Harsmeep Singh Kang vs The Punjab University and others

Harsmeep Singh Kang, aggrieved of having been held ineligible and thus not even in the zone of consideration qua admission in Bachelor of Engineering, Department of Chemical Engineering and Technology against the reserve quota of 5% seats on the basis of achievements in the sports has filed present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking a command on respondents to admit him to the course after holding that he is eligible to be considered in the reserve quota of sports category.

The facts of the case reveal that petitioner had appeared in the test known as ''Combined Entrance Test'' for admission to the Engineering College in the State including the Department of Chemical Engineering and Technology, Punjab University, Chandigarh. He secured 53.5 marks and had qualified for admission to the Department of Chemical Engineering and Technology as the said department had fixed 36 marks as qualifying for admission to the course. Petitioner claims that he is well known cricketer of Punjab State. He represented the Punjab State Cricket team in the junior category for Vijay Merchant Tropy (under 16 years) for the year 1991 and his team won the National Championship held at Cuttack. The prospectus, which besides other things, provide rules for admission, have a list of various -categories of sports according to which admissions under the reserved categories of sports, are regulated. The case of petitioner is that he is in category 7 as the team in which he participated, won the National Champison-ship and, therefore, he was not only amongst three first positions but in fact in the first position itself. The relevant category i.e. 7 reads as follows;--

"7. A person getting any of the first three positions in the National Championship for juniors."

On the basis of his category in sports, petitioner was issued interview letter, copy whereof is Annexure P-2. He went to the department of Chemical Engineering and Technology and alist of eligible candidates in the sports category was displayed on the notice board and his name was mentioned at No. 2. Even the category in which he was placed, was mentioned against his name as B-7-J. As, all those who compete in the reserved category meant for sports persons have to appear for a trial, petitioner proceeded to the sports ground to take the trial but to his shock and disappointment, the Deputy Director, Physical Education, Punjab University refused to give him trial on the ground that he was not eligible for consideration in the sports category. Even though petitioner did his best by pleading with the Deputy Director, Physical Education that he was eligible and had even shown him gradation certificate which had declared him B grade sportsman which was issued by the Director of Sports, Punjab, Chandigarh as also the letter issued by Honorary Secretary, Punjab Cricket Association, which in term mentions that petitioner was a member of Punjab State (under 16 years) Cricket team which participated in the Vijay Merchant Trophy for the year 1991 and that the Punjab team won the trophy as also the Vijay Merchant Trophy is Junior tournament and not sub-junior, matter did not proceed arty further as the Deputy Director still thought him ineligible for consideration. The cricket Coach, who was present at the trial venue, also pleaded the case of petitioner but the Deputy Director of sports still did not give the trial to petitioner. Constrained, petitioner submitted a representation to the Vice Chancellor, Punjab University, with a copy to the Chairman, Department of Chemical Engineering and Technology but he was not conveyed any decision. The interview for the sports seats was to be held on August 7, 1992 at 9 AM but since petitioner was not given trial by the Deputy Director, Sports, and thus could not be admitted. Finding no solace from any where he has filed the present writ petition. The action of respondents in not admitting the petitioner to the course is stated to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

