WP/21224/2003 of MINOR S.SUNAYANA Vs STATE OF TAMILNADU REP BY on 30 December 2003

:ORDER

The petitioner applied for admission to the First Year MBBS Degree Course under seats earmarked for eminent SportsPersons. Her Cut off mark is 285.85 out of 300. The grievance of thepetitioner is that after the eligibility for admission under eminent Sportsperson category, the candidates so found eligible should be selected andadmitted only on the basis of academic marks and not on the basis of the marksawarded for the certificates in Sports. According to the petitioner, for thethree seats, the following is the comparative chart of marks of the petitionerand the selected candidates:Total SecuredMarks marks

1. Petitioner 300 285.85

2. 4th respondent 300 251

3. 5th respondent 300 233

4. 6th respondent 300 213

2. The respondents 4 to 6 who have secured lesser academic marks have beenselected as they secured higher marks for the excellence in Sports. Hence thepetitioner has filed W.P.No.21224/2003 for a Writ of Declaration, declaringthat 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 andarbitrary. The petitioner has also filed W.P.No.21225/2003 for declarationthat the selection of respondents 4 to 6 is illegal, unreasonable andarbitrary and for consequential direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to admither in the MBBS Course for the academic year 2003-2004.

3. 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 thecertificates produced by the candidates viz., eminent Sports Persons and foundthem eligible for consideration for admission under the quota, the furtherselection and admission should be made on the basis of the marks awarded tothe excellence in Sports or on the basis of the academic marks. Similarquestion came up for consideration before this Court in the judgment reportedin KHALID HUSSAIN VS COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, GOVERNMENTOF TAMIL NADUHEALTH DEPARTMENT ( A.I.R. 1987 W.L.R.91). Considering the fact that oncethe candidates are categorized depending upon the level of their achievement,this Court held that there is absolutely no possibility of further invidiousdistinction in determining the eminence in that particular category. Thatjudgment also arose in respect of selection of candidates against the seatsearmarked for eminent Sports Persons. The said judgment was confirmed by aDivision Bench in W.A. No.1307/1986. The said judgment of the Division Benchwas again taken to Apex Court and the Apex Court has confirmed the judgmentsin the judgment reported in A.I.R. 1987 SC 2074.

4. It is argued by Mr.P.Chandrasekaran, the learned counsel for thepetitioner that in view of the categorical pronouncement,namely, after thecandidates are brought under Zone of Consideration on the basis of theireligibility for admission to seats earmarked for eminent Sports person, thefurther selection and admission shall be made only on the academic marks. Toappreciate the said submission, the facts of Khalid Hussain Case need areference. Annexure 1(3) of the prospectus for admission for the academicyear 1986-1987 reads as under:

" Annexure-1(iii) Eminent SportsmanSpecial Category". In the sub-Column (iii) under the CaptionEminent Sportsman, there are three Categories, namely,(a)Participation at InternationalLevel the candidate being sponsoredBy national body;(b)Participation at National levelthe candidate being sponsored by aState body or University;(c) Participation at State level thecandidate being sponsored by Zonalor District Association.

5. From the reading of the above prospectus, it is seen that though the seatswere earmarked for eminent Sports Person, except the three categories viz.,(1) Participation at International level, the candidate being sponsored by anational body, (2) Participation at national level, the candidate beingsponsored by a State Body of University and 3) Participation at State level,the candidate being sponsored by Zonal or District Association,there are noguidelines were provided by which comparative eminence can be judged asbetween the candidates belonging to the same category. The Apex Court hastherefore held that in the absence of guideline to award of marks for

