The court held that imposing a minimum 75% eligibility criterion for sports quota admissions is discriminatory and undermines the purpose of the quota aimed at promoting sports.

JUDGEMENT

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

1. Special leave granted. This appeal challenges an order of the Punjab & Haryana High Court.1 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 1 Dated 14.07.2023 in CWP No. 14594 of 2023 Digitally signed by NEETA SAPRA Date: 2023.08.09 16:53:19 IST Reason:

Signature Not Verified 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, whic