JUDGMENT

We have heard Sri D. D. Thakur, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Sri Ashok Mathur, learned counsel for the State of Jammu and Kashmir. However, respondent No. 6, though duly served, has chosen to remain unrepresented. Special leave granted.

2. The appellant, a certain Gurdeep Singh, was a candidate for admission to the Course leading to a Medical Degree for the year 1991-92 in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. He claimed to be entitled for selection against the three per cent reservations for "sports category". In his writ petition before the High Court he claimed that his legitimate entitlement for selection against the category was wrongfully denied to him and that respondent No. 6, a certain Shuab Omer, was selected - and if the appellants case is true - by a process of sheer manipulation. The High Court dismissed his writ petition on what the appellant avers a misconception of appellants case.

We are afraid, the grievance made out by the appellant against the dismissal of his writ petition is justified. We are of the view that the order dated 10-8-1992 of the High Court dismissing the appellants writ petition cannot be sustained. The appellant for the reasons we shall set out presently, is entitled to succeed in the writ petition.

3. The factual antecedents are these:

The authorities concerned with the administration of medical admissions in the State of Jammu and Kashmir issued a notification dated 19th July, 1991 inviting applications for admission to the entrance examination for selection of candidate for the Medical Courses. Three per cent of the intake, said to amount in all to six seats, was reserved for the candidates excelling in certain categories of sports specifically notified as approved sports. At the relevant time "mountaineering said to be the field of expertise of respondent No. 6, was not one of them. The entrance examinations were conducted on the 14th September, 1991 and the official result came out on the 26th September, 1991. I would appear that there were controversies as to some of the questions not being within the syllabi and a fresh list of selected candidates was published on 11th October, 1991. In the said examination, both the appellant and respondent No. 6 are said to have secured 118 marks each. It would appear that if there was such a tie, the provisions regulating admissions contemplated a preference in favour of a candidate who had secured higher marks in Biology in the 12th standard examination. Respondent No. 6 was accordingly selected. But if respondent No. 6 had no eligibility for the reserved seats in the sports category then the appellant alone was to be selected.

4. The eligibility in the sports category was, it is stated, determined by the Sports Council of Jammu & Kashmir. The Council invited applications on the 18th September, 1991 for the purpose; conducted interviews in that behalf on 24th of September, 1991 and declared 46 students as eligible under that category. It is significant that while appellant was one of the candidates considered eligible in that category, respondent No. 6 was not so included. It is also pertinent that at the time the selections by the Sports Council were made, the sporting activity of the appellant was one of the apporoved sports while that of respondent No. 6 namely "mountaineering" was not so included in the approved sports. That explains how respondent No. 6 did not offer himself for selection in that category and why the Sports Council did not include his name in the list of eligible candidates.

On the basis of the eligibility declared by the Sports Council, the appellant would, in the normal course, have been entitled to admission against the sports category. But on 7th November, 1991 long after the Sports Council had announced its selections, the Council allegedly at the instance of the Mountaineering Association sought to recognise "mountaineering" as an additional sports activity. There was only one candidate in this category an