AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D. Murugesan, J.—The petitioner applied for admission to the First Year MBBS Degree Course under seats earmarked for eminent Sports
Persons. Her Cut off mark is 285.85 out of 300. The grievance of the petitioner is that after the eligibility for admission under eminent Sports
person category, the candidates so found eligible should be selected and admitted only on the basis of academic marks and not on the basis of the
marks awarded for the certificates in Sports. According to the petitioner, for the three seats, the following is the comparative chart of marks of the
petitioner and the selected candidates:
Total Secured
Marks marks
Petitioner 300 285.85
4th respondent 300 251
5th respondent 300 233
6th respondent 300 213
The respondents 4 to 6 who have secured lesser academic marks have been selected as they secured higher marks for the excellence in Sports.
Hence the petitioner has filed W.P. No. 21224/2003 for a Writ of Declaration, declaring that Appendix III (1) and the allotment of marks for
participation, achievements and over all championship in Appendix III 2(A), (B), (C)and (D) in the prospectus for MBBS/BDS Admission for the
year 2003-2004 is illegal, unreasonable, void and arbitrary. The petitioner has also filed W.P. No. 21225/2003 for declaration that the selection of
respondents 4 to 6 is illegal, unreasonable and arbitrary and for consequential direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to admit her in the MBBS
Course for the academic year 2003-2004.
The question for consideration in these Writ Petitions is as to whether after the award of marks to the excellence in sports on the basis of the
certificates produced by the candidates viz., eminent Sports Persons and found them eligible for consideration for admission under the quota, the
further selection and admission should be made on the basis of the marks awarded to the excellence in Sports or on the basis of the academic
marks. Similar question came up for consideration before this Court in the judgment reported in KHALID HUSSAIN v. COMMISSIONER
AND SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU HEALTH DEPARTMENT AIR 1987 W.L.R. 91. Considering the fact that once
the candidates are categorized depending upon the level of their achievement, this Court held that there is absolutely no possibility of further
invidious distinction in determining the eminence in that particular category. That judgment also arose in respect of selection of candidates against
the seats earmarked for eminent Sports Persons. The said judgment was confirmed by a Division Bench in W.A. No. 1307/1986. The said
judgment of the Division Bench was again taken to Apex Court and the Apex Court has confirmed the judgments in the judgment reported in
Khalid Hussain (Minor), Represented by Father Dr. Akthar Hussain Vs. Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Health
Department, Madras and Ors, .
It is argued by Mr. P. Chandrasekaran, the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the categorical pronouncement, namely, after the
candidates are brought under Zone of Consideration on the basis of their eligibility for admission to seats earmarked for eminent Sports person, the
further selection and admission shall be made only on the academic marks. To appreciate the said submission, the facts of Khalid Hussain Case
need a reference. Annexure 1(3) of the prospectus for admission for the academic year 1986-1987 reads as under:
Annexure-1(iii) Eminent Sportsman Special Category"". In the sub- Column (iii) under the Caption Eminent Sportsman, there are three
Categories, namely,
(a)Participation at International Level the candidate being sponsored By national body;
(b)Participation at National level the candidate being sponsored by a State body or University;
(c) Participation at State level the candidate being sponsored by Zonal or District Association.
