Supreme Court of India
JYOTHIR R versus SUNISHA N.S. & ORS. on 5 September 2019
[2019] 12 S.C.R. 343
JYOTHIR R
v.
SUNISHA N.S. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 7025-7026 of 2019)
SEPTEMBER 05, 2019
[INDU MALHOTRA AND SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.]
Education/Educational institutions: Admission – Sports quota– Issue in these appeals pertained to admission to M.B.B.S coursein the State of Kerala, for the academic year 2019-20, for the seatsreserved for the Sports quota – Appellant-candidate had appliedfor admission under Sports quota – As per the Prospectus, theapplications for admission under Sports Quota are submitted to theKerala Sports Council, which allots marks to candidates accordingto their proficiency in sports – The marks list of candidatesunder “Individual Events” and “Team Events” are preparedseparately and forwarded to the Commissioner for EntranceExaminations (CEE) – In the case of candidates seeking admissionto Medical courses, the marks for proficiency in sports are awardedout of 500, which are added to the marks obtained by the candidatesin NEET-UG 2019 – The seats under the Sports Quota are filled upby giving equal representation to students in both the team categories– NEET-UG 2019 Examination was conducted on 5.5.2019 – On19.5.2019, the Sports Council published the provisional list ofcandidates eligible for the Sports Quota, both in the Individual andthe Team Categories, and invited objections to the same – Appellantraised no objection to the provisional list – On 27.5.2019, theFinal List of eligible candidates under both the Individual and TeamQuotas was prepared – Appellant did not raise any objection evenat this stage – Final list was forwarded to the State CEE – On6.6.2019, the All India NEET-UG 2019 result was declared –CEE published the category-wise list of candidates eligible forM.B.B.S., including the Sports Quota in the Individual and the TeamCategory on 28.6.2019 – There were 7 seats available for the SportsQuota for admission to M.B.B.S. course, while 2 seats were reservedfor B.D.S. – Out of 7 seats, 4 seats were allotted to the Individualevent category, and 3 were allotted to the Team event category –
A
B
C
D
EF
G
H
A
B
C
D
EF
G
H
AAppellant secured final marks of 548.4722 in the NEET-UGexamination, after including the marks awarded to him in theIndividual category – Respondent No.5 was awarded 669.1667 inthe Sports Individual category while Respondent No.1 was awarded594.0278 in the Team category – Appellant filed a Representationto the Sports Council alleging that Respondent No. 5 had wronglyBbeen included in the Individual List, as he had participated in aTeam event – Appellant then filed writ petition before HighCourt praying inter alia for a direction to Sports Council tore-consider the marks allotted to him and consider shiftingRespondent No. 5 to the Sports (Team) List – During the pendencyCof the Writ Petition, on 6.7.2019, the State Sports Council informedCEE that 4 candidates including Respondent No.5 had erroneouslybeen included in the Final Individual List, even though they oughtto have been included in the Team List – CEE declined to considercommunication dated 6.7.2019 received after the publication ofthe final list – Single Judge of High Court allowed the Writ Petition,Dholding that CEE was obligated to act on the communication of theState Sports Council – Accordingly, Respondent No.5 was directedto be considered for admission in the Sports (Team) List – Aggrieved,Respondent no.1 filed writ appeal – Division Bench of High Courtset aside the order of single judge and directed that the rank ofERespondent no. 1 and 5 be retained as per the list prepared on28.6.2019 – Hence the appeal – Held: Writ Petition by the Appellantwas wholly speculative in nature – The entire case of the Appellantwas based upon shifting Respondent No.5 from the Individual Quotato the Team Quota so that Appellant gets selected in the Individualcategory, and having the marks added to his NEET score – Such aFplea was wholly unfounded, particularly since out of the candidatesin the Sports (Individual) category, the Appellant admittedly scoredthe lowest marks – Respondent No. 1 had secured 57 marks, whileRespondent No. 5 had secured 53 marks – Appellant did not disclosein the Writ Petition, that if the relief prayed for was granted, it wouldGhave resulted in the displacement of another student in the Teamcategory who had scored 60 marks in the final result who was noteven joined as a party to the proceedings – Hence, the prayer madeby the Appellant was liable to be rejected on this ground also – Theentire case of the Appellant was an afterthought, and made at abelated stage of the admission process, and cannot be entertainedH
– Appellant ought to have approached this Court with candour,and disclosed the correct facts – Sports Council was whollyunjustified in making a recommendation for shifting RespondentNo. 5 after the release of Final List – The consequence ofimplementing such a direction at such a belated stage, would bethat the entire admission process under the Sports Quota wouldrequire to be re-done – The prayer of the Appellant to considerRespondent No. 5 in the Sports (Team) Quota was unsustainable onmerits – Appeals dismissed.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 7025-7026 of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 07.08.2019 of the High Courtof Kerala at Ernakulam in W.A. Nos. 1757 and 1758 of 2019.
