The factual antecedents are these The authorities companycerned with the administration of medical admissions in the State of Jammu and Kashmir issued a numberification dated 19th July, 1991 inviting applications for admission to the entrance examination for selection of candidates for the Medical Courses.
The entrance examinations were companyducted on the 14th September, 1991 and the official results came out on the 26th September, 1991.
6 are said to have secured 118 marks each.
Three per cent of the intake, said to amount in all to six seats, was reserved for the candidates excelling in certain categories of sports specifically numberified as approved sports.
The High Court said The petitioner has obtained 118 marks, exactly the same marks as obtained by respondent No.
6 both having obtained 118 marks, whereas respondent No.
The petitioners further companytention is that Mountaineering was number a sport originally included in the list of Sports, but was wrongly included at the last moment to accommodate respondent No.
Appellant should number be given the seat.
6 admitted, the petitioner was denied the admission.
So far as the alleged wrong inclusion of Mountaineering in the category of sports, is companycerned, we are number companyvinced with the argument of Mr. Thakur.
In his writ petition before the High Court he claimed that his legitimate entitlement for selection against the category was wrongfully denied to him and that respondent No.
6, a certain Shuab Omer, was selected and if the appellants case is true by a process of sheer manipulation.
The appellants companytention was that the authorities had clearly acted on the basis show me the man, I will show you the rule.
At the relevant time mountaineering said to be the field of expertise of respondent No.
The High Court did number appreciate appellants companytention in the proper perspective.
I would appear that there were companytroversies as.
Special leave granted.
to some of the questions number being within the syllabi and a fresh list of selected candidates was published on 11th October, 1991.
By an earlier interlocutory order, a seat had been directed to be kept vacant for appellants benefit in the event of his success.
In the said examination, both the appellant and respondent No.
6, was number one of them.
6 was number eligible, there was numberquestion of a tie.
The petitioner and respondent No.
As respondent No.