The cause of petitioner has been opposed and in the written statement filed on behalf of respondent University through Shri B. L. Gupta, Registrar, Punjab University, it is pleaded that the prevailing practice in respect of National Tournaments organised by various National Federations for different age groups, the National Championship was normally orgamsed for age group of 16 years. Any competition conducted for age group below the age of 16 years is termed as sub-junior. Under 16 years group in which petitioner participated would be termed as sub-junior championship and not a junior championship. In accordance with the Rules and Regulation appliicable in that be-half, a candidate to qualify for admission under the reserved category for Sportsman has to have participated in a championship for juniors and under 16 years category does not include the junior Championship. According to the cycling Federation of India, any tournament organised for the age group of under 16 years is termed as sub-juniors. The Association of Indian Universities (Sports Wing) is also affiliated to the various National Federations. Indian Universities are affiliated with the Association of India Universities. The directions/instructions regarding the sports competition issued by the Association of India Universities are binding on the Univer-sities affiliated thereto. The Association of India Universities feeds its junior terms in the age group of under 18 selected from various Universities for participation in the National Championship. It is further pleaded that the respondent-University has throughout been recognizing only "under 18" as juniors for the purpose of clause 7 of the category ''B'' of Annexurel of grading for sports persons consistently without any deviation right from the inception of the reservation of seats for sports persons. It is further pleaded that in any case the grading by the Punjab Government under 16 to be juniors and under 13 to be sub-juniors has no bearing on the grading allowed by the Punjab University as the grading for the purpose has to be seen with reference to the Institution/ University to which admission is sought and respondent-University had never followed the pattern of the Punjab Government in sofar as the grading of the categories of juniors and sub-juniors are concerned and on the contrary it had always been adopting its own pattern. It is further pleaded that even otherwise this grading varies from one sports Federation to another, there being as many sports Federations in India as there being sports. Besides this, the grading also differs from University to University and sometimes institution to institution with reference to the age group inasmuch as sub-junior category in some federations and in some Universities is comprised of under 16 and in some others of under 13, while under 18 is largely classified as junior category by most of the Sports Federations. It is pleaded that the respondent University will produce in Court the Sports documents, it necessary. In sofar as assertion of petitioner that he was considered eligible and for that precise reason his name was displayed on the notice board and that he was asked to take trial in the sports is concerned, it is pleaded by the respondent-University that in accordance with the procedure adopted by the Sports Department of the respondent-University, a preliminary screening of the forms is conducted at the office level on the basis of the photo copies of sports certificates submitted by the candidates at the time of seeking admission. It is further pleaded that even the marginal cases are also invited for trials in order to verify the original certificates so as to consider the claim for admission as also to hold further enquiries regarding the docu-ments submitted by the candidates. The grading for the purposes of admission is recorded by the Committee constituted to hold the trials and, therefore, the claim of petitioner that he was finally graded by the Sports Department and was invited to hold the trial, is wholly misconceived. It is stated that he was only invited to appear before the Committee so that all the documents submitted by him at the time of submission of admission form, could be verified and enquiries could be made regarding his participation in the said tournament. So far as other facts, that have been pleaded in the petition, are concerned, there is no controversy between the parties,

petitioner filed replication and in paragraph 3 it has been pleaded that the contents of written statement were wrong as no decision so as to treat under 16 years tournament as Sub juniors was ever taken by any of the University Bodies i.e. Senate Syndicate or University Sports Committee, which bodies alone were competent to take such decision. It is the various national Sports organisations which decide the categorisation of different tournaments. Cricket Control Board does not hold any tournament for under 18 years, Reliance was once again placed on Annexure P-4 which is a certificate issued by Mr. M.P, Pandov, Honorary Secretary, Punjab Cricket Association which Association is affiliated to the Board of Control for Cricket in India. It has further been averred that any categorisation by the cycling Federation or Sports bodies other than Cricket Control Board can not decide about Cricket players and there were no directions from the Association of the Indian Universities to treat under 16 years Cricket Tournament as sub juniors. There was no rule in the respondent-University to treat under 16 years cricket tournament as sub juniors. There was no such condition even in the prospectus issued by the respondents that a person participating in the tournament even though at National level for the age group of below 16 years, would be treated to have participated for a championship organised for sub juniors. One Shri Sumesh Narang, who was immediately below the petitioner in the merit list prepared for the persons belonging to sports category (Annexure P-2) it is pleaded, had participated under 16 years tournament and he was considered as participant in a junior tournament for admission to Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh and was placed in the waiting list and for that reason also it could not be said that all colleges under the University treat under 16 years tournament as sub juniors.

One Miss Vandana Sharma, who had become party in the petition during the pend-ency of the petition, has filed written statement but inasmuch as nothing has been argued for and against her by either of the counsel representing in this case, there is no need to mention the reply on which she has opposed the cause of petitioner.

During the pendency of this writ petition the petitioner filed an affidavit stating therein that one Neeraj Sharma, who had obtained 62.25 marks in the combined Entrance Test and had been admitted to the Geology Department of the Punjab University, Chandigarh against a seat reserved for achievements in the sports, had participated in a Sports Meet organised by the Education Depart-, ment, Chandigarh for boys under 16 years and had obtained second position in 200 meters Butter Fly. He was granted ''C'' grad� by the department.