With
Civil Appeal No. 7028 of 2019.
Renjith B. Marar, Ms. Lakshmi N. Kaimal, Sadchith P. Kurup,Anil Sharma, Advs. for the Appellant.
P. N. Ravindran, Sr. Adv., Dillep Pillai, Ajay K. Jain, Atul ShankarVinod, Kannan Gopal Vinod, M. P. Vinod, G. Prakash, Jishnu M. L.,Mrs. Priyanka Prakash, Mrs. Beena Prakash, Anas Muhammed S.,James P. Thomas, Advs. for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was passed:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
IN S.L.P.(C) Nos. 20085-20086 of 2019
Leave granted.
1. The present Appeals have been filed by the Appellant tochallenge the Judgement and Order dated 07.08.2019 passed by a divisionbench of the Kerala High Court in W.A. Nos. 1757 & 1758 of 2019.
2. The issue raised in the present Appeals pertain to admission tothe M.B.B.S. course in the State of Kerala, for the academic year 2019-20, for the 9 seats reserved for the Sports Quota.
3. The Appellant – candidate had applied for admission under theSports Quota, on the basis of having secured the 3[rd] position in Kerala A
B
C
DE
F
G
H
Aunder 25 Chess Championship conducted by the Sports Association ofThiruvanthpuram in January 2019. The Appellant had represented theKollam District.
4. The Prospectus for Admission to Professional Degree Courses(KEAM – 2018) was issued on 1[st] February, 2019. Clause 1.6 of theBProspectus states that :
“The Prospectus is subject to modification/addition/ deletionas may be deemed necessary by the Government”.
The allotment to sports quota seats in professional degreecourses is governed by clause 5.2.6 of the prospectus forCadmission to professional degree courses, approved by theState Government vide G.O. (M.S.) No. 22/2019/H.Edn.dated1.2.2019.”
Clause 5.2.16 reads as follows :
D“5.2.16 Sports Quota (SP): Candidates who claim reservationunder Sports Quota shall fulfil their eligibility based on thenorms of Kerala State Sports Council appended in AnnexureXVIII (ii) prior to submission of application, for the seats asprescribed in the Prospectus.”
As per the Prospectus, the applications for admission under SportsEQuota are submitted to the Kerala States Sports Council, which allotsmarks to candidates according to their proficiency in sports. The maximummarks for proficiency is 500. The Guidelines of the Sports Council forawarding marks for proficiency in sports is provided under AnnexureXVIII(ii) of the Prospectus. The marks list of candidates under “IndividualFEvents” and “Team Events” are prepared separately and forwarded tothe Commissioner for the Entrance Examinations on or before 30[th] April2018.
5. In the case of candidates seeking admission to Medical courses,the marks for proficiency in sports are awarded out of 500, which areGadded to the marks obtained by the candidates in the NEET-UG 2019.
The Sports Council allots marks to the candidates according totheir proficiency in sports. The seats under the Sports Quota arefilled up by giving equal representation to students in both theindividual and team categories. The principle for allotment is 1:1
H
to be implemented by allotting the seats alternatively between thetwo categories of individual event and team event.
