Education/Educational Institution – Admission to MBBS/BDS courses through NEET-UG under sports quota during session-2024 – Change in policy w.r.t the zone of consideration midstream during the admission process – Impermissibility – Prospectus for admission to the colleges in Punjab in undergraduate medical courses, including MBBS/BDS courses, during session-2024 was released by the University providing that credit would be given only for sports achievements during Classes XI and XII – However, later the impugned email and an Addendum affirming it was issued asking the candidates to submit their sports certificates in relation to their achievements during any class/year instead of just Classes XI and XII – In the merit list, respondent Nos.4 (‘KK’) and 5 were placed higher than the appellants on the strength of their sports achievements in Classes IX and X – Writ petitions filed by appellants, dismissed by High Court – Challenge to: Held: Rules of the game cannot be altered once the game has begun – Just as modification of recruitment norms is forbidden in law after the recruitment process has begun, it is equally illegal for an admission process to not be fully defined in all its contours before its commencement, so as to leave room for the authorities to stipulate norms later on to suit their own interests or to permit nepotism – The transparency of such a process is paramount to ensure fairness and prevent arbitrariness – The admission process to MBBS/BDS courses during session-2024, by altering the zone of consideration for sports quota at the behest of one ‘RKK’, a Roller-Skating Coach was vitiated as he failed to disclose that his recommendation benefitted his own daughter ‘KK’-respondent No.4 – Further, when the State specifically noted in its Corrigendum in 2023 that enlargement of the zone of consideration to include Classes IX and X was only for session-2023 in view of the pandemic, the departure from the policy of limiting consideration to only sports achievements during Classes XI and XII, which was the policy obtaining prior thereto, ought not to have been effected midstream after applications were submitted by the candidates along with their sports achievements – State and its instrumentalities have a duty and responsibility to act fairly and reasonably in terms of the mandate of Art.14 – Any decision taken by the State must be reasoned and not arbitrary – Procedure followed by the State of Punjab in leaving the norms elastic, without disclosing as to what would be the exact policy w.r.t the zone of consideration, and allowing itself sufficient leeway to change such policy midstream during the admission process is not fair, transparent and enables arbitrariness and nepotism – Modification in the policy quashed – Appellants to be accommodated in the seats in the government medical college(s) allotted to respondent Nos.4 and 5, who in turn shall be given the seats vacated by the Appellants in the private medical college – Constitution of India – Art.14. [Paras 18, 21, 33, 35, 38]
Education/Educational Institution – Admission to MBBS/BDS courses through NEET UG under sports quota during session-2025 – Change in policy w.r.t the zone of consideration midstream during the admission process – Such modification of the policy during session-2024 was continued during session-2025 – Challenge to:
Held: Modification of the policy during session-2024 was vitiated – Continuation of that policy during session-2025 with nothing further would also be open to challenge on the same ground – However, since admissions have already been made for session-2025 and no candidate who would be adversely affected by interference therewith was made a party to this litigation – Therefore, this lis cannot be given a quietus at this stage – These appellants are granted liberty to approach the High Court once again by way of a properly constituted proceeding, impleading all the proper and necessary parties thereto, and seek appropriate relief. [Para 42] Judicial Review – Policy decision – Plea of the State of Punjab that the Court would, ordinarily, not interfere in policy matters: Held: Not accepted – When a policy decision is riddled with arbitrariness or even provides avenues therefor, the Court would be justified in nullifying it – The fact that a policymaker is to be allowed some elbow room in formulating policy does not translate to allowing scope for arbitrariness or nepotism. [Para 37] Internal notings – Relevance – Change in policy formulated by the State examined through file notings reflecting how the decision-making process progressed from stage to stage: Held: In the present case, the notings in the file disclosing the role played by one ‘RKK’, are utmost relevant and cannot be ignored as his intervention in the matter was what actually prompted the policy change that was brought about thereafter. [Para 34]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey. 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.