Supreme Court: In an appeal challenging order passed by Punjab and Haryana High Court rejecting the petition questioning the imposition of minimum 75% aggregate marks as an eligibility for admission in engineering courses under 2% sports quota, the Division Bench of S. Ravindra Bhat* and Aravind Kumar, JJ. Set aside the said criteria and issued directions for admission to remaining seats of PEC University under Sports quota.
Background
Through letter dated 7-01-2016, the Secretary, Technical Education, Chandigarh Administration approved PEC University to admit students through the Central Counselling System (JOSAA) at the National level from 2016-2017. The Chandigarh rules for 2023-24 for JOSSA were issued through brochure dated 7-06-2023, applicable to institutions in Chandigarh including PEC University. The eligibility criterion for admission to engineering courses specifically required candidates to secure at least 75% aggregate marks in Class XII Board Examination, while the aggregate marks for SC, ST and PwD categories required at least 65% marks. PEC University accordingly issued a brochure for 2023-24 for 4 reserved categories with the same eligibility of 75% aggregate marks in Class XII for sports candidates.
The Court noted that 17 seats (under 2% quota) were earmarked for the sports category. A total of 34 applications were received, out of which, 28 applicants fulfilled the eligibility criterion of minimum 75% marks, and the remaining 6 applicants included the applicant who had secured less than the required marks. In addition, 16 out of 17 seats in Sports Category had already been allocated to eligible candidates and only 1 seat remained vacant as on date in Materials and Metallurgical Engineering branch for which the counselling was scheduled to be held on 10.08.2023, while the applicable Sports Policy was published earlier.
The Court hinted that the brochure listed several categories indicating procedure for classifying candidates for admission and did not include the sports quota candidates. The three categories included Kashmiri Migrants, Sons/Daughters/Spouses of Military/Para Military Personnel and children and grandchildren of freedom fighters dealt with separately.
After publication of brochure on 24-06-2023, PEC university issued the application advertisement and on 27-06-2023, the appellant challenged the eligibility condition for being unrealistically high. After getting no response, the appellant filed the writ petition which was rejected by the High Court.
Court’s Analysis of Sports Quota for admissions
The Court perused the provisions of prevailing sports quota specifying the requirements for qualifying examination, grading of sports certificates, number of participations, interview and field tests to assess genuineness of testimonials/certificates.
The Court referred to Manish Kumar v. Union of India, (2021) 5 SCC 1 and explained that “It is now entrenched in our constitutional jurisprudence, that the doctrine of equality has varied- and layered dimensions, one of which is that under Article 14.” The Court further referred to Ashutosh Gupta v. State of Rajasthan, (2002) 4 SCC 44 for application of reasonable classification. It cited the Court’s detailed observations in Roop Chand Adlakha v. DDA, 1989 Supp (1) SCC 116 regarding process of classification and effect of inequality. It also cited Deepak Sibal v. Punjab University, (1989) 2 SCC 145 which led to invalidation of a rule which disqualified and rendered ineligible employees of private establishments, and confined admission of candidates to government departments and institutions, in evening law college.
The Court clarified that sports quotas aim at promoting sports and sportsmanship in educational institutes and opined that “the objective of introducing the sports quota i.e., 2% of intake, was to promote and encourage those who excelled and gained a certain degree of prescribed proficiency and achievement in defined competitive sports.” The Court agreed with State’s power to prescribe eligibility standard for admissions to particular courses based on the peculiar requirements and cited Jagat Preet Kaur Chadha v. Punjab University, 2004 SCC OnLine P&H 961 wherein, the 15% cutoff for qualifying examination was upheld.
The Court explained that the objective behind introducing sports quota was not to accommodate academic merit but promotion of sports in university and ultimately in the country. The Court acknowledged the State or educational institution’s insistence upon minimum eligibility but expressed that “universities are the nurseries or the catchment for sportspersons, who can represent in state, national, international level and Olympic sports.” The Court was cautious that such condition would tend to exclude meritorious sportspersons and place less (academically) meritorious sportspersons at a disadvantageous position, further explained with the example of a sportsperson representing the country internationally but lacking a bit academically. The Court said that “It exactly this consequence which this court had warned would be the “unequal application” of a uniform criterion, a wooden equality without regard to the inherent differences, which Article 14 frowns upon, and forbids.”
The Court justified its stand that the said conclusion was supported by Sports Policy 2023 governing admissions, which was carefully evolved to ensure upper hand for sports performance over academic merit for filling the 2% sports quota. The Court further highlighted that the record indicated that apart from years 2018-19, 2019-20, 2023-24, eligibility prescribed was lower for all the previous years, making it 10+2, and the instant policy also underlined availability of quota to students having passed qualifying examination from recognized institutions. The Court concluded that “The imposition of the minimum 75% eligibility condition, therefore, does not subserve the object of introducing the sports quota, but is, rather destructive of it; the criterion, in that sense subverted the object and is discriminatory; it therefore, falls afoul of the equality clause, in Article 14 of the Constitution.”
Therefore, the Court held the petitioner’s and other candidate’s exclusion on the ground of securing less than 75% marks in the qualifying examination as unwarranted and discriminatory and also held the reference and incorporation of clauses giving effect to academic qualifying criteria for sports quota as unenforceable and void. The Court further acknowledged the fact that allocation for admission to all, but one seat was completed, and PEC University was restricted from filling left-over seats as per interim order dated 8-08-2023.
The Court set aside the High Court’s order, allowed the instant appeal and directed the following:
-
Remaining seat or seats to be filled by application of the standards spelt out in the sports policy of the UT of Chandigarh, for those who applied, but whose candidature was rejected on the ground of ineligibility due to their securing less than 75% marks in the qualifying examination,
-
The candidates should have qualified in terms of the immediately preceding academic year’s criterion, applicable for the balance sports quota seats
-
Candidates who were selected and given admission not to be disturbed
-
The process of filling remaining seats in sports quota to be completed within 2 weeks
-
No part of the instant judgment to result in invalidation of admission of candidates in other (non-sports) categories
[Dev Gupta v. PEC University of Technology, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 960, decided on 9-08-2023]
Judgment authored by: Justice S. Ravindra Bhat
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Appellant: Senior Advocate P.S. Patwalia, Advocate on Record Natasha Dalmia, Advocate Anisha Jain, Advocate Shivam Pundhir;
For Respondents: Advocate Sanchar Anand, Advocate on Record Devendra Singh, Advocate Anant K Vatsya, Advocate Aman Kumar Thakur, Advocate Arjun Rana, Advocate Sumbul Ausaf, Advocate Vatsal Joshi, Advocate Krishna Kant Dubey.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