6. The NEET-UG 2019 Examination was conducted on the05.05.2019 for the current academic year 2019-20 for admission to theundergraduate M.B.B.S. course.
7. On 8/9[th] May, 2019 the verification of candidates was conductedby the Kerala Sports Council.
8. On 19[th] May, 2019 the Kerala Sports Council published theprovisional list of candidates eligible for the Sports Quota, both in theIndividual and the Team Categories, and invited objections/complaints tothe same. The last date for submission of objections was 25[th] May, 2019.
It is relevant to note that the Appellant raised no objection tothe provisional list.
9. On 27[th] May, 2019, the Kerala Sports Council published theFinal List of eligible candidates under both the Individual and Team Quotas.The Appellant did not raise any objection/complaint even at this stage.The Final list was forwarded to the State CEE.
10. On 6[th] June, 2019 the All India NEET-UG 2019 result wasdeclared.
11. The State CEE published the category-wise list of candidateseligible for M.B.B.S., including the Sports Quota in the Individual andthe Team Category on 28[th] June, 2019.
12. There were 7 seats available for the Sports Quota foradmission to the M.B.B.S. course, while two seats were reserved forB.D.S. Out of the 7 seats for M.B.B.S., in the Sports Quota, 4 seatswere allotted to the Individual event category, and 3 were allotted to theTeam event category.
13. The Appellant secured final marks of 548.4722 in the NEET-UG examination, after including the marks awarded to him in the Sports(Individual) category.
Respondent No.5 – Sujithraj U. Mallan was awarded 669.1667in the Sports (Individual) category.
Respondent No.1 – Sunisha N.S. was awarded 594.0278 inthe Sports (Team) category.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
A14. The Appellant filed a Representation to the Secretary of theSports Council of Kerala alleging that Respondent No. 5 – Mr. SujithrajMallan had wrongly been included in the Individual List, as he hadparticipated in a Team event.
15. The Appellant then filed W.P.(C) No. 17995/2019 before theBKerala High Court praying inter alia for a direction to the Sports Councilof Kerala to re-consider the marks allotted to the Appellant, and considershifting Respondent No. 5 to the Sports (Team) List.
The Appellant impleaded two students i.e. Respondent No.5 –Sujithraj U. Mallan, and one Mr. Vinay Thomas Abraham as partyCRespondents in the Writ Petition.
16. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, on 06.07.2019, theKerala State Sports Council informed the Commissioner of EntranceExaminations that four candidates including Respondent No.5 – SujithrajU. Mallanhad, had erroneously been included in the Final SportsD(Individual) List, even though they ought to have been included in theSports (Team) List.
17. The Commissioner of Entrance Examinations declined toconsider the communication of the Kerala State Sports Council dated06.07.2019 received after the publication of the final list at a belatedEstage of the admission process.
18. The first round of allotment was made by the EntranceCommissioner on 08.07.2019 with an option to the candidates to join onor before 12.07.2019.
19. The Single Judge of the High Court vide Judgment datedF05.08.2019, allowed the Writ Petition, holding that the Commissioner ofEntrance Examinations was obligated to act on the communication ofthe Kerala State Sports Council. Accordingly, Respondent No.5 – SujithrajU. Mallanhad was directed to be considered for admission in the Sports(Team) List.G20. Aggrieved by the said Judgment, Respondent No. 1 – SunishaN. S. on 07.08.2019, filed Writ Appeal No. 1757 of 2019 to challenge theJudgment dated 05.08.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge.
21. The Division Bench, after hearing the Counsel for RespondentNo. 5 – Sujithraj U. Mallanhad, on the same day set-aside the Order ofHthe Single Judge and directed that the Rank List be re-cast by amending the category of Respondent No.5 – Sujithraj U. Mallan had in the Sports(Individual) category. The consequence of implementing the direction ofthe Single Judge at this belated stage would mean that the entire admissionprocess would require to be re-done, which was undesirable.
