This bunch of writ petitions relate to admission to 1st year MBBS course in Assam Medical College. Dibrugarh, for short, AMC. The petitioner. Assam Students Union is one of the oldest Students Union of the State established in the year 1947 and the petitioner No. 2 is the General Secretary of the Union is also a 5th year MBBS Student of AMC. Petitioner No.3 filed this petition on behalf of his daughter Ms Rashmi Rekha Choudhury who had appeared in the combined Admission Test held for the purpose of admission into the First Year MBBS Course in the State for the academic year 1995-96. she was placed at SI No.8 in the Waiting List (general). It is her case that two candidates above her, had taken admission in the Engineering College, thus, she is stands upgraded to SI No.6. 2. Admissions to Medical Colleges of Assam and the Regional Dental Colleges are governed by rules called the Medical Colleges of Assam and Regional Dental Colleges (Regulation of Admission of Under Graduate Students (Amendment) Rules, 1994. for short, the Rules. Rule 4 provides for method of selection which reads as follows : "4. Method of Selection : (1) There shall be a Selection Board for selection of candidates for admission into first year of MBBS, BDS Courses consisting of the following: (i) Director of Medical Education, Assam or any other eminent person in the field of Medicine/Medical Education as may be appointed by the Govt Chairman (ii) Principal of all the three Medical Colleges of Assam Member (iii) Principals, Regional Dental College, Guwahati or a Seniormost Professor Member (iv) One person nominated by the Vice Chancellor, Guwahati Univeristy, one person nominated by the Vice Chancellor. Dibmgarh University, one person nominated by the Assam University, one person nominated by the Vice Chancellor. Tezpur University and one representative of the Govt of Assam, Health and Family Planning Welfare Department not below the rank of Joint Secretary. Member (v) Controller of Examination, Directorate of Medical Education, Assam as may be nominated by the Govt. Member/Secretary. While Rule 5 makes a provision for exemption from common entrance examination. This Rule is also quoted below : "5. Member (v) Controller of Examination, Directorate of Medical Education, Assam as may be nominated by the Govt. Member/Secretary. While Rule 5 makes a provision for exemption from common entrance examination. This Rule is also quoted below : "5. Exemption from common Entrance Examination - The following categories of candidates are exepmted from appearing in the common Entrance Examination : (a) Candidates nominated against reserved seats from other States by their respective Govt, provided that they satisfy other relevant conditions for eligibility for admission. (b) Candidates selected on the basis of the all India Entrance Examination conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education. (c) Candidates nominated under the Central Govt Pool. (d) Candidates ranked within the first ten position in the Higher Secondary (Science) Examination of the Assam Higher Secondary Education Council having Physics, Chemistry and Biology with not less than 75% marks in aggregate exclusing the Additional subject in the year in which they seek admission such candidates may apply for direct admission within 10 days of publication of their qualifying examination results to the Director of Medical Education, Assam." Reservation of Seats : (1) For MBBS Course: Available seats shall be reserved for the following categories of candidates of the State of Assam. (a) Scheduled Caste: 7% total available seats. (b) Schediled Tribes (Plain): 10% do (c) Schediled Tribes (Hills): 5% do (d) OBC including MOBC: 15% do (e) Sons and daughters, dependent brothers and sisters of ex-servicemen and serving Defence personnel from Assam only : 3 seats in total (f) Sons and daughters, brothers/sisters and grand son/grand daughters of freedom fighter of State : 2 seats. (g) Sons and daughters and sisters of the Martyrs of Assam Movement: 2 seats (h) Children of Tea Garden, ex-tea Garden 6 seats (2 seats in each of three communities Tribes: Medical Colleges). (1) Sons and daughters of all categories of 6 seats in total (out of this three employees serving under the Health will be reserved for sons and Department of Assam : daughters of doctors who have served in rural areas for five years or more). (1) Sons and daughters of all categories of 6 seats in total (out of this three employees serving under the Health will be reserved for sons and Department of Assam : daughters of doctors who have served in rural areas for five years or more). (j) Social and Educationally backward persons ordinarily residing in areas covered by the Assam State Char Areas Development Authority and not entitled to any other forms of reservation : 2 seats (k) Sons, daughters, brothers and sisters of persons killed in extermist violence in Assam :2 seats (2) BDS Course: (a) Scheduled Caste : 1 seat (b) Scheduled Tribes (Plain): 2 seats (c) Scheduled Tribes (Hills): 1 seat (d) OBC including MOBC : 2 seats (e) Children of Tea Garden, ex-tea Garden communities : 1 seat (f) Sons, daughters, dependent brothers/sisters of ex-servicemen and serving Defence personnel from Assam only: 1 seat (g) General: 5 seats (h) Sons and daughters brothers and sisters of the Martyrs of Assam Movement: 1 seat (i) Sons/daughters, brothers and sisters of persons killed in extermist violence in Assam :a1 seat Provided the candidates so nominated shall fulfil and eligibility criteria laid down in Rule 3 (c), 3 (d), 3 (f) and 3 (g). Explanation : If any of the seats mentioned in this rule remains unfilled for N want of candidate, such seats shall be filled up by the candidate of the general category in order of merit in the common Entrance Examination." 3. Except for the State of Assam and Manipur, there is no other Medical College in any of other States which has resulted in dirth of qualified medical personnel. These States had been making fervent request to the State Govt of Assam to provide some more seats to bridge the gap between the requirements and availability of qualified medical professionals. The North Eastern Council has also made similar request. It was for this reason that the Govt of Assam came out with a notification on 11.3.1996 revoking the Explanation of Rule 5 of the aforesaid rules and providing 10 more additional seats to the North Eastern States out of total unutilised seats of CBSE quota for the session 1995-96. Out of these 10 seats, 7 seats were allotted to the Govt of Arunachal Pradesh and one each to Nagaland, Mizoram and Tripura. Out of these 10 seats, 7 seats were allotted to the Govt of Arunachal Pradesh and one each to Nagaland, Mizoram and Tripura. The notification dated 11.3.1996 is reproduced herein below: "Whereas, there is no Medical Colleges in other North Eastern States except Assam and Manipur and whereas this has handicapped these States in developing man power in the field of Medical Science for which there are dearth of Medical personnel in these NE States. Whereas, the North Eastern States are making fervent request to this State Govt to provide more seats in MDBS Course in the three Medical Colleges of Assam to bridge the gap between requirement of Medical Professional and actual needs for such professional. And whereas the North Eastern Council which ha/ been set up for all round development of North Eastern State is also making repeated request to the State Govt of Assam to spare atleast 10 (ten) seats every year in favour of North Eastern States so that they can assist these States in developing manpower in the field of Medical Science for these States. In turn they are eager to finance various schemes in AMC, Dibrugarh in addition to infrastructure development undertaking by North Eastern Council in Guwahati Medical College, Guwahati. Therefore, Governor of Assam in exercise of powers conferred upon him by Rule 10 of the MBBS/BDS Rules, 1994 is pleased to revoke the 'Explanation' of Rule 5 of the Medical College of Assam and Regional Dental College (Regulation) of Admission of Under Graduate Students (Amendment) Rules, 1994 and have decided to allot 10 additional seats to the North Eastern States out of the total 18 unutilised seats of CBSE quota for the session 1995-96. Accordingly, out of these 10 seats, 7 (seven) seats are allotted Govt of Anmachal Pradesh and 3 (three) seats allotted one each Nagaland, Mizoram and Tripura." 4. This notification has given rights to the present petitioners challenging the allocation of seats to the respondents on the ground of discrimination, arbitrariness and flouting all norms of fairness, the admission of the respondents denounced as made on extraneous consideration. According to them it was a fraud. 5. The respondent Nos.4. 5. 6. 7. 9. 10 and 11 in their joint affidavit-in-opposition filed by Shri Hem Baruah, father of respondent No. 9. Smti Amarjyoti Baruah has challenged the entertainment of this petition as public interest litigation. According to them it was a fraud. 5. The respondent Nos.4. 5. 6. 7. 9. 10 and 11 in their joint affidavit-in-opposition filed by Shri Hem Baruah, father of respondent No. 9. Smti Amarjyoti Baruah has challenged the entertainment of this petition as public interest litigation. Now at this stage when notices have been issued and parties have entered appearance, filed their affidavit-in-opposition. and the merits of the collective and respective claims gone into, it would be too late in the day to challenge the maintainability of the petition as PIL. That apart, considering the colossal and ramapnt arbitrariness in matters relating to admission to MBBS Course showering favours to the fortunate few to the exclusion of the metitorious and deserving ones, who had no acess to the corridors of power that be in the Govt. the public element involved in the petition cannot be ruled out. The other ground taken is about the delay in filing the petition. This delay of 17 months in coming to the Court is not of such nature as to disentitle the petitioners from invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court. The petition has been filed on 3rd September. 