AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Petitioner assails tentative priority list published by 2nd respondent Sports Authority of Andhra Pradesh (“SAAP”), vide File. No.5156/ MBBS/BDS/EA1/2026 (Sports), dated 01.10.2026, for the purpose of Admission into MBBS and BDS Courses, 2026-27 (under sports and games quota), whereby petitioner has been denied consideration of priority despite her participation in Shooting Championship Competitions (Pistol events) at National level.
Petitioner secured 298263 rank in NEET UG Examination, 2026. She is stated to have participated in 68th National Shooting Championship competitions (Pistol events) held at New Delhi in the months of December/January 2026, apart from South Zone Shooting Championship held in 2024. By virtue of said participation and certificate granted in that regard, she applied for admission under sports quota. 2nd respondent, while preparing tentative priority list, has awarded tentative priority of 151 considering her participation in school games at inter-district level, as she stood second. According to petitioner, 2nd respondent ought to have considered assigning priority of 53, having regard to her achievement on account of participation in 68th National Shooting Championship, which is in terms of G.O.Ms.No.10, Youth Advancement, Tourism & Culture (Sports) Department, dated 15.07.2008. Petitioner, thus, submitted her grievance vide e-mail, dated 03.10.2026, as 2nd respondent is proceeding with publishing of final merit list, present writ petition is filed.
Mr.P.Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner, contended that in terms of G.O.Ms.No.10, dated 15.07.2008, participation in National level championship in an individual event would entail candidate assigning of priority of 53, thus, petitioner, since participated in 68th National Shooting Championship competitions (pistol events), 2nd respondent was not justified in awarding priority of 151. Learned counsel for petitioner also drew our attention to candidates placed at serial Nos.11 and 18 to contend that, in respect of these two candidates, based on mere participation, 2nd respondent is stated to have considered assigning priority of 53, thus, denying similar benefit to petitioner is sheer discriminatory.
On the other hand, Mr.G.Sai Narayana Rao, learned standing counsel for SAAP-2nd respondent, produced written instructions, dated 15.10.2026, which is taken on record subject to just exceptions. Based on said instructions, it is contended that petitioner, though participated in National Rifle Shooting Championship, since she had not secured any medal in backup State-level competition, which is pre-condition for assigning priority 53, 2nd respondent rightly placed her in appropriate priority, i.e., 151, having regard to the other achievements at District level. It is stated that priority was assigned strictly in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.11, dated 15.07.2008. It is also contended that certificate sought to be relied on by petitioner, evidencing her participation at National-level event, indicates that she stood in the position of 683 as against 978 participants, thus, mere participation would not entitle her to claim higher priority.
We have considered submissions made above and gone through the record.
Petitioner's highest achievement was participation in 68th National Shooting Championship competitions (pistol events) held in 2026. As per merit certificate issued, no doubt petitioner stood at position of 683 amongst 978 participants. Petitioner also has backup certificates of participation in 16th South Zone Shooting Championship (pistol events) held in 2025 and securing second place in Inter-District School Championships held in 2024. 2nd respondent has considered Inter-District School Championship, where petitioner stood second as highest achievement, and accordingly, assigned priority of 151. However, petitioner claims to consider National participation as highest achievement and accordingly to assign priority of 53.
In order to test whether petitioner is entitled for considering priority of 53 based on her participation at National level, it is apt to refer relevant G.Os. governing the field. G.O.Ms.No.10, dated 15.07.2008, assigns order of preference, qua discipline of sport, events and achievements in the category of individuals and team respectively. Petitioner is concerned with individual participation, thus, relevant events of participation are set out hereunder:
| Sl. No. | Participation event | Existing priority as per GO | Merit order No. |
| 53 | Participation in National Championship – National Games – Inter State – Inter Zonal – Open Nationals for Seniors – Federation Cup (Senior Category) (Individual. | 27 | 53 |
| 151 | Participation in National School Games / Individual | 72 | 151 |
| 183 | Participation in State / Inter District Championship for Youth & Juniors / Individual | 88 | 183 |
G.O.Ms.No.11, dated 15.07.2008, lays down procedure to be adopted in the process of considering certificates produced by candidates seeking admissions. Clause 3.3, relevant for present purpose, reads as under:
“3.(iii) Participation certificate shall be considered only when they are backed with medal / actual participation in the game at the below-level competition. To illustrate, the point participation in International level will be accepted, subject to authentication proposed in para.2 above, when there is evidence of participation / medal at the National level. Similarly participation at National level should be backed up by participation/achievement of Medal at the State level competition.”
Conjoint reading of above extracted clauses of both G.O.Ms.Nos.10 and 11, even dated 15.07.2008, makes it very clear that mere participation in National championship in an individual event entails candidate priority of 53. Clause 3(iii) of G.O.Ms.No.10, dated 15.07.2008, which is also in consonance with above, clarifies that participation certificate shall be given due credence for the purpose of priority, subject to the same being backed with either medal or actual participation in the game at below-level competition. Thus, in our considered view, National-level participation with backup of participation in the game at State-level competition would suffice for consideration of National-level participation certificate, it need not necessarily be backed with medal. Having said that, the submission of learned counsel for 2nd respondent that petitioner stood in the position of 683 as against 978 participants, thus, if priority is considered for mere such participation without highest backup achievement, the same would defeat the purpose and object of the scheme under consideration, has considerable force, however, having regard to express language employed in clause 3(iii) of G.O.Ms.No.11, dated 15.07.2008, said submission cannot be countenanced. However, it is for SAAP and Government to address the anomalies persisting under existing orders.
In view of above observations, we direct 2nd respondent SAAP to consider petitioner's participation and achievement at National-level event by awarding appropriate priority in the process of finalizing final seniority list. It is open for SAAP to verify genuineness of certificates produced by petitioner in the process of granting admission.
Accordingly, writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.