It was ordered that the Rank of Respondent Nos. 1 and 5 beretained as per the list prepared on 28.06.2019.
22. The Appellant was not issued Notice in the Writ Appeal, andhence was not heard by the Division Bench.
23. Aggrieved, by the judgment dated 07.08.2019 passed by theDivision Bench, the Appellant has filed the present Appeals.
24. We have heard the learned Counsels for all the parties, andperused the material on record. We affirm the judgment passed by theDivision Bench for the reasons set out hereunder :
24.1. The Writ Petition filed by the Appellant before the HighCourt was wholly speculative in nature. The entire case ofthe Appellant was based upon shifting Respondent No.5from the Individual Quota to the Team Quota, which wouldresult in the Appellant getting selected in the Sports(Individual) category, and having the marks added to hisNEET score.
Such a plea was wholly unfounded, particularly sinceout of the candidates in the Sports (Individual) category,the Appellant has admittedly scored the lowest marks.
Respondent No. 1 had secured 57 marks, whileRespondent No. 5 had secured 53 marks.
24.2. The Appellant did not disclose in the Writ Petition, that ifthe relief prayed for was granted, it would have resulted inthe displacement of another student in the Team categoryviz. Antony P. Alappat, who had scored 60 marks in thefinal result.
The Appellant did not even join Mr. Alappat as a partyto the proceedings. Hence, the prayer made by the Appellantherein was liable to be rejected on this ground also.
24.3. The Appellant had admittedly not raised any objection tothe provisional list which was published on 19[th] May, 2019
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
even though an opportunity was given to all candidates toraise objections.
The final list came was on 27.05.2019, which was alsonot objected to by the Appellant.
The Appellant raised a challenge only after the categorywise list of reserved candidates was published on28.06.2019, when the Appellant chose to file his Writ Petitionon 01.07.2019 after the seats were allotted in the Sportsquota.
The entire case of the Appellant is an afterthought, andhas been made at a belated stage of the admission process,and cannot be entertained.
24.4. If the plea of the Appellant was to be accepted, it wouldimpact the criteria adopted for admission not only to theM.B.B.S. course, but also other professional degree courses,for which the same norms for selection of candidates in theSports category are applicable.
24.5. The Appellant did not reveal in the Special Leave Petitionthat the counselling had been completed on 08.08.2019, andall the students, including the Appellant, Respondent No. 1and Respondent No. 5 had secured admission in variousmedical colleges, and were undergoing the course.
This fact was not disclosed to the Court even at thetime of admission hearing on 19[th] August, 2019 when thisCourt issue notice and granted an interim order in favour ofthe Appellant. These facts came on record in the CounterAffidavit filed by Respondent No. 1 on 27[th] August, 2019.The Appellant ought to have approached this Court withcandour, and disclosed the correct facts.
24.6. The Kerala State Sports Council was wholly unjustified inmaking a recommendation for shifting Respondent No. 5after the Final List had been released. The consequence ofimplementing such a direction at such a belated stage, wouldbe that the entire admission process under the Sports Quotawould require to be re-done. The letter dated 06.07.2019
was wholly unjustified, and the Division Bench has rightlydisregarded the same.
A
25. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the prayer of the Appellantto consider Respondent No. 5 in the Sports (Team) Quota is unsustainableon merits. It is made clear that for the purposes of admission to theM.B.B.S course in the Sports Quota, the position awarded to theBcandidates in the final Rank List published by the Commissioner ofEntrance Examinations on 28.06.2019, shall be the basis for grantingadmission by the authorities.
26. Accordingly, the Civil Appeals are dismissed.
C
The interim Order passed 19.08.2019 is vacated.
Pending applications, if any, are dismissed.
IN S.L.P. (C) NO. 20529 OF 2019
Leave granted.
D
The Appeal is disposed of in terms of the order passed in the Civilappeal Nos. 7025-7026 of 2019.
Devika Gujral
Appeals disposed of.
E
F
G
H