family Welfare, and Member of Parliament, Puri Loksabha Constituency. 3. In response to notice issued a combined counter affidavit has been filed by the State of Orissa, represented by the Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, the Director, of Indian Medicine and Homeopathy, Orissa and the Principal, Gopabandhu Ayurved Mahavidyalaya, Puri. It is accepted that the selection of opposite party Nos. 5 and 6 was not in terms of the directions given by the Director (opp. party No. 2) ; and that the sole basis of selection of opp. party Nos. 5 and 6 was the recommendations of the Minister of Health and Family Welfare and the Member of Parliament of Puri Loksabha Constituency. They have tried to justify the selection of opp. party Nos. 5 and 6 on the ground that it was with the"desired directive principles of the State authority". (We have quoted from the counter affidavit). party Nos. 5 and 6 was the recommendations of the Minister of Health and Family Welfare and the Member of Parliament of Puri Loksabha Constituency. They have tried to justify the selection of opp. party Nos. 5 and 6 on the ground that it was with the"desired directive principles of the State authority". (We have quoted from the counter affidavit). The relevant partion of the counter affidavit makes inter- esting reading and is extracted below : "That in reply to the averments made in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the writ petition, it is submitted that the admission of the opp. party Nos. 5 and 6 have been allowed by the order of the Principal on 22-12-1992 on the spot as the time was being over according to the Utkal University Rules. As the Government felt that some encouragement and incentive has to be given by the Government for change of taste to Ayurvedic treatment the Hon'ble Minister for Health and Family Welfare and public representative like M. P. of Puri have recommended the names of some candidates for admission as the Principal has recorded in his office file though it is very much beyond time but within the desired Directive Principles of the State authority........." It is stated that the then Principles had not committed any irregularity. But we find that he acted on his own and even contrary to the Director's directives and without consulting other member of selection committee. The stand of opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 on one hand shows acceptance of having ignored the directions of the Director, arid on the other hand a meek surrender to political pressure. 4. Although the doctrine of separation of power has not been recognised under the Constitution in its absolute rigidity but the Constitution makers have meticulously defined the functions of various organs of the State,Legislature, Executive and Judiciary have to function within their own spheres demarcated under the Constitution. No organ can usurp the functions assigned to another. The Constitution places implicit trust on the judgment of these organs to function and exercise their discretion by strictly following the procedure prescribed therein. The functioning of democracy depends upon the strength and independence of each of its organs. While exercise of powers by the legislature and executive Is subject to judicial restraint, the only check on judicial exercise of power is the self-imposed decision of judicial restraint. The functioning of democracy depends upon the strength and independence of each of its organs. While exercise of powers by the legislature and executive Is subject to judicial restraint, the only check on judicial exercise of power is the self-imposed decision of judicial restraint. Frankfurter, J. of the Supreme Court dissenting in the controversial expatriation case of Trop v. Dulles (1958) 356 US 86 observed as under: "All power is, in Madison's phrase, 'of an encroaching nature', Judicial power is not immense against encroaching beyond its proper bounds, and not the less so since the only restraint upon it is self-restraint... Rigorous observance of the difference between limits of power and wise exercise of power between questions of authority and questions of prudence-requires the most alert appreciation of this decisive but subtle relationship of two concepts that too easily coalesce." The judiciary observes a fastidious regard for limitations on its own power, it restraints from entering upon the areas which are more politic in nature The Executive and the Legislature are obligated not to encroach upon areas which are foreign to their limits of exercise We are not in a position to know for certain as to what had prompted the Minister and the Member of Parliament' to embark upon an enterprise which was certainly not within their functional domain because they are not parties before us. However, in the counter affidavit filed by the State and its functionaries, it is accepted that the cases of opp. party Nos. 5 and 6 were sponsored by the Minister and the Member of Parliament and as a result the said opposite parties have got admission into the institution, which otherwise they could not have got. From the records we find that the Minister has passed the following order on an application relating to Biswaranjan Pradhan (opp. party No. 5). "Principal, Gopabahdhu Ayurvedic College, Puri. Please see that Shri Pradhan gets admission into your Institution. Sd/- 17-12-1992 Minister Health & Family Welfare; Orissa" This endorsement of the Ministers a letter addressed to him is placed at page 131 of the records produced, before us. Though there is no written recommendation of the Member of Parliament, Puri, available on the said record, we find that;opp. party No. 6 has given her address as C/o. B. K. Tripathy, M.P. Tiadisahi, Puri town, Puri. As indicated supra. Though there is no written recommendation of the Member of Parliament, Puri, available on the said record, we find that;opp. party