1996 and the respondents objection is that it has been filed after 7tmonths of continuous attendance of classes by respondents. The notification Annexure B itself was published on 11.3.96. Assuming that the petitioners can be imputed with knowledge of the notification from the date of its publication although in reality it does not come to be so. yet there is hardly a gap of less than 4 months in filing the petition. While the respondents could overnight obtain recommendation for admission on 12th March. 1996. just next day. the day the Govt machinery put into top gear to declare the admission of as many as 7 candidates, vide Annexure C; naturally, the petitioners, giver the means at their disposal, cannot be expected to rush to the Court with the same speed with which the names were announced. So much so. even in anticipation of 1.3.96 one Machu Kare was nominated. One can think of an anticipatory writ. Firstly, there is no delay as such and even if the period of less than 4 months is construed as delay, it cannot be allowed to be used as a sword in the hands of the respondents to attack the petitioners to defeat the petitions. 6. One can think of an anticipatory writ. Firstly, there is no delay as such and even if the period of less than 4 months is construed as delay, it cannot be allowed to be used as a sword in the hands of the respondents to attack the petitioners to defeat the petitions. 6. So far as the malafide as also been alleged, the facts constitution malafide have not been stated. The allegation is nothing but insinuation against the petitioner. The facts constituting malafide are totally missing from the pleadings. 7. It is admitted position that these respondents as numbered above were admitted on the strength of an order passed by a previous Director of Medical Education. Assam, who was just to retire. The respondents' grievance is that the successor in office cancelled the seats granted to the petitioners and it was because of some 'misunderstanding' of prevailing procedure. There case is - "These seats are newly created seats and as the respondents are the applicants for the seats under the quota of NE States, they were allotted the seats by the respective States as there were no other applicants for those additional seats. No candidate of the general category including the petitioner No.3's .daughter from the existing seats are being deprived by these admissions. If these respondents/deponents would not have been admitted the above seats would have remained vacant for want of applicants." The question is, was it made known to the aspirants or candidates desiring admission to 1st Year MBBS Course ? Where seats were available, if any one eligible and desirous of admission applied for the same, it cannot be restricted to the class confined and corridors of power. It should have been thrown open and widely published before picking up the fortunate few as only the eligible candidates are entitled for admission. It is this action which is stinking. Why only the selected ones ? One illegal or gross irregularity once committted, cannot be pleaded to legalise or legitimatise the action. The decision taken by the outgoing Director of Medical Education, who was to retire to the next couple of days presents and poses the question - Whether he properly directed himself guided by fair principles and acting reasonably in passing the order that he did ? and whether could it be done overnight ? The decision taken by the outgoing Director of Medical Education, who was to retire to the next couple of days presents and poses the question - Whether he properly directed himself guided by fair principles and acting reasonably in passing the order that he did ? and whether could it be done overnight ? Annexure C has been passed on 12th March, 1996, just next day after publication of the notification on llth March, 1996. How fast things have moved, the notification was published at Gauhati on 11th March and the confidential most urgent circular, Annexure C is issued from Itanagar. Faced with such glaring facts, citing the Wednesbury principles of reasonableness or Tata Cellular or New Horizons, is wholly inapt. What is the element of reasonability, where is the fairness in principle, where has it reflected in action ? All norms of fairness and concept of equality were thrown to the winds. Arbitrariness is the anti-thesis of Article 14 of the Constitution and the dictum laid down by Bhagawati, J (as he then was) in the Airport Authority's case, AIR 1979 SC 1628 , is no longer res-integra. The innovative constuction put by the Supreme Court in the landmarks judgment in Maneka Gandhi's case AIR 1978 SC 577, has all along been followed in a long series of judgment evolving the new dimensions in juridial process (see EP Rayoppa vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 SC 555 ; Express Newspaper Pvt Ltd vs. Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 872 ). It is rather late in the day to question the correctness of the landmark decision in Airport Authority and Maneka Gandhi. Before proceeding any further, it would not be out of place to note the orders on the strength of which the individual petitioners in the connected writ petitions have secured admission. xxxx  xxxxx xxxx 8. The petitioner Association has filed a letter dated 6th May, 1996 issued by the Director of Medical Education and addressed to the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt of Assam. Health Department complaining about the irregular admission of MBBS in the Sessions 1995-96 in Assam Medical College. Dibrugarh. The letter reveals the real position, how the orders of permission were issued is reproduced below for ready reference. Health Department complaining about the irregular admission of MBBS in the Sessions 1995-96 in Assam Medical College. Dibrugarh. The letter reveals the real position, how the orders of permission were issued is reproduced below for ready reference. Govt of Assam, Annexure G Office of the Director of Medical Education Assam : Housfed Complex, Dispur, Guwahati - 6 No.DME/3/9/96/2507 Dated 6th May, 1996. From : Dr. AC Borah, Director of Medical Education. Assam To : The Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt of Assam, Health & FW (B) Department, Dispur, Guwahati - 6 Sub : Irregular Admission of MDBS Course in .Session, 1995-96 in Assam Medical College, Dibrugarh. Sir, I am directed to inform you that there are many gross irregularities in admission to MBBS Course for the session, 1995-96 in Assam Medical College, Dibrugarh. The following are the candidates who admitted on 30.4.96. (1) Miss Nilim Konwar, (2) Nabin Kumar Das, (3) Pranab Choudhury, (4) Amar Jyoti Baruah, (5) Miss Nilakshi Knowar, (6) Miss Kaveri Neog, (7) Basanta Kumar Agarwala and (8) Miss Nandini Dutta. These namesjjwere not selected by the Selection Board for the session 1995-96. Whereas after normalisation of marks of 50% obtained in Higher Secondary Examination or equivalent examination conducted by the various Boards of examination and 50% of marks obtained in the Entrance Examination conducted by the Gauhati University are taken into consideration. After adding both the marks the selected list was prepared by the Selection Board constituted by the Govt of Assam and also waiting list was prepared. But surprisingly, the students admitted were neither in the selected list nor in the waiting list for the session, 1995-96. These names were forwarded by the former Director of Medical Education. Assam, Dr. PK Konwar to the Principal, Assam Medical College, Dibrugarh vide letter Nos.DME/168/95/1208 dated 15.3.96, No.DME/9/SB/Pt/36 dated 26.4.96 and No.DME/9/95/Pt/35 dated 19.4.96 (copy enclosed). The Principal, Assam Medical College, Dibrugarh did not go through proper formalities to confirm whether the names were in the waiting list or not who is also the Member of the Selection Board but instead admitted them immediately. The matter is of serious of its nature, I request you to take necessary action as early as possible. Yours faithfully, Sd/- AC Borah, Director Medical Education, Dispur, Guwahati - 6." 9. The matter is of serious of its nature, I request you to take necessary action as early as possible. Yours faithfully, Sd/- AC Borah, Director Medical Education, Dispur, Guwahati - 6." 9. There were absolutely no norms, either laid down, much less followed for sponsoring the candidates by the States to whom the additional seats were allotted in pursuance of the notification dated 11th March, 1996. It was a height of arbitrariness in action. The question of reservation for special categories came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Ritesh Shah vs. YL Yamul, AIR 1996 SC1378, it was a case where 54 seats were earmarked to be filled up from amongst the members of special categories and these seats were deducted from the total number of seats. The Supreme Court held that this was wrong although since admissions were granted, the Supreme Court did not interfere with the method adopted by the respondents in filling up those 54 seats. The extent of arbitrariness is so wide and so deep that even the learned counsel for the respondents in Civil Rule No.4244 of 1996 and petitioners in other connected petitions were at pains to defence the action of the Director. They, however, fervently urged that even if the whole process of admission is to be streamlined those who succeeded in securing admissions should not be disturbed. This aspect of the matter appealed for a sympathetic view, will be presently dealt with. There cannot be two yardstick applied to candidates seeking admission to MDBS Course in any medical college. Those who offered themselves for common entrance test on the basis of open merit seats and those who seek