During the course of arguments, respondent University was asked to bring on record the Rules, Regulations and instructions as may be and sports documents, reference of which have been made in the written statement as also to file an affidavit of either Registrar or Director Sports, Punjab University in support of the rules, regulations that may be available as also to specifically state that no one who had participated in any event of sports and which event was meant for persons below the age of 18 years, had ever been admitted under the category of sports. In accordance with the directions of this Court, Dr. Reet Mohinder Singh, Director Sports, Punjab University, has filed two affidavits,, one dated July 31, 1993 and the other dated August 4, 1993. In the first affidavit it has been stated that the Punjab University has throughout been recognizing only "under 18" as juniors for the purpose of clause 7 of category B of Annexure-1 of grading for sports persons consistently without any deviation right from the inception of the reservation of seats for sports persons and the grading by the Punjab Government for under 16 to be the juniors and under 13 to be the sub-juniors, had no bearing on the grading allowed by the Punjab University. It is further Stated that insofar as the grading of the categories of juniors and sub-juniors are concerned, the University had always been consistently adopting its own pattern and no grading has ever been awarded to a candidate who secured a position in any under 16 tournament as also was ever admitted against the seat reserved for sports persons who secured a position in any tournament particularly organised for the age group of under 16. In the latter affidavit, mention of which has been made above, it was stated that the Education Department of Chandigarh Administration organises tournament for U.T, Schools under various age groups i.e. under 14 years, under 16 years, under 17 years and under 19 years and for the purpose of grading, the Punjab University recognises only two age groups i.e. under 17 years and under 19 years on the pattern followed by Association of Indian Universities. Schools students securing positions in the State School Tournaments and National School Tournament are placed respectively under c-11 and c-9 grade. The position holders in the State School and National School Championships are placed in the lower grades as compared to the State Championship and National Championship for juniors. The grading of State School Sports Certificates and National School Sports certificates of under 17 years and under 19 years of age have no bearing on the junior Sports Certificates, as these are two different competitions and not even remotely connected with each other in any manner. The University is following the same policy in awarding grades to those different competitions as clarified in the guidelines without any deviation since the inception of reservation of seats for sports persons in the University. In sofar as the certificate submitted by Mr. Neeraj Sharma, who secured 3rd place in 800 metrers Free Style (Boys under 17 years), is concerned, it is stated that it pertains to the State School tournament organised by the Education Department of Chandigarh, and the said certificate was of no help for resolving of the points being raised by the petitioner. It requires to be mentioned here that father of petitioner, Shri Gurcharan Singh Kang on August 2, 1993 filed an affidavit in this Court wherein it was stated that one Neeraj Sharma son of Shri. R. C. Sharma had been admitted in the department of Geology-B.Sc. (Hons.) course against a seat reserved for sports persons and the said Shri Sharma had participated in a sports meet organised by the Education Department, Chandigarh for Boys under 17 years and had obtained second position in 200 meters Butter Fly. It is in consequence of this affidavit that the sports Director filed affidavit on August 3, 1993, mention of which has been made above.

Before this matter is proceeded any further, it requires to be mentioned that insofar as the contentions of petitioner of spots achievements are concerned, the same have not been even remotely denied. However, it requires to be mentioned that petitioner has placed on record during the course of arguments, a copy of page 7 of the Sunday Tribune dated April 7, 1991. The news item is with the heading, "Punjab''s Youth Brigade". In the news item the achievements of petitioner and others in reaching the final of Vijay Merchant Trophy and winning it, have been high-lighted. It has further been mentioned in the news item that in the years to come one could hope to hear more about Pankaj Dharmani, Amit Sharma, Anurag Thakur and Sachin Dingarkar as also Harvinder Singh, Sikander Singh, Vikram Sood and Harsmeep Singh. The Punjab team, which won the Vijay Merchant Trophy for the year 1990-91, was honoured by the then Governor, Punjab, General O. P. Malhotra at Raj Dhawan on Sunday i.e. April 7, 1991. The counsel for petitioner has placed on record a pamphlet that the circulated on the said day which gives details of the Punjab team reaching the final of Vijay Merchant Trophy and winning the same. It also gives photographs of all the participants and admittedly, petitioner is one of them. On the pleadings that have been referred to above, the only question that needs adjudication is as to whether the respondent-University has really fixed the norms of admission of sports persons in the category meant for them by way of any Rules, Regulations or instructions or that admissions are made on the basis of practice adopted for years. In case it is decided that there are no rules, regulations etc., the further question that arises for determination is as to whether the practice so adopted for years and in particular of excluding the sports persons who have participated in the event meant for age group of 16 years by treating them as sub-juniors, is based upon some reasonable-grounds, some rational criteria or the same is arbitrary. Further, a finding has to be recorded in the wake of pleadings of the parties as to whether the practice was ever deviated by admitting sports persons having participated in the even below the age of 18 years by treating them as juniors and not sub-juniors and thus discriminating the petitioner.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties at length, even by adjourning the case couple of time so as to find out some rules, regulations or instructions, I have come to a conclusion that even though pleadings are otherwise, there are no rules, regulations or guidelines governing the admissions of sports persons and in particular with regard to their age groups. The counsel representing the respondent-University was asked to bring on record any such rules or regulations but all that has been done is to file two affidavits of Sports Director, reference of which has been given in the earlier part of the judgment. The Court, in view of the facts fully detailed above, cannot but depricate the casual manner in which the respondent University has chosen to file written statement in this case. Even though the respondent-University was alive to the fact that there were no rules and regulations ever framed, yet it chose to file written statement by specifically pleading," In accordance with the Rules and Regulations applicable in that behalf, a candidate to qualify for admission under the reserved category for sportsmen has to have participated in a Championship for juniors and under 16 years category does not include the junior champsionship." Not only that with a view to fortify the stand as reflected above, it was further stated in the written statement," respondent-University will produce the sports documents in Court, if necessary." Even though the stand in the written statement is so categoric and emphatic yet no rules regulations or instructions have been produced on record nor any sports documents have been brought which might even remotely corroborate the contentions raised in the written statement. This court while recording its disapproval in the manner in which the written statement has been filed, has further to hold that there are no rules regulations or guidelines ever framed by the respondent University which may talk of eligibility of sports persons on the basis of their age groups and participation in sports according to their age.

