1. Challenge to the imposition of a minimum 75% aggregate marks eligibility condition for admission to engineering courses under a sports quota. (Para 1 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(SC) 701
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, ARAVIND KUMAR, JJ.
Dev Gupta – Appellant
Versus
PEC University of Technology and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5013 of 2023, SLP (Civil) No. 15774 of 2023
Decided On : 09-08-2023
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Admission in Engineering Courses – Objective of introducing sports quota is not to accommodate academic merit but something altogether different: promotion of sports in institution, university, and ultimately, in country.
(2) Right to equality – Reasonable classification must bear rational nexus to objects sought to be achieved.
(1) Admission in Engineering Courses – Objective of introducing sports quota is not to accommodate academic merit but something altogether different: promotion of sports in institution, university, and ultimately, in country.
(2) Right to equality – Reasonable classification must bear rational nexus to objects sought to be achieved.
Subject
Education Law - Admission Criteria
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Education – Admission in Engineering Courses – Sports Quota – Imposition of minimum 75% aggregate marks as an eligibility condition – State acts within its rights to prescribe a certain minimum eligibility standard or set of criteria as threshold requirement for admission to any particular course, given its peculiar requirements – Objective of introducing sports quota i.e. 2% of intake, was to promote and encourage those who excelled and gained a certain degree of prescribed proficiency and achievement in defined competitive sports – Introduction of this quota was to promote sports, and sportsmanship in educational institutions – Objective of introducing sports quota, however, is not to accommodate academic merit, but something altogether different: promotion of sports in institution, university, and ultimately, in country – Imposition of minimum 75% eligibility condition does not sub-serve object of introducing sports quota but is rather destructive of it and falls afoul of equality clause, in Article 14 of Constitution – Exclusion of petitioner and other like candidates, on the ground of their securing less than 75% in qualifying examination, was unwarranted and discriminatory – Impugned order set aside – Remaining seats shall be filled by application of standards spelt out in sports policy of UT of Chandigarh, as applied by respondent university to determine inter se sports merit of candidates who had applied but whose candidature was rejected on the ground of ineligibility due to their securing less than 75% marks in qualifying examination. (Paras 18, 19 and 20)
(B) Constitution of India – Article 14 – Right to equality – Equals must be treated equally – Unequals must not be treated equally – What constitutes reasonable classification must depend upon facts of each case, context provided by statute, existence of intelligible differentia which has led to grouping of persons or things as a class and leaving out of those who do not share intelligible differentia – It must bear rational nexus to objects sought to be achieved – Object to be achieved should not be a mere pretence for an indiscriminate imposition of inequalities and classification should not be characterized as arbitrary or absurd. (Paras 14 and 15)
Facts of the case:
High Court rejected appellant’s Writ Petition which had questioned imposition of a minimum 75% aggregate marks as an eligibility condition (in qualifying examination) for enabling a candidate to claim admission in engineering courses under 2% sports quota. Appellant had contended that sudden imposition of such an eligibility condition defeated purpose of quota itself and was consequently arbitrary.
Findings of Court:
Process of filling remaining vacant seat(s)- in the sports quota shall be completed within two weeks. Nothing said in this judgment shall result in invalidation of admission of candidates in other (non-sports) categories.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv. Ms. Natasha Dalmia, AOR Ms. Anisha Jain, Adv. Mr. Shivam Pundhir, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sanchar Anand, Adv. Mr. Devendra Singh, AOR Mr. Anant K Vatsya, Adv. Mr. Aman Kumar Thakur, Adv. Mr. Arjun Rana, Adv. Ms. Sumbul Ausaf, Adv. Mr. Vatsal Joshi, Adv. Mr. Krishna Kant Dubey, Adv.
