Writ Petition which had questioned the 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. The appellant had contended that the sudden imposition of such an eligibility condition defeated the purpose of the quota itself and was consequently arbitrary. The High Court, however, rejected the petition requiring the authorities to consider an issue. (Para 1)
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. (Para 17)
In such event, it was open to the state to lower the eligibility criterion, for sports quota, to other candidates too; the dissimilarity in treatment is therefore, egregious. Moreover, 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. Requiring all candidates to possess a fulfil a certain eligibility standard- such as the one, prescribed in the sports policy, of 2023 (alluded to) or the qualifying marks prescribed by the concerned Board, or university, to pass in the concerned subjects is entirely different from the prescription of a uniform standard, far higher than the such a minimum threshold. The imposition of the minimum 75% eligibility condition, therefore, does not subserve the object of introducing the sports quota, but is, rather destructive 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. (Para 18)
For the above reasons, it is held that 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. The reference to, and incorporation of clauses giving effect to such criterion is held unenforceable and void. (Para 19)
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).(Para 19)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2023 STPL(Web) 158 SC
[2023 INSC 695]
Dev Gupta Vs. Pec University Of Technology & Ors.
Civil Appeal No(S). 5013 of 2023 [Arising Out Of Slp (Civil) No(S). 15774 of 2023] –Decided on 9-8-2023
https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/2023-STPLWeb-158-SC.pdf
