AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.—The matter relates to admission in MBBS Course. Applications were called for, for admission in the course for the
session 2009-2010, including the seats meant for selection of eminent sports persons. One B. Praveena Devi, 1st Respondent in W.A. No.
1371/09 challenged Clause (1) and (2) of Appendix-Ill of prospectus with further prayer to direct the Respondents to consider the academic
achievements among the candidates falling under each category of sports, or in the alternative to take into account the achievements in all the
tournaments during the year 2005-2009 for preparation of selection list and making selection. Learned single Judge, by impugned judgment dated
3rd Sept., 2009, allowed the writ petition in part, set aside Clause (2) of Appendix-Ill of the prospectus for admission in MBBS/BDS course for
the year 2009-2010 to the effect it stipulated ""the highest achievement of the candidate in only one annual tournament in the sport discipline in a
year will be considered for awarding marks"" and directed the Appellant, Common Committee for Selection of Eminent Sports Persons (hereinafter
referred to as ''Common Committee'') to work out the process of selection among the four candidates, viz., 1) B. Karthik (Application No. 554),
2) V. Abhinaya (Application No. 282), 3) S. Padmaja (Application No. 523) and 4) B. Praveena Devi (Application No. 294) as per the order
and to select accordingly.
Apart from the Common Committee of W.A. No. 1342/09, other persons, who were selected pursuant to the prospectus for admission in
MBBS course and are undergoing study for the session 2009-2010, they having affected, have challenged the aforesaid judgment. The other
Appellant of W.A. No. 1371/09, while supported the impugned judgment, is aggrieved against the last portion of the order, whereby it was
ordered to reconsider the case of four persons only and not the other eminent sports persons, including the said appellant.
The 1st Respondent/writ Petitioner, who belongs to backward class community has developed her skill in swimming and had participated in the
State Level, Junior Level and National Level sports and has won 114 medals in all levels during the past four years. She has secured first position
and won 48 gold medals at the Divisional, Zonal, State and National levels, besides obtaining second position and secured 37 silver medals in the
above said levels. She has also secured third position and won 17 bronze medals having participated in number of national tournaments. She has
passed in +2 examination under CBSE pattern during March/April, 2009 and secured the following marks in science subjects:
i) Biology -95/100 marks
ii) Chemistry -95/100 marks
iii) Physics -93/100 marks
She had applied for admission to first year MBBS course for the year 2009-2010. Being an eminent sports person, she being aggrieved by two
clauses, i.e., Clauses (1) and (2) of Appendix - III, which enables the selection authorities to take achievement in sports alone irrespective of
qualifying marks and even amongst achievements in sports only.
one annual tournament in the discipline, out of the performance of the four years preceding, challenged the same before the Court.
It was submitted on behalf of the 1st Respondent/writ Petitioner that she secured one gold medal in 2007-2008, two silver medals during 2006-
2007 and 2008-2009 and one Bronze medal in 2005-2006. Therefore, as per the other terms of the prospectus, if the achievement of the
Petitioner in the four years are taken into consideration, she will be entitled for 7195 marks. However, if the impugned provisions are applied, i.e.,
if only one annual tournament is taken into account, she would be getting only 600 marks. If the tournaments of the four years are taken into
consideration, she would be selected surely under the quota of eminent sports category, but in view of two clauses inserted in Appendix-Ill for
admission to first year MBBS course for the year 2009-2010, as she is excluded, she has challenged the portion of the prospectus on various legal
grounds including -
i) The eminence at all levels, viz., international, national, zonal, divisional levels should be taken into consideration altogether; and
ii) Amongst such persons, the persons with higher marks in the academic examination alone are entitled for selection.
Before learned single Judge, Supreme Court decision in Asif Hameed v. State of Jammu and Kashmir 1989 Supp. (2) SCC 364 was relied. It was
also contended that the impugned provision is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Even if the impugned first clause is acceptable, the
second clause is irrational, since even in respect of eminent sports persons only one tournament is taken into consideration for awarding marks.
Learned single Judge noticed the aforesaid provisions and other decisions rendered by this Court and Supreme Court and now having found a
variation from the earlier prescription in Clause (2) of Appendix-III in the prospectus for admission to MBBS/BDS course for the session 2009-
2010, observed as follows:
It is true that there is a fool-proof method to select the candidates among the eminent sports persons called, absolute criterion. There are
bound to be some fall-outs, but taking the over all situation, it can be stated without any fear of contradiction which was happened from 2004-05
till 2008-09, that the inclusion of marks for each participation alone should a justifiable criterion for the purpose of deciding the persons eligible to
be selected the persons among the eminent persons. Even after choosing such method, if two candidates obtain same marks, then certainly the
selection committee has to go to the academic excellence to decide one among the said two. Therefore, except in such a contingency, in other
circumstances, when a candidate obtains the required academic qualifications and comes within the eligibility criteria for consideration, thereafter, it
is the sports activities and eminence in the same as explained exhaustively in Appendix III have to be taken into consideration. While taking the
same into consideration, the marks obtained in each of the participation have to be taken into consideration which alone can give a proper and
justifiable process of selection among the eminent sports persons for the bare minimum three seats which are available for MBBS course every
year.
