Education Institution – Sports quota – Imposition of a minimum 75% aggregate marks as an eligibility condition (in the qualifying examination) for enabling a candidate to claim admission in engineering courses under the 2% sports quota – Discriminatory or not: HELD : 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 objective of introducing sports quota, however, is not to accommodate academic merit, but something altogether different: promotion of sports in the institution, the university, and ultimately, in the country – In the instant case, the record indicates that except for the academic years 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2023-24, for all the previous years, the eligibility prescribed was lower; indeed, for 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022-23, the criterion was “10+2 Pass” – Lastly, the sports policy, itself underlines that the quota would be available to students who “pass their qualifying examination from schools/colleges recognised by the Chandigarh administration” or had studied in Chandigarh for two preceding years – The imposition of the minimum 75% eligibility condition, therefore, does not subserve the object of introducing the sports quota, but is, rather destructive AND ORS.
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 exclusion of the petitioner and other like candidates, on the ground of their securing less than 75% in the qualifying examination, was unwarranted and discriminatory. [Paras 17 and 18]
Education Institution – Sports quota – Rejection of candidature on the ground of ineligibility due to their securing less than 75% marks in the qualifying examination – Direction issued:
HELD : Seventeen (17) seats were earmarked for the sports category (under the 2% quota) – The university received a total of 34 applications, of which 28 applicants fulfilled the eligibility criterion -of securing 75% marks and above – Further, 16 out of the total 17 seats in the Sports Category were allocated to eligible candidates and only 1 seat was vacant – In view of the findings, direction issued to fill the remaining seat or seats by application of the standards spelt out in the sports policy of the UT of Chandigarh, as applied by the respondent university to determine inter se sports merit of the candidates who had applied, but whose candidature was rejected on the ground of ineligibility due to their securing less than 75% marks in the qualifying examination – These candidates however should have qualified in terms of the immediately preceding academic year’s criterion, applicable for the balance sports quota seat(s) – At the same time, candidates who were selected and given admission not to be disturbed. [Paras 4 and 19] Constitutional Law – Constitutional jurisprudence – Doctrine of equality and classification – Discussed.
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Manish Kumar v Union of India (UOI) & Ors [2021] 14 SCR 895; Ashutosh Gupta v. State of Rajasthan [2002] 2 SCR 649; Venkateshwara Theatre v. State of A.P [1993] 3 SCR 616; Roop Chand Adlakha v Delhi Development Authority [1988] Supp 3 SCR 353 – relied on. State of J&K v. Triloki Nath Khosa [1974] 1 SCR 771; Deepak Sibal v Punjab University [1989] 1 SCR 689; Subramanian Swamy v Central Bureau of Investigation [2014] 9 SCR 283 – referred to. Jagatpreet Kaur And Ors. vs Punjab University (2004) 138 PLR
896 – referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.