- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
The Common Committee... v. Minor B. Praveena De...
Structured Summary of the Opinion
Factual and Procedural Background
This matter concerns admission to the MBBS course for the session 2009-2010 under a quota for "eminent sports persons" and challenges to clauses in Appendix-III of the prospectus which governed the allotment of marks for sports achievements. Applications were invited for the session 2009-2010, including seats reserved for eminent sports persons.
The 1st respondent in W.A. No. 1371/09, B. Praveena Devi, challenged clauses (1) and (2) of Appendix-III of the prospectus and sought, among other reliefs, a direction to consider academic achievements among candidates in each sports category or alternatively to take into account achievements in all tournaments during 2005-2009 for preparing the selection list.
The learned single Judge, by an order dated 3 September 2009 in W.P. No. 11101 of 2009, allowed the writ petition in part, set aside clause (2) of Appendix-III (which stipulated that "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 Common Committee for Selection of Eminent Sports Persons to reconsider selection among four specifically named candidates.
Several parties affected by that order, including the Common Committee and other selected persons, challenged the single Judge's judgment by filing Writ Appeals (W.A. Nos. 1342, 1344, 1568 and 1371 of 2009). The present opinion is the Common Judgment of the appellate court (S. J. Mukhopadhaya, J.) disposing of those appeals.
Relevant factual details presented in the record include that the 1st respondent (Praveena Devi) is a backward class candidate who has developed skill in swimming and won 114 medals across State, Junior and National levels in the four years preceding the selection period; she also recorded high academic marks in her +2 examinations (Biology 95/100, Chemistry 95/100, Physics 93/100). The prospectus' Appendix-III contained specific mark-tables and rules for awarding marks for achievements across international, national, zonal, state and divisional levels and included the contested clause (2) limiting marks in a year to the highest achievement in only one annual tournament in the sport discipline.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether clause (2) of Appendix-III of the prospectus for admission in MBBS course for the year 2009-2010 — which provides that "The Highest achievement of the candidate in only one annual tournament in the sports disciplines in a year will be considered for awarding marks" — is irrational, arbitrary and thereby violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
- Whether the selection process for eminent sports persons should take into account the candidate's eminence at all levels (international, national, zonal, divisional) collectively and/or consider achievements across all tournaments during the relevant period (2005-2009), as contended by the petitioner.
- Whether, among eminent sports persons, selection should be determined by academic excellence (higher marks in academic examination) alone or whether sports achievements (as ranked by the prospectus) should control subject to tie-breaking by academics.
Arguments of the Parties
1st Respondent / Writ Petitioner (B. Praveena Devi) — Arguments
- Challenged clauses (1) and (2) of Appendix-III of the prospectus as excluding full consideration of her sports achievements; sought that achievements across categories and all tournaments during 2005-2009 be taken into account.
- Contended that if achievements of the four years were aggregated (as per alternative interpretation), she would be entitled to 7,195 marks, but under the impugned provision (only one annual tournament per year) she would obtain only 600 marks; thus the impugned clauses effectively exclude her.
- Asserted that eminence at all levels (international, national, zonal, divisional) should be taken together and that among such eminent sports persons candidates with higher academic marks alone should be entitled to selection.
- Relied before the single Judge on the Supreme Court decision in Asif Hameed v. State of Jammu & Kashmir (1989 Supp (2) SCC 364) and argued violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Appellant / Common Committee for Selection of Eminent Sports Persons — Arguments
- Explained the purpose of the sports quota: to recognise and give weightage to sports eminence and to encourage development of sports; emphasised that marks for sports achievements alone are used to rank candidates under the quota.
- Noted the practical problem that some sports disciplines (e.g., swimming, athletics) provide multiple medal-winning opportunities in a single meet (different distances, strokes, events) while other disciplines (e.g., basketball, cricket) permit at most one medal per meet.
- Argued that counting marks for every participation/achievement across all events produced an undue advantage to athletes in multi-event sports (illustrated by the fact that in 2007-2008 all three MBBS seats were secured by swimmers), and produced inequality among disciplines.
- Submitted that clause (2) was introduced (from academic year 2008-2009) to create a level playing field among sports disciplines and to avoid undue advantage to those from multi-event sports; pointed to subsequent diversification of selected disciplines (e.g., Yogasana, Volleyball, Throwball securing seats in 2008-2009) as evidence of the clause's leveling effect.
- Provided statistics to the court: 193 applications for MBBS eminent sports category and 3,379 applications for engineering eminent sports category for 2009-2010 (as part of demonstrating scale and need for a fair rule).