admission in discretionary quota or seats, different yardstick and rules as has been held by the Supreme Court in K. Sujata vs. Marathwara University, 1995 Suppl (1) SCC155, is impermissible. Of course, in this case since the candidate had studied for several months, instead of cancelling her admission she was allowed to continue as the seat was likely to remain unutilised but such is not the position in the instant case. There is a long waiting list. Of course, in this case since the candidate had studied for several months, instead of cancelling her admission she was allowed to continue as the seat was likely to remain unutilised but such is not the position in the instant case. There is a long waiting list. In Gurdeep Singh vs. State of J&K, 1995 Suppl (1) SCC 188, the Supreme Court quashed the challenge of eligibility criteria after conclusion of the selection process and it was in this case that the Supreme Court dealing with the question of sympathy, observed as follows : "What remains to be considered is whether the selection of respondent 6 should be quashed. We are afraid, unduly lenient view of the Courts on the basis of human consideration in regard to such excesses on the part of the authorities, has served to create an impression that even where an advantage is secured by stratagem and trickery, it could be rationalised in Courts of law. Courts do and should take human and sympathetic view of matters. That is the very essence of justice. But considerations of judicial policy also dictate that a tendency of this kind where advantage gained by illegal means is permitted to be retained will jeopardise the purity of selection process itself, engender cynical disrespect towards the judicial process and in the last analysis emboldent errant authorities and candidates into a sense of complacency and impunity that gains achieved by such wrongs could be retained by an appeal to the sympathy of the Court. Such instances reduce the jurisdiction and discretion of Courts into private benevolence. This tendency should be stopped. The selection of respondent 6 in the sports category was, on the material placed before us, thoroughly unjustified. He was not eligible in the sports category. He would not be entitled on the basis of his marks, to a seat in general merit category. Attribution of eligibility long after the selection process was over, in our opinion, is misuse of power. While we have sympathy for the predicament of respondent 6, it should not lose sight of the fact that the situation is the result of his own making. We think in order to uphold the purity of academic processes, we should quash the selection and admission of respondent 6. We do. While we have sympathy for the predicament of respondent 6, it should not lose sight of the fact that the situation is the result of his own making. We think in order to uphold the purity of academic processes, we should quash the selection and admission of respondent 6. We do. so, though, however, reluctantly." To the same effect is the observation made by the Supreme Court while considering the question of hardship in Shri Chander Chera Bara Khara Udasin Society vs. State of J&K, (1996) 5 SCC 732 . It was also a case of admission to MBBS course to a private recognised institution belonging to the appellant society. The Supreme Court held that marks obtained in the HSSLC Examination was not the proper criteria and also observed that allotment of marks for viva-voce should not be excessive, and held it is the common entrance examination which is the best method for selection of candidates to MBBS course. Admissions in this case were made by the College authorities in accordance with the directions issued by the High Court although these directions were not consistent with the orders and principles laid down by the Supreme Court. It was because of the indifferent attitude of the State Govt and haste show by the Institution to so called selected candidates who were said to have been admitted were virtually brought on the road. Sympathy and equality was sought to be invoked even in this case but the Supreme Court categorically held that a procedure which is not sanctioned by law cannot be approved only to mitigate the hardship of such candidates who managed to seek admission, in the Medical College. 10. Following the same, and considering/the enormity of arbitrariness, total lack of fair procedure in admitting the respondents in Civil Rule No.4244 of 1996 and writ petitioners in other connected petitions, their admissions are liable to be quashed. They are accordingly quashed. The respondent State is directed to streamline the whole process of selection following the best method of common entrance test as propounded by the Supreme Court. It is open to the State to sponsored candidates from amongst the waiting list streamline in accordance with their respective merits. The writ petition CR 4244 of 1996 is allowed and the other writ petition are dismissed. With no order as to costs.