From the reading of the above prospectus, it is seen that though the seats were earmarked for eminent Sports Person, except the three
categories viz., (1) Participation at International level, the candidate being sponsored by a national body, (2) Participation at national level, the
candidate being sponsored by a State Body of University and 3) Participation at State level, the candidate being sponsored by Zonal or District
Association, there are no guidelines were provided by which comparative eminence can be judged as between the candidates belonging to the
same category. The Apex Court has therefore held that in the absence of guideline to award of marks for excellence in Sports, the admission shall
be made on the basis of academic marks and allowing admissions only on the basis of marks awarded to the certificates would leave the discretion
to the Executive in making the choice. Para 5 of the judgment reads as under:
5a. It has to be pointed out that the Rule itself does not provide for determination of comparative eminence as between different candidates falling
within the same class but as between sportsmen who have participated t International level, National level and State Level. It only provides for the
Rule of exclusion of one by the other. There are no guidelines provided by which comparative eminence can be judged as between candidates
belonging to the same class e.g., at National level, as here. Nor does it provide for any guidelines by which the choice has to be made as between
the candidates who have excelled in a particular field of sports e.g. acquatics. The real difficulty arises when there are more than one candidates
who have excelled in their respective fields of sports e.g. Cricket, foot- ball, hockey etc. and the number of seats reserved are less than the
candidates found eligible. All of them being more or less equal, the best method is to go by marks obtained at the qualifying examination. In such a
case, the selection must necessarily depend upon their academic merits. Even in P. Sabitha''s case, the Court realized the difficulty to lay down any
Guidelines for adjudging comparative eminence Between sportsmen falling within the same class and it was said that when candidates are shown to
have attained equal proficiency in sports, then their academic superiority can be pressed into service as a tilting factor in their favour.
Coming to the prospectus for the academic year 2003-2004, after prescribing the Order of preference viz., Participation at International level,
National level and State level, the prospectus further provides the method of scrutinizing the certificates and award of marks:
Appendix-III Selection of Candidates under Quota for Eminent Sports Persons-2003
As the purpose of this quota is to recognize 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 State
(Representing (Representing (Representing
Nation State Revenue Dist.
______________________________________________________________________________
Cate- Gold Silver Bronze Gold Silver Bronze Gold Silver Bronze
gory
Indivi- 60 40 20 40 27 13 27 18 9
dual
Team 30 20 10 20 13 7 13 9 5
______________________________________________________________________________
Other Recognised National/State Level Sports Meet (C) Marks for (each)achievement
_________________________________________________________________________
Sl. Sponsor Category Gold Silver Bronze
No.
_________________________________________________________________________
School Games Federation
Of India (SGFI) Individual 30 20 10
(National Level) Team 15 10 5
All India Rural Individual 30 20 10
Sports (National Team 15 10 5
Level
Bharathiyar Day Individual 20 13
Sports Meet (State Team 10 7 4
Republic Day Sports Individual 20 13 7
Meet(State Level) Team 10 7 4
_________________________________________________________________________
(D) Marks for overall Championship
___________________________________________________________________
Category International National State
(representing (representing (representing
Nation) State) Revenue Dist.)
___________________________________________________________________
Championship 30 25 20
___________________________________________________________________
From the above, it is seen that specific Regulations, guidelines are prescribed for awarding marks to the participation, achievements and overall
championship. When the method for award of marks is provided and the guidelines prescribed, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel
for the petitioner cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case. As already pointed out, the said judgment was rendered in a case where no
guidelines for awarding marks to judge the comparative eminence in sports were prescribed.
The Government being the funding agency, is entitled to identify the source for admission. Reservation for special category is made under Article
15(4) of the Constitution of India and is ""Horizontal Reservation"". Even while filling the seats earmarked as ""Horizontal Reservation"" social
reservation under Article 15(1) is followed only when such reservation is ""Compartmentalised Horizontal Reservation"" and not ""Overall Horizontal
Reservation"". Such Reservation for eminent Sports Persons is only to recognise the excellence/achievements in sports and to encourage sports and
games among students. Once the eligibility for admission under Sports Category is determined, the selection and admission shall be based on the
marks obtained for the excellence in sports only. There cannot be a further classification on the basis of academic marks for selection and
admission. Hence, the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner deserve to be rejected.
For the above reason, I do not find any merit in the challenge to the prospectus. Equally, I am unable to find any illegality in the selection of
candidates viz., respondents 4 to 6 on the basis of the marks awarded for their participation in the sports. Accordingly, both the Writ Petitions fail
and are dismissed. No costs.