Other Appellants / Interested Parties
- Some appellants affected by the selection pursuant to the prospectus (those already undergoing study) challenged the single Judge's judgment; one other appellant in W.A. No. 1371/09 supported the impugned judgment but was aggrieved by the single Judge's direction to reconsider only the four named candidates and not all eminent sports persons.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Asif Hameed v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, 1989 Supp (2) SCC 364 | Relied upon by the 1st respondent before the learned single Judge (specific rule cited in that hearing is not detailed in the provided opinion). | The opinion records that this decision was relied upon before the single Judge; the appellate court noted the reliance but the appellate reasoning focuses on other Supreme Court authorities regarding policy and judicial interference. |
| State of Rajasthan v. Lata Arun, 2002 (6) SCC 252 | Principle: prescribing minimum educational qualifications and recognising equivalent qualifications are matters of policy for the State/authority; courts should not dictate policy choices. | The appellate court invoked this authority to support the proposition that policy decisions about eligibility and selection criteria fall within the domain of the authority and that courts should not substitute their preferred policy unless the policy is arbitrary or discriminatory. |
| Directorate of Education v. Educomp Datamatics Ltd., 2004 (4) SCC 19 | Scope of interference by courts in policy matters: courts cannot suggest which policy to be followed; interference is limited to cases of arbitrariness, discrimination or bias. | The court relied on this precedent to hold that it is not open to the single Judge to substitute the new policy with the earlier policy merely because the court considered the earlier policy preferable; interference requires a finding of arbitrariness or violation of rights. |
| Ekta Sakthi Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 2006 (10) SCC 336 | Where policy decisions or executive discretion are in issue, absent infringement of fundamental rights courts should not substitute their judgment for that of the executive. | The appellate court applied this principle to conclude that, in the absence of a finding that the impugned clause infringed fundamental rights, the court should not overturn the policy choice embodied in clause (2). |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The appellate court reviewed the single Judge's conclusion which had set aside clause (2) of Appendix-III and had preferred a previous scheme under which marks for each participation/achievement in the relevant period were counted. The single Judge had held that counting marks for each participation provided a "justifiable criterion" to decide among eminent sports persons and that academic marks would be used only as a tie-breaker.
The appellate court analysed the nature of sports disciplines and the structure of the mark-tables in Appendix-III. It observed that:
- Sports disciplines differ in structure: some sports (for example, swimming, athletics) offer multiple medal-winning events (different strokes, distances, rounds) at the same meet, generating multiple opportunities to accumulate marks in a single year, while other sports (for example, basketball, cricket) allow only one medal per meet.
- Counting marks for every participation across all events and years can create anomalies where repeated participation without high achievement can cumulatively exceed the marks assigned for a single very high achievement (the court gave the example: participation in international Category-I yields 150 marks per year, so four years of mere participation could total 600 marks, whereas a single gold medal at an international Category-I event (e.g., Olympics) yields 500 marks).
- Equating achievements across widely differing levels (Olympic gold vs State-level gold) without the gradation present in the mark-tables would effectively make "two unequals as equals," violating Article 14; the prospectus already differentiates marks for different levels to reflect their relative eminence (e.g., 500 marks for certain international golds versus 175 for national level golds).
- The impugned clause (2) — limiting consideration in a year to a candidate's highest achievement in the sport discipline — was designed to eliminate such anomalies and to create a level playing field across disparate sports disciplines.
The appellate court further placed its analysis within the Supreme Court's precedents about judicial review of policy: authoritative pronouncements (Lata Arun, Directorate of Education v. Educomp Datamatics Ltd., Ekta Sakthi Foundation) establish that courts should not substitute their policy preference for that of the designated authority unless the policy is arbitrary, discriminatory, biased, or otherwise violative of fundamental rights.
Applying those principles, the court concluded that clause (2) is a rational measure to address inherent inequalities among sports disciplines and to prevent anomalous results (where cumulative participation scores could outrank a single significant international achievement). The court found clause (2) was not arbitrary, not violative of Article 14, and therefore within the policy-making domain of the selection authority.
Holding and Implications
Holding (core ruling): Clause (2) of Appendix-III of the prospectus for admission in MBBS course for the session 2009-2010 is upheld as rational and not arbitrary, and not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Direct consequences and case disposition as stated in the opinion:
- The impugned order dated 3 September 2009 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 11101/09 is set aside.
- Writ Appeals W.A. Nos. 1342, 1344 and 1568 of 2009 are allowed; W.A. No. 1371 of 2009 is dismissed.
- Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
- There shall be no order as to costs in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Broader implications: The court relied on established Supreme Court principles limiting judicial interference in policy matters. The opinion upholds the authority's policy choice in devising a selection metric intended to create parity among varied sports disciplines. The opinion does not purport to set a new legal precedent beyond applying existing authorities; no broader novel legal rule was announced beyond the application of cited precedents and the upholding of clause (2) on the facts and policy considerations stated.
