DEV GUPTA [APPELLANT(S)] Vs. PEC UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY & ORS. [RESPONDENT(S)]
CIVIL APPEAL ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 15774 OF 2023
(2JB, S. RAVINDRA BHAT and ARAVIND KUMAR JJ., delivered by S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