No. 6 has given her address as C/o. B. K. Tripathy, M.P. Tiadisahi, Puri town, Puri. As indicated supra. we are not able to know the background in which the recommendations were made as the recommenders are not parties before us. Had they been impleaded, the background, purpose and desirability could have been explained. They could have also either accepted or denied the recommendation. We have before us the affidavits of ppp. party Nos. 1 to 3 wherein it has been accepted that the, cases of opp. party Nos. 5 and 6 were sponsorod. We proceed on the basis of that acceptance. It is sometime considered wise not to ask questions, so as not to hear lies. If the Minister and or the Member of Parliament have pressurised and/or directly or indirectly instrumental in the irregular admission, the action is deplorable. Admissions in educational institutions should on the basis of merit alone and not on the ground of political patronage. If the reverse happens, meritorious students without political god fathers and patrons shall not get admission. In their place intellectual pigmies with political pull and patronage shall get admission. That will affect the educational system. 5. "Public office is a public trust" said W. C. Hudson (Slogan for Cleveland Campaign, 1884). If people who hold public offices act in a manner not befitting the dignity and sanctity attached to it, there is a breach of the trust reposed. In a social environment, each individual is set in multiple criss-crossing relationships, so that the results of his actions affect and are affected by those of other people. In case of a person holding public office, the responsibility to act fairly, and impartially is more. 6. "Learning is excellence of wealth that none destroy ; To man nought else affords reality of joy" said the immortal Pet Valluvar. The fundamental purpose of education is the same at all times and in all places. It is to transfigure the human personality into a pattern of perfection through a synthetic process of the development of the body, the enrichment of the mind, the illumination of the emotions and the illumination of the spirit. Education is a preparation for a living and for life, here and hereafter. An old Sanskrit adage states. It is to transfigure the human personality into a pattern of perfection through a synthetic process of the development of the body, the enrichment of the mind, the illumination of the emotions and the illumination of the spirit. Education is a preparation for a living and for life, here and hereafter. An old Sanskrit adage states. That is Education which Iead9 to liberation-liberation from ignorance which shrouds the mind; liberation from superstition which paralyses effort, liberation from prejudices which blind the vision of the Truth. 7. In the contest of a democratic form of Government which depends for its sustenance upon the enlightenment of the populace, education is a stance, a social and political necessity. But that does not mean that political patronage shall decide who shall receive education and Where. 8. The citizens of this country have fundamental right to education. The said right flows from Art. 21. It is true, it is not an absolute right. But its content and para meter is determined by Arts. 41 and 45. The importance of education has come to be recognised in various Judicial decisions. The following observations in Oliver Brown v. Board of Education of Teseka (US Supreme Court Reports 98 LEd. US 347 have been of quoted : "Today, education is perhaps the most important function of State and local Governments......It is required in the performance of our most basic responsibilities......It is very foundation of good citizenship. Today it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for better professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment," This observation was quoted by the Apex Court in Unni Krishnan J.P. and Ors. etc. etc. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. etc. etc. : 1993 (1) SLR 218. The sanctity attached to education cannot be permitted to be polluted and defiled by anybody, much less by one whose office requires an oath of allegiance to the Constitution. 9. Opposite party Nos, 1 to 3 have accepted that opp. party No. 5 is less meritorious than both the petitioners, and opp. party No. 6 is less meritorious than petitioner No. 1. The admission given to opp. party Nos. 5 and 6 is certainly irregular and opp. party No. 3 seems to have thrown all norms of propriety to wind, while granting admission to opp. party Nos. 5 and 6. 10. party No. 6 is less meritorious than petitioner No. 1. The admission given to opp. party Nos. 5 and 6 is certainly irregular and opp. party No. 3 seems to have thrown all norms of propriety to wind, while granting admission to opp. party Nos. 5 and 6. 10. The further question is whether nullification of admission of opp. party Nos. 5 and 6 would be proper, and whether the petitioners can be granted admission now. Undisputedly opp. party Nos. 5 and 6 have prosecuted their studies for about five months. No other applicant except the petitioners has questioned their admission. It would, therefore be inequitable to nullify their admission. It is accepted by the learned counsel for State that in respect of two seats, one each at Puri and Balangir, there is no other contender for admission, and the petitioners can be adjusted against the said two vacancies. In view of his statement, we direct that petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 be admitted at Puri and Balangir colleges respectively, The petitioners are directed to appear before the respective Principal on 28-4-1993 with all relevant records and if they so appear, they shall be admitted to the course. The writ application is allowed to the extent indicated above; but without any order as to costs. B.N. Dash, J. 11. I agree. Final Result : Allowed