excellence in Sports, the admission shall be made on the basis of academicmarks and allowing admissions only on the basis of marks awarded to thecertificates would leave the discretion to the Executive in making the choice.Para 5 of the judgment reads as under:5??. It has to be pointed out that therule itself does not provide for determinationof comparative eminence as between differentcandidates falling within the same class butas between sportsmen who have participated tInternational level, National level and StateLevel. It only provides for the rule ofexclusion of one by the other. There are noguidelines provided by which comparativeeminence can be judged as between candidatesbelonging to the same class e.g., at Nationallevel, as here. Nor does it provide for anyguidelines by which the choice has to be madeas between the candidates who have excelledin a particular field of sports e.g. acquatics.The real difficulty arises when there are morethan one candidates who have excelled in theirrespective fields of sports e.g. Cricket, foot-ball, hockey etc. and the number of seatsreserved are less than the candidates foundeligible. All of them being more or less equal,the best method is to go by marks obtained atthe qualifying examination. In such a case, theselection must necessarily depend upon theiracademic merits. Even in P.Sabitha's case, theCourt realized the difficulty to lay down anyGuidelines for adjudging comparative eminenceBetween sportsmen falling within the same classand it was said that when candidates are shownto have attained equal proficiency in sports,then their academic superiority can be pressedinto service as a tilting factor in theirfavour.

6. Coming to the prospectus for the academic year 2003-2004, after prescribing the order of preference viz., Participation at Internationallevel, National level and State level, the prospectus further provides themethod of scrutinizing the certificates and award of marks:Appendix-IIISelection of Candidates under Quota for EminentSports Persons-2003

1. As the purpose of this quota is to recognizeand give weightage to the sports eminence ofthe 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 National(Representing (RepresentingNation) State)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Individual 20 10Team 10 5- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -(B) Marks for (each) achievement:- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -International National State(Representing (Representing (RepresentingNation State Revenue Dist.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Cate- Gold Silver Bronze Gold Silver Bronze Gold Silver BronzegoryIndivi- 60 40 20 40 27 13 27 18 9dualTeam 30 20 10 20 13 7 13 9 5- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Other Recognised National/State LevelSports Meet (C) Marks for (each)achievement- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Sl.No. Sponsor Category Gold Silver Bronze- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -1.School Games FederationOf India (SGFI) Individual 30 20 10(National Level) Team 15 10 52.All India Rural Individual 30 20 10Sports (National Team 15 10 5Level3. Bharathiyar Day Individual 20 13Sports Meet (State Team 10 7 44.Republic Day Sports Individual 20 13 7Meet(State Level) Team 10 7 4- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -(D) Marks for overall Championship- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Category International National State(representing Nation) (representing (representingState Revenue Dist.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Championship 30 25 20- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ==7. From the above, it is seen that specific regulations, guidelines areprescribed for awarding marks to the participation, achievements and overallchampionship. When the method for award of marks is provided and theguidelines prescribed, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel forthe petitioner cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case. As already pointed out, the said judgment was rendered in a case where noguidelines for awarding marks to judge the comparative eminence in sports wereprescribed.

8. The Government being the funding agency, is entitled to identify thesource for admission. Reservation for special category is made under Article15(4) of the Constitution of India and is "Horizontal Reservation". Evenwhile filling the seats earmarked as "Horizontal Reservation" socialreservation under Article 15(1) is followed only when such reservation is"Compartmentalised Horizontal Reservation" and not "Overall HorizontalReservation". Such Reservation for eminent Sports Persons is only torecognise the excellence/achievements in sports and to encourage sports andgames among students. Once the eligibility for admission under SportsCategory is determined, the selection and admission shall be based on themarks obtained for the excellence in sports only. There cannot be a furtherclassification on the basis of academic marks for selection and admission.Hence, the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner deserve to berejected.

9. For the above reason, I do not find any merit in the challenge to theprospectus. Equally, I am unable to find any illegality in the selection ofcandidates viz., respondents 4 to 6 on the basis of the marks awarded fortheir participation in the sports. Accordingly, both the Writ Petitions failand are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, W.P.M.P.No.26375/2003 is closed.

Index: YesWebsite: Yes

vbs

To

1. The Secretary, Government of Tamil NaduDepartment of Education,Fort St. George, Chennai.9.

2. Selection Committee,Director of Medical EducationKilpauk, Chennai.10.

3. Common Committee for SelectionOf students for MBBS 2003-2004Anna University, Chennai.25.