Having held that there are no rules, regulations or guidelines framed by the University as such, it is now time to examine the prevailing practice as also the plea raised by the respondent-University that ever since inception no admissions in the category of sports were ever given to a person who had participated in any event which was organised for the persons who are below 16 years of age. The prevailing practice in respect of National tournaments organised by National Federations for different age groups, it is stated, is normally of the age group of 18 years and any competition conducted for the age group below 18 years is termed as sub-junior. This averment in the written statement, has been made, it appears by completely ignoring the format of National tournaments in cricket and borders on deliberate falsehood. Insofar as cricket is concerned, it is a well known fact that on National level, Vijay Merchant Trophy is for the age group of less than 16 years and there is no tournament of National Level which might be for sportsmen of the age group of below 18 years. Besides Vijay Merchant Trophy, there is another tournament which is organised in the name of ''Vinu Manked'' and that is stated to be for the age group of below 16 years. Therefore, C. K. Naidu trophy is also conducted at National Level but that is for the age group of below 19 years. This pertains to schools alone. There is yet another tournament on National level which is known as Cooch Behar trophy and the same is for the age group of below 19 years. It is not limited to the schools but is open to all. Thereafter, at National level, there is a sports event known as Ranji Trophy. The respondent-University also relies upon the norms settled by the Cycling Federation of India as any tournament organised by the said Federation which is for the age group of under 16 years, is termed as sub-juniors. Along with the affidavit dated July 31, 1993, a letter from the Chandigarh Amateur Cycling Association addressed to all the affiliated units has been placed on records. As per the letter aforesaid dated February 5, 1990, all that can be gathered is that the events mentioned therein were to be conducted as per the directions from the Honorary Secretary General, CFI and that junior boys and girls for some events were to be of age of less than 18 years whereas boys and girls under 16 years in some events were termed as sub-juniors. Nothing at all is made out from the aforesaid letter. That apart, it is rather surprising to note that cricketing events and National Championship organised in the said events, were to be compared with Championship organised in various events in cycling and the criteria fixed by cycling federation was to apply to the sportsmen who participated in cricket. The only correct way of doing was to look and find out the National Championships organised in the cricket itself and had the University authorities or Director Sports, who is supposed to know various Championships organished in the event of cricket, applied their mind, they would have come to know that there was no championship which may be for the age group of less than 18 years. It is either for the persons who are less than 16 years or who are less than 19 years.

The matter does not end there as in the present case it was admission to the first year of Bachelor of Engineering which admittedly is allowed after 10 + 2 examination. True, some students would perhaps pass their 10 + 2 examination at the age of 18 years or above but it is not disputed that majority of them or at least sizeable numbers would be of less than 18 years. Such students who were less than 18 years, unless they were of exceptional caliber, would have participated in the event which was for the age group of the persons of less than 16 years and yet by the method that has been adopted, all of them stand excluded even for consideration for admission on the basis of sports. The next reliance of respondents is on directions or instructions regarding sports competition issued by Association of Indian Universities which are stated to be binding upon the Universities affiliated thereto. It is stated that the Association of Indian University feeds its junior teams in the age group of under 18 selected from various Universities for participation in the National Championship. No such directions or insinuations issued by the Association have been placed on records. Assuming that any University had issued some directions on that count, the same only govern feeding its junior teams in the age group of under 18 years selected from various Universities. The instructions, if any, it is not even stated in the written statement, treat the persons below 16 years to be sub-juniors. This Court, is of the opinion that even if such was the procedure adopted by the University, that was only for feeding its own teams and it is admitted position that National Championships are not organised only for University students. In fact, insofar as cricket is concerned, there is only one or two events which are at National level limited to the University students. Looked from any angle, thus, the stand of the University is not only factually incorrect but the same is also based upon matters which are irrelevant by ignoring correct parameters and realities in the sport of cricket.

