Education/Educational institutions: Admission – Sports quota – Issue in these appeals pertained to admission to M.B.B.S course in the State of Kerala, for the academic year 2019-20, for the seats reserved for the Sports quota – Appellant-candidate had applied for admission under Sports quota – As per the Prospectus, the applications for admission under Sports Quota are submitted to the Kerala Sports Council, which allots marks to candidates according to their proficiency in sports – The marks list of candidates under “Individual Events” and “Team Events” are prepared separately and forwarded to the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations (CEE) – In the case of candidates seeking admission to Medical courses, the marks for proficiency in sports are awarded out of 500, which are added to the marks obtained by the candidates in NEET-UG 2019 – The seats under the Sports Quota are filled up by giving equal representation to students in both the team categories – NEET-UG 2019 Examination was conducted on 5.5.2019 – On 19.5.2019, the Sports Council published the provisional list of candidates eligible for the Sports Quota, both in the Individual and the Team Categories, and invited objections to the same – Appellant raised no objection to the provisional list – On 27.5.2019, the Final List of eligible candidates under both the Individual and Team Quotas was prepared – Appellant did not raise any objection even at this stage – Final list was forwarded to the State CEE – On 6.6.2019, the All India NEET-UG 2019 result was declared – CEE published the category-wise list of candidates eligible for M.B.B.S., including the Sports Quota in the Individual and the Team Category on 28.6.2019 – There were 7 seats available for the Sports Quota for admission to M.B.B.S. course, while 2 seats were reserved for B.D.S. – Out of 7 seats, 4 seats were allotted to the Individual event category, and 3 were allotted to the Team event category – Appellant secured final marks of 548.4722 in the NEET-UG examination, after including the marks awarded to him in the Individual category – Respondent No.5 was awarded 669.1667 in the Sports Individual category while Respondent No.1 was awarded 594.0278 in the Team category – Appellant filed a Representation to the Sports Council alleging that Respondent No. 5 had wrongly been included in the Individual List, as he had participated in a Team event – Appellant then filed writ petition before High Court praying inter alia for a direction to Sports Council to re-consider the marks allotted to him and consider shifting Respondent No. 5 to the Sports (Team) List – During the pendency of the Writ Petition, on 6.7.2019, the State Sports Council informed CEE that 4 candidates including Respondent No.5 had erroneously been included in the Final Individual List, even though they ought to have been included in the Team List – CEE declined to consider communication dated 6.7.2019 received after the publication of the final list – Single Judge of High Court allowed the Writ Petition, holding that CEE was obligated to act on the communication of the State Sports Council – Accordingly, Respondent No.5 was directed to be considered for admission in the Sports (Team) List – Aggrieved, Respondent no.1 filed writ appeal – Division Bench of High Court set aside the order of single judge and directed that the rank of Respondent no. 1 and 5 be retained as per the list prepared on 28.6.2019 – Hence the appeal – Held: Writ Petition by the Appellant was wholly speculative in nature – The entire case of the Appellant was based upon shifting Respondent No.5 from the Individual Quota to the Team Quota so that Appellant gets selected in the Individual category, and having the marks added to his NEET score – Such a plea was wholly unfounded, particularly since out of the candidates in the Sports (Individual) category, the Appellant admittedly scored the lowest marks – Respondent No. 1 had secured 57 marks, while Respondent No. 5 had secured 53 marks – Appellant did not disclose in the Writ Petition, that if the relief prayed for was granted, it would have resulted in the displacement of another student in the Team category who had scored 60 marks in the final result who was not even joined as a party to the proceedings – Hence, the prayer made by the Appellant was liable to be rejected on this ground also – The entire case of the Appellant was an afterthought, and made at a belated stage of the admission process, and cannot be entertained – Appellant ought to have approached this Court with candour, and disclosed the correct facts – Sports Council was wholly unjustified in making a recommendation for shifting Respondent No. 5 after the release of Final List – The consequence of implementing such a direction at such a belated stage, would be that the entire admission process under the Sports Quota would require to be re-done – The prayer of the Appellant to consider Respondent No. 5 in the Sports (Team) Quota was unsustainable on merits – Appeals dismissed.
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.