This summary is based exclusively on the information contained in the provided opinion and does not add any information not present in that text.
Writ Appeal filed against the order dated 3rd Sept., 2009, passed by learned single Judge in W.P No. 11101 of 2009.
COMMON 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-III 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 3 Sept., 2009, allowed the writ petition in part, set aside clause (2) of Appendix-III 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.
2. 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.
3. The 1 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 abovesaid 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.
4. It was submitted on behalf of the 1 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-III 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 & 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.
5. 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:-
“23. 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.”
6. For proper appreciation of the case, it is necessary to notice the relevant clauses (1) and (2) of Appendix-III 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
1. 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.
2. The Highest achievement of the candidate in only one annual tournament in the sports disciplines in a year will be considered for awarding marks.
3. 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 - I)
500
450
400
150
International (Representing India Category - II)
350
300
250
125
Table (II) - Marks for Recognised National Achievement
Sl. No.
Competitions
Allocation of marks
Gold
Silver
Bronze
Participation
1.
National Championships - Organised by National Federations
175
150
125
40
2.
School Games Federation of India (SGFI) Meet (National Level)
175
150
125
40
3.
All India Rural Sports Meets (National Level)
175
150
125
40
4.
National Sports Festival for Women (National Level)
175
150
125
40
5.
National Inter School Competition (National Level)
175
150
125
40
Table (III) - Marks for Recognised South Zone Achievement
Sl. No.
Competitions
Allocation of marks
Gold
Silver
Bronze
Participation
1.
South Zone Tournaments/Meets - Organised by State Associations and Federations.
75
60
45
20
Table (IV) - Marks for Recognised State Championship
Sl. No.
Competitions
Allocation of marks
Gold
Silver
Bronze
Participation
1.
South Championship Representing Revenue District - Organised by State Associates.
65
50
35
15
Table (V) - Marks for Recognised State Level Achievements
Sl. No.
Competitions
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 Level)
55
40
25
10
4.
KVS/CBSE National Sports Meet (State Level)
55
40
25
10
Table (VI) - Marks for Divisional Level Achievements
Sl. No.
Competitions
Allocation of marks
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 (Divisional Level)
45
30
15
5
4.
Inter-Divisional Polytechnic Meet (Divisional Level)
45
30
15
5
5.
District Inter School Competition (Division Level)
45
30
15
5
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.
1. Participation/achievement in International tournaments will be considered only with earlier achievements at National/State Level Tournaments.
2. 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).
3. Participation/Achievements in tournaments, with Form I alone are eligible for marks indicated in the table (I) above.
(b). For National Tournaments:
1. 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.
2. Marks will not be awarded for selection trials.
(c). For State Tournaments:
1. 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”.
7. 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
1. 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.
2. 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
(Representing Nation)
National
(Representing State)
Individual
20
10
Team
10
5
(B) Marks for (each) achievement:
International
(Representing Nation)
National
(Representing State)
State
(Representing 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 for (each) achievement:
Sl. No.
Sponsor
Category
Gold
Silver
Bronze
1.
School Games Federation of India (SGFI)
(National Level)
Individual
Team
30
15
20
10
10
5
2.
All India Rural Sports
(National Level)
Individual
Team
30
15
20
10
10
5
3.
Bharathiyar Day Sports (State)
Individual
Team
20
10
13
7
-
4
4.
Republic Day Sports Meet (State Level)
Individual
Team
20
10
13
7
7
4
(D) Marks for over all Championship:
Category
International
(Representing Nation)
National
(Representing State)
State
(Representing Revenue District)
Championship
30
25
20
8. The only question that requires determination in this case is:-
Whether the clause (2) of Appendix-III 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.
9. Clause (2) of Appendix - III for the session 2009-2010, reads as follows:-
“2. The Highest achievement of the candidate in only one annual tournament in the sports disciplines in a year will be considered for awarding marks.”
10. 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:-
S. No.
Sports Disciplines where opportunity to win multiple medals in a given event
Sports discipline where only one medal could be achieved in a given event
1
Athletics
Atya Patya
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
Silambam
Sepak Takraw
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
11. 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 abovesaid 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’.
12. 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 persons from sports discipline, such as Yogasana, Volleyball, Throwball 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.
13. 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.
14. 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 × 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-III.
15. In the case of State of Rajasthan v. Lata Arun (2002 (6) SCC 252), 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 v. Educomp Datamatics Ltd. reported in 2004 (4) SCC 19.
In the case of Ekta Sakthi Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2006 (10) SCC 336), 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.
16. 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 3 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.
Alert