For proper appreciation of the case, it is necessary to notice the relevant Clauses (1) and (2) of Appendix-Ill enclosed with the prospectus of
the year 2009-2010, wherein stipulation has been made as to the manner in which marks to be allotted to the candidates, as quoted hereunder:
APPENDIX - III
SELECTION of CANDIDATES UNDER QUOTA FOR EMINENT SPORTS PERSONS
The purpose of this quota is to recognize and give weightage to the sports eminence of the candidates and hence marks for sports achievements
alone will be considered in ranking the candidates. The candidates are expected to continue good performance in sports, even after selection.
The Highest achievement of the candidate in only one annual tournament in the sports disciplines in a year will be considered for awarding
marks.
Selection of the candidate will be based on the marks obtained by the candidate, following the guidelines given in the table:
Table (I) - Marks for International Achievement
Competition Gold Silver Bronze Participation
International (Representing India Category -500 450 400 150
I)
International (Representing India Category -350 300 250 125
II)
Table (II) - Marks for Recognised National Achievement
Sl. NoCompetitions Allocation of Marks
Gold Silver Bronze Participation
1 National Championships - Organised by 175 150 125 40
National Federations
2 School Games Federation of India (SGFI) Meet175 150 125 40
(National Level)
3 All India Rural Sports Meets (National Level) 175 150 125 40
4 National Sports Festival for Women (National 175 150 125 40
Level)
5 National Inter School Competition (National 175 150 125 40
Level)
Table (III) - Marks for Recognised South Zone Achievement
Sl. Competition Allocation of marks
No
Gold Silver Bronze Participation
1 South Zone Tournaments/Meets - Organised75 60 45 20
by State Associations and Federations.
Table (IV) - Marks for Recognised State Championship
Competition Allocation of marks
Gold Silver Bronze Participation
1 South Championship Representing Revenue65 50 35 15
District - Organised by State Associates.
Table (V) - Marks for Recognised State Level Achievements
SI.NoCompetitions Allocation of marks
Gold Silver Bronze Participation
1 Bharathiar Day Sports Meet (State Level) 55 40 25 10
2 Republic Day Sports Meet (State Level) 55 40 25 10
3 . State Inter School Championship (State 55 40 25 10
Level)
4 KVS/CBSE National Sports Meet (State 55 40 25 10
Level)
Table (VI) - Marks for Divisional Level Achievements
SI. Competitions Allocation of marks
No
Gold Silver Bronze Participation
1 Bharathiar Day Sports Meet (Division Level) 45 30 15 5
2 Republic Day Sports Meet (Division Level) 45 30 15 5
3 KVS/Regional/CBSE South Zone Meet 45 30 15 5
(Divisional Level)
4 Inter-Divisional Polytechnic Meet (Divisional 45 30 15 5
Level)
5 District Inter School Competition (Division 45 30 15 5
Level)
Gold(I Position) Silver (II Position) Bronze (III Position)
4.(a) For International Tournaments:
Category -I: Olympics, World Cup/World Championship, Commonwealth Games, Asian Games, Asian Championships, Junior World Cup/World
Championships, Asian Junior Championships, World University Games/Championships, World School Games, Afro Asian Games, South Asian
Federation Games and Junior South Asian Federation Games.
Category - II: All other International tournaments not covered under Category I and wherein not less than six countries had participated.
Participation/achievement in International tournaments will be considered only with earlier achievements at National/State Level Tournaments.
Only tournaments officially recognised by the Indian Olympic Association/respective official National Federations will be considered for the
award of marks (for each year) (1.6.2005 to 31.5.2006, 1.6.2006 to 31.5.2007, 1.6.2007 to 31.5.2008 and 1.6.2008 to 31.5.2009).
Participation/Achievements in tournaments, with Form I alone are eligible for marks indicated in the table (I) above.
(b). For National Tournaments:
The highest achievement in only one annual tournament, officially recognised as the regular annual championship/tournament by Indian Olympic
Association SDAT/SAI/ respective official National Federation will be
considered (for each year) for the award of marks.
Marks will not be awarded for selection trials.
(c). For State Tournaments:
The highest achievement in only one annual tournament, officially recognised as the regular annual championship/tournament by
SDAT/SAI/respective official State Association will be considered (for each year) for the award of marks.
