Vishal Gupta vs Jammu University

T.S. Doabia, J.

The petitioner is claiming a seat meant for a sports man. He submits that he is an outstanding sportsman and has excelled in the table tennis. He has

participated in various Inter University Sports Competitions. These have been enumerated in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the writ petition. In the writ

petition, it is submitted that if his participation in the various events for the year 199495 and 199596 is taken note of in the manner projected by

him, then, he would be entitled to 37.5 marks. He submits that in the year 199495, he participated in the North Zone Inter University Sports event.

This event took place at Ludhiana. After the team came up high in the position, it further participated in an event which took place at Hyderabad.

At Hyderabad also, the team performed well and due to high position obtained by the team, the team further participated at Baroda. The petitioner

wants that each of the events at Ludhiana, Hyderabad and Baroda should be recognised separately and evaluated accordingly. It is in this manner

he has submitted that he would be entitled to 37.5 marks. The second event regarding which single recognition has been given is for the year

199596. He submits that in all these events which took place, due regard has been shown to every participation at each level.

It is further submitted that private respondent No. 4 was given the benefit of certain events which were not recognised. Two events regarding

which specific grievance has been made are the participations termed as Bristal Badminton National Championship 199596 and Briston Senior

National Badminton 199697. It is stated that these events were not connected with the events organised at the University level, and therefore,

participation in these events cannot confer any benefit on the respondent No. 4.

Respondent University has filed objections. This writ petition was admitted on 6th Nov. '98. Option was given to the University to file counter. The

counter affidavit has not been filed. The counsel appearing for University submits that the objections already filed be treated as counter.

This prayer is allowed.

On the basis of the submission made in the objections, it is submitted that each event regarding which benefit is being claimed by the petitioner, is

not supposed to be recognized separately. In any case, it is submitted that if it is done, then similar treatment has to be given to respondent No. 4.

It is further submitted that the events regarding which grievance is made by the petitioner, are duly recognized. For this reference is being made to

the brochure. The Brochure does make mention of the fact that a candidate is to be benefitted for ""having participated and secured any of the first

three positions in a team/individual event in the North Zone Competition organised by recognised Federation/A.I.U."". A perusal of the above

would indicate that an event has to be organised in a manner which has some association with the North Zone Competition. An event which is not

recognised or which has nothing to do with the North Zone Competition, would not fall within the scope and ambit of the provision noted above.

The events regarding which grievance is made visavis respondent No. 4 are apparently the events which are not recognized and which were not

organised as events in the North Zone Competition.

A pointed question was put to the learned counsel appearing for University. This was to the effect that had the team participated only at Ludhiana

and would have failed to go to Hyderabad for further participation, then whether the points would have been allotted or not. It was stated that in

such eventuality, the petitioner would be entitled to some benefit. If above be the position, then it is not possible to not to grant benefit of

participation which at the first stage led the team to participate in next stage. Therefore, the method and manner suggested by the petitioner for

allotment of marks appears to be correct. Again the learned counsel for the petitioner is right in his submission that an event has to be recognised

which is to be organised at North Zone Competition level. The grievance regarding the events for which the benefit has been given to respondent

No. 4 is apparently correct. If above be the position, then it can be said in categoric terms that the claims of the petitioner were not considered

properly and he has been wrongly ignored.

Another argument which has been raised is that only an event which has been recognised by the University can be taken note of. This also appears

to be correct. As to what events were to be recognised and what association was to be given recognition, should have been specified in the

brochure itself. On account of this having not been specified, room is left for taking a decision which may not be in consonance with the principles

of equity and justice. It would have been apt for the University to specify the associations which have been recognised for the purpose of giving

benefit of marks for sports category. There appears to be a lacuna in this regard. Let this lacuna be removed in the brochure and the criteria be

fixed in the rules.

Before parting with this order, it would be apt to notice another aspect of the matter. The total number of seats which have been indicated at Serial

No. 1.3 in the brochure are 30. It is pointed out that admission has in fact, been given to about 47 candidates. The learned counsel for the

University represents that additional seats have been given on payment basis and, therefore, these additional seats should not be taken into

consideration for calculating the percentage of sports category.

It be seen that in the brochure at page 4, the total number of seats have been indicated as 30. This makes no distinction between the payment seats

and open seats. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is also right in his submission that for determining 4% of seats meant for

sports quota, the total number of seats as filled by the University has to be taken note of. On this calculation, the seats for sports quota would

come to 1.88. Being more than 1.50, two seats can go to the sports quota. On this interpretation, it would not be necessary to disturb the

admission which has already been granted to respondent No. 4. The interests of justice would be well served by giving a direction to the University

to allow admission to the petitioner also. Let this be done now.

It is however, made clear that nothing said in this order shall be a precedent for future admission.

This petition is accordingly allowed in the manner indicated above.