Judgement

SEN, J. :- The short question involved in these special leave petitions is whether the proper criterion to adopt for selection of candidates belonging to the category eminent sportsmen, for admission to the M.B.B.S. course, is pre-eminence in sports, and not academic excellence. In the prospectus issued by the State Government of Tamil Nadu for admission to the M.B.B.S. course for 1986-87 in the Government Medical Colleges in the State, there was reservation of three seats for the category eminent sportsmen as specified in category (iii) to Annexure I, also indicating the order of preference. The relevant provision reads :

"(iii) Eminent Sportsmen,

The order of preference is as follows :

(a) participation at International level, the candidate being sponsored by a national body.

(b) participation at national level, the candidate being sponsored by a State Body or University.

(c) Participation at State level, the candidate being sponsored by Zonal or District Association.

Sponsorship Certificate should be produced. If not produced, candidate will not be considered under this category.

Note : Candidates applying for admission to categories (i), (ii) and (iii) must have secured 50% aggregate marks in science subjects in the qualifying examination."

It appears that the petitioner along with 216 others applied for the sports quota reserved for eminent sportsmen. The petitioner who is a champion in acquatics had been sponsored by the Tamil Nadu State Acquatic Association showing participation in several tournaments at National level. The Selection Committee adopted participation at National level to be the criterion and thus 16 candidates were left in the field. It selected respondents Nos. 4-6 for the three seats reserved for eminent sportsmen on the basis of marks obtained by them at the qualifying examination. The petitioner having obtained 174.50 marks was not placed either in the select list or in the waiting list. It is necessary to set out the marks obtained by the petitioner as well as respondents Nos. 4-6 as also the candidates placed in the waiting list:

1. Khalid Hussain, Petitioner 174.50

2. R. Vijaya Sree, 4th Respondent 215.40

3. Seshasayee Narasimhan, 5th res. 202.95

4. K. Subramaniam, 6th res. 200.90

Waiting List Candidates

1. T. Jayaraj 196.55

2. Suja Ramakrishnan 192.80

3. Praveen Kumar David 190.58

4. G. Rajalakshmi 186.60

2. Aggrieved by the non-inclusion of his name in the select list, he moved the High Court of Madras by a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. A learned single Judge (Mohan, J.) by his judgment dated December 2, 1986 (reported in 1987 Writ LR 9 1) observed that the whole purpose of reservation of three seats for the category eminent sportsmen was to encourage sports and held that in order to show some distinction with regard to individual achievements, three categorisations had been made. such as participation at International level, National level and State level and beyond that, he saw absolutely no scope for importing the concept of determining eminence inter se among the candidates falling within a particular category. He further observed that the decision of a Division Bench in P. Sabitha v. The Director of Medical Education & Ors. (W.P. No. 9406/83 decided on April 6, 1984) which upheld the validity of such reservation of seats for sportsmen was of little avail to the petitioner. The learned Judge struck down the selection of respondent No. 6 as invalid on the (ground that the Selection Committee proceeded on a wrongful assumption that he had actually played at National level in the V. Pattabhiraman Trophy Tournament, while he had only been selected to play at the Tournament. He, however, dismissed the writ petition and declined to grant the petitioner any relief since he had no chance of getting admission as there were candidates