It will be evident that similar provision was available in the prospectus for admission in the medical college for the academic session 2003-2004,
which was questioned before the Court and was upheld. The relevant clause of Appendix - III of the prospectus for admission in MBBS course
for the session 2003-2004, which reads as follows, was noticed by learned single Judge for coming to the conclusion as recorded above:
Appendix - III
Selection of Candidates under Quota for Eminent Sports Persons - 2003
As the purpose of this quota is to recognise and give weightage to the sports eminence of the candidate, sports mark alone will be considered in
ranking the candidate. The candidate is expected to show performance in sports, if selected.
Selection of the candidates will be based on the marks obtained by the candidates following the guidelines given in the table below:
(A) Marks for (each) Participation:
Category International National (Representing
(Representing Nation) State)
Individual 20 10
Team 10 5
(B) Marks for (each) achievement:
International National (Representing State (Representing
(Representing Nation) State) Revenue District)
Category Gold Silver Bronze Gold Silver Bronze Gold Silver Bronze
Individual 60 40 20 40 27 13 27 18 9
Team 30 20 10 20 13 7 13 9 5
Other Recognised National/State Level Sports Meet:
(C) Marks tor (each) achievement:
Sl.NoSponsor CategoryGold Silver Bronze
1 School Games Federation of India (SGFI) Individual30 20 15
(National Level)
Team 15 10 5
2 All India Rural Sports (National Level) Individual30 20 10
Team 15 10 5
3 Bharathiyar Day Sports (State) Individual29 13 -
Team 10 7 4
4 Republic Day Sports Meet (State Level) Individual20 13 7
Team 10 7 4
(D) Marks for over all Championship:
Category International National State
(Representing (Representing (Representing
Revenue District)
Nation) State)
Championship 30 25 20
The only question that requires determination in this case is:
Whether the Clause (2) of Appendix-in of prospectus for admission in MBBS course for the year 2009-2010 is irrational, arbitrary and, thereby,
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India in view of the fact that earlier during the session 2003-2004 it was decided to select candidates
on the basis of marks obtained by candidates in all the prior years.
Clause (2) of Appendix - III for the session 2009-2010, reads as follows:
The Highest achievement of the candidate in only one annual tournament in the sports disciplines in a year will be considered for awarding
marks.
Mr. Mani Sundar Gopal, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant, Common Committee submitted that the purpose of creating
sports quota for eminent sports persons is to recognise and give weightage to sports eminence of the candidates and, thereby, to encourage the
development of sports. Three seats are reserved for eminent sports persons in MBBS course and 100 seats are reserved for eminent sports
persons in Engineering course. For the academic year 2009-2010, for MBBS course, total 193 applications were received for consideration
against eminent sports persons category. Similarly, 3379 applications were received against eminent sports persons category for the academic year
2009-2010 for admission in engineering colleges.
It was contended that the list of sports discipline, numbering 51, is listed in the prospectus, consisted of groups of sports discipline, wherein, more
than one gold medal can be achieved and the other group with only one medal in any given event. The following are the list supplied by the counsel
for the Appellant, Common Committee for Selection of Eminent Sports Persons:
Sl. Sports Disciplines Sports discipline
No.where opportunity where only one
to win multiple medal could be
medals in a given achieved in a given
event event
1 Athletics AtyaPatya
2 Badminton Ball Badminton
3 Body Building Baseball
4 Boxing Basketball
5 Carrom Beach Volleyball
6 Cycling Billiards &
Snookers
7 Fencing Chess
8 Gymnastics Cricket
9 Judo Football
10 Karate - Do Golf
11 Mallkhamb Handball
12 Motor Sports Hockey
13 Power Lifting Kabaddi
14 Roller Skating Kho-Kho
15 Rowing Korf Ball
16 Sailing Net Ball
17 Shooting Rugby
18 Silam(sic) SepakTakraw
19 Squash Soft Ball
20 Swimming Throw Ball
21 Table Tennis Volleyball
22 Taek - Won - Do Wushu
23 Tennikot
24 Tennis
25 Triathlon
26 Weightlifting
27 Wrestling
28 Yatching
29 Yogasanas
To illustrate, it was contended that in the case of swimming, a sports person can obtain medals in various categories, such as Butterfly,
Freestyle, Back Stroke, etc., in addition to different sub-categories, such as 50 M Freestyle, 100 M Freestyle, etc., in a single meet. However, a
sports person participating in Basketball can get only one medal in a given sports meet.