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv. Ms. Natasha Dalmia, AOR Ms. Anisha Jain, Adv. Mr. Shivam Pundhir, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sanchar Anand, Adv. Mr. Devendra Singh, AOR Mr. Anant K Vatsya, Adv. Mr. Aman Kumar Thakur, Adv. Mr. Arjun Rana, Adv. Ms. Sumbul Ausaf, Adv. Mr. Vatsal Joshi, Adv. Mr. Krishna Kant Dubey, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Whether a high academic threshold defeats the objective of a sports quota by treating sportspersons as general candidates rather than recognizing their specific proficiency. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 )
3. Applying a uniform high academic threshold to sportspersons ignores their inherent differences and excludes truly meritorious athletes, thereby subverting the sports quota's objective. (Para 17 , 18 )
4. A classification under Article 14 is discriminatory if it imposes a uniform standard on unequals that defeats the specific object of a special quota. (Para 14 , 15 , 17 , 18 )
5. The 75% eligibility criterion is declared void; remaining seats shall be filled based on sports merit and preceding year's academic criteria. (Para 19 , 20 )
6. What constitutes a permissible classification under Article 14 of the Constitution?
A classification is permissible if it is founded on an intelligible differentia distinguishing those grouped together from those left out, and possesses a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved. (Para 14 , 15 )
7. When does the application of a uniform eligibility criterion become discriminatory?
Discrimination arises when unequals are treated as equals, specifically when a uniform standard is applied without regard to inherent differences, thereby defeating the purpose of a special quota. (Para 17 , 18 )
8. Can a minimum academic standard be maintained for candidates admitted under a sports quota?
Yes, the state may prescribe a minimum eligibility standard to ensure basic academic excellence, provided it does not mirror the high threshold of general candidates to the extent of excluding meritorious sportspersons. (Para 17 )
JUDGMENT :
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.
1. Special leave granted. This appeal challenges an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.1 [Dated 14.07.2023 in CWP No. 14594 of 2023. The High Court rejected the appellant’s 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.
2. The Secretary Technical Education, Chandigarh Administration (hereafter “UTC”) by letter dated 07.01.2016 accorded approval to the respondent university (hereafter “the University”) to admit students through the Central Counselling System at the National level from 2016-2017 (hereafter referred to as “JOSSA”). The UT had consistently followed the process, and admission to institutions within Chandigarh were regulated by its rules. The rules for the current academic year 2023-24 for JOSSA were issued through a brochure on 07.06.2023. Those rules apply to UT institutions, including the respondent-whose name finds mention at Serial No. 25.
3. The eligibility criterion provided for admission to engineering courses and the same reads as under:
“1. Must have secured at least 75% aggregate marks in the Class XII (or equivalent) Board Examination. The aggregate marks for SC, ST and PWD candidates should be at least 65%.
“The respondent issued the admission brochure for academic year 2023-24 for four reserved categories. The eligibility criterion applicable, inter-alia, to sports candidates was mentioned in clause 1(b) which is extracted below:
“(b) The candidate has secured minimum 75% marks in the Class XII (or equivalent) examination of respective stream and Board.”
4. Seventeen (17) seats were earmarked for the sports category (under the 2% quota). The university received a total of 34 applications of which 28 applicants fulfilled the eligibility criterion of securing 75% marks and above. The remaining six applications included that of the appellant who did not secure the basic 75% marks. Further, 16 out of the total 17 seats in the Sports Category have already been allocated to eligible candidates and only 1 seat has fallen vacant as on date in Materials and Metallurgical Engineering branch for which the counselling is scheduled to be held on 10.08.2023. It is acknowledged that the applicable Sports Policy for the UT had been published earlier.
5. The brochure listed out several categories, to indicate how the candidates were to be classified for the purposes of admission. This did not include the sports quota candidates. As a matter of fact, the Union Territory of Chandigarh followed JoSAA for purposes of admission; however, the sports quota category was kept out of the JoSAA programme. Likewise the quota set apart for three other categories i.e. Kashmiri Migrants, Sons/Daughters/Spouses of Military/Para Military Personnel and children and grand children of freedom fighters were treated and dealt with separately.
6. After publication of the brochure on 24.06.2023, the respondent issued an advertisement calling upon eligible candidates to apply. The appellant represented to the authorities complaining that the eligibility condition was unrealistically high, on 27.06.2023. Upon receiving no response, he filed a Writ Petition, which was rejected by the impugned order.
7. It is contended by Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned Senior Counsel that the threshold minimum eligible condition of having acquired 75% marks, defeats the objective of providing a sports quota because it assumes that sports persons like other general candidates would also have the degree of academic excellence which is required of all candidates. It was submitted that those participati