Coming now to the consistent practice of not giving admission to any one who has played in the event below 16 years of age, petitioner has successfully come up with one such case which manifests that one Neeraj Sharma was admitted in the department of Geology, B.Sc. (Hons) against the seat reserved for sport persons, who had participated in the Sports Meet organised by the Education Department, Chandigarh Administration for boys under 17 years. The reply by way of an affidavit by Sports Director to the averment aforesaid is far from satisfactory. It is pleaded that Neeraj Sharma secured 3rd place in 800 meters free Style (Boys under 17 years). His certificate pertains to the State School Tournaments organised by the Education Department of Chandigarh. The aforesaid event is organised by the Education Department of Chandigarh Administration for U. T. schools under various age groups i.e. under 14 years, under 16 years under 17 years and under 19 years and for the purpose of grading, Punjab University recognises only two age groups i.e. under 17 years and under 18 years on the pattern followed by the Association of Indian Universities. It is rather strange to note that on the one hand the stand of respondent-University is that the criteria adopted by the Directorate of Sports, Punjab or any other authority, is not binding upon it and yet on the other hand insofar as the sports events organised by Chandigarh Administration are concerned, it is stated that under 17 years can also be considered under the category of juniors. Once again, shelter of the pattern followed by Association of Indian Universities has been taken but nothing as such has been produced on the records of the case.

The contents of the written statement initially filed by the respondent-University through its Registrar and the two affidavits filed by the Sports Director during the pendency of the writ, show that the same are not based upon correct facts and an attempt has been made to mislead this court by stating that there were rules, regulations and guidelines framed by the University as also by pleading that there were some guidelines or instructions issued by the Association of Indian Universities to which the Punjab University is affiliated. As referred to above no rules, regulations or guidelines or instructions, either framed by the University itself or by any University, were placed on record of the case and the matter was argued on the basis of some inconsequential documents which were issued by the Cycling Federation and the established practice of treating the persons who had participated in a sport event for age group of less than 16 years as sub-juniors. As held above, the instructions issued by the Cycling Federation were irrelevant for determining the eligibility of a cricketer and it is only the events organised at National level in cricket that were relevant for determining the criteria for admission. Inasmuch as, the respondent-University has relied upon irrelevant material and denied admission to petitioner by considering his sport even meant for sub-juniors on the grounds which are irrational and have no logic behind-it, there is no choice but for to hold that the action of respondents is arbitrary and viola-tive of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Even the established practice has not been shown to have been consistently followed. Petitioner has come up with one exception but in the very nature of things it was not possible for him to have known about all the Admissions made by the University and as inferred to above, University has not come up with straightforward stand.

Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, learned Senior counsel appearing for respondents has relied upon Chandigarh Administration and another Vs. Manpreet Singh and others, ) to contend that if the High Court could not change the order of priority as determined by the University it could not for itself think as to what was correct criteria for admission of sporlsperson and as to whether the person who had participated in the event meant for the persons below-16 years of age, should or should not be treated as sub-juniors. The priority of candidates in the reserved category of children/spouses of military/paramilitary personnel was fixed by the University arid it is only the fixation of priority that was in question. The facts of the case aforesaid have no parity with the facts in hand.

Before this Court parts with the judgment, it would like to observe that the authorities that are presently dealing with the case of students for admissions to various courses in various events of the sports, do not seem to have proper knowledge of various events organised in the country and their respective importance. This Court, thus, desires that the Vice Chancellors should constitute a committee consisting of only those who have adequate knowledge of various sports in the country, their importance and various National Events which are organised in respect thereof. In addition to this wish, a direction is issued to the respondents to frame rules, instructions or guidelines for all situations that might arise in governing the admissions for the sports category so that element of arbitrariness and discrimination is avoided.

Mr. Ashok Aggarwal at the end has raised to points. One, that petitioner who sought admission for the year 1992, should not be permitted admission now as he was not provisionally admitted by this Court and second, that if the Court allows this petition, the direction should be withheld for two or three weeks as was observed by the Supreme Court in Chandigarh Administration''s case (supra). Insofar as the first point is concerned, the Court can always mould the relief. The petitioner is not interested in academic discussion and the only way to grant him relief is to direct the respondents to admit him to the course this year, admissions for which, it is stated, are going on. So far as second point is concerned, this Court directs that petitioner would be admitted to the present academic session before the last date for admission is over.

For the reasons stated above, this petition is allowed with costs in the manner aforesaid. Costs are quantified at Rs. 1,000/-. Order Dasti.

Petition allowed.