The stand taken by the Appellant, Common Committee is that there are sets of sports discipline, wherein number of events are organised annually
at State and National meets, which are many when compared to other sets of sports discipline, which, if taken into account, would give undue
advantage to a group of sports persons over the others. It was also found that in the previous years, in view of the above said inequalities, sports
persons from certain sports discipline are taking a march over the other sports person in securing seats allotted for eminent sports persons
category. For example, in the academic year 2007-2008, all three seats in medicine (MBBS) were secured by sports persons from the sports
discipline ''Swimming''.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant, Common Committee submitted that in order to create a level playing field for all applicants from various
sports disciplines, the impugned clause (2) has been introduced since the academic year 2008-2009. Thereafter, sports per-sons from sports
discipline, such as Yogasana, Volleyball, Throw ball could secure seat in medicine (MBBS) during the academic session, 2008-2009. The
aforesaid fact clearly shows that the impugned Clause (2) would be a level playing field for all sports persons. The same would promote all the
sports discipline and sports persons without any undue advantage to a particular group of games.
We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. It will be evident from the judgment that learned single Judge has
not declared Clause (2) as irrational or arbitrary or declared the same violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India. The main ground given is that
the earlier Clause (2) regarding marks obtained in each of the participation was better and, thereby, observed that marks obtained in each of the
participation have to be taken into consideration, which alone can give a proper and justifiable process of selection amongst eminent sports
persons for the bare minimum three seats.
Learned single Judge has failed to notice that sports consists of different disciplines, such as athletics, Badminton, Boxing, Football, Cricket, etc.
Learned single Judge also failed to notice that there sets of sports disciplines wherein number of events are organised either at the same time or
annually, both in the international, national, zonal and divisional levels. For example, cricket is played almost every year between nations like India
and other countries. Football is also played throughout the year in different countries. Annually football tournaments are commonly conducted at
the State as well as at the international and zonal level. Similarly, cricket is also played at zonal and State level. There are also games, which are not
played every year.
For example, World Cup in football is played after certain years; cricket World Cup is generally played every four years and Olympic events takes
place after about every four years. Further there are games, which are of different levels as we have pointed out, like international level, national
level, zonal level, divisional level, etc. and all cannot be equated together. For example, a person, would have obtained a gold medal in Olympics
cannot be equated with a person who has; obtained a gold medal in a State level. Equating such person will amount to making two unequals as
equals and will be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is for the said reason, in the prospectus, while higher marks (500) has been
given for International Level representing India Category-I, 350 marks given for International Competition representing India Category-II and
lesser marks of 175 given for National level and other levels. In this background, no person can claim that a person having obtained higher medals
in different events should be equated for the purpose of determination of merit.
We are just giving one example. Out of the marks prescribed for different achievement, a person who merely participates in international level
category-I is provided with 150 marks whereas a person, who has obtained gold medal in an international level, say in Olympics, he is provided
with 500 marks. For participation in all the four years if marks is counted, then a person, who participated in four years, but failed to obtain a single
medal, will get 150 X 4 = 600 marks, whereas a person who gets a gold medal in international level Category-I like Olympics will get only 500
marks. Thereby a person who has not obtained a single medal will be preferred over the person who has obtained a gold medal in Olympics. Such
arbitrary action stands eliminated by the impugned Clause (2), wherein it is stipulated that highest achievement of the candidate in only one annual
tournament in the sports discipline in a year would be considered for awarding marks.
Therefore, we hold that Clause (2) of Appendix-III of the prospectus for the session 2009-2010 for admission in MBBS course is rational; cannot
be held to be arbitrary and is in consonance with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. We, accordingly, uphold the provisions of Clause (2) of
Appendix-Ill.
In the case of State of Rajasthan and Others Vs. Lata Arun, , the Supreme Court held that prescribing minimum educational qualification for
admission to a course and recognising certain educational qualifications as equivalent to or higher education than the prescribed one are matters,
which fall within the relam of policy decision are to be taken by the State Government or the authority vested with the power under the statute.
Scope of interference by court in such matters discussed and the Supreme Court held that the court cannot suggest as to which policy to be
followed.
The eligibility criteria can be interfered with only in case if it is arbitrary or discriminatory or on the ground of bias. It is not open to interfere with
such policy merely because the court feels that some other terms would have been more preferable. This is the finding of Supreme Court in
Directorate of Education and Others Vs. Educomp Datamatics Ltd. and Others, .
In the case of Ekta Sakthi Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi 2006 (10) SCC 336 : 2006-4-L.W. 864, while dealing with a question of
interference in policy matters, the Supreme Court held that in matter of policy decision or exercise of discretion by the Government, so long as
infringement of fundamental right is now shown, the Courts will have no occasion to interfere and court should not substitute its own judgment for
that of the executive in such matters.
In view of the authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court as referred to above, we are of the view that learned single Judge ought not
have substituted the policy by holding that the earlier policy is better than the present policy, particularly when the court has not found the present
policy ultra vires Article 14.
For the reasons stated above, impugned order dated 3rd Sept., 2009, passed by learned single Judge in W.P. No. 11101/09 is set aside. In the
result, W.A. Nos. 1342, 1344 and 1568 of 2009 are allowed and W.A. No. 1371 of 2009 is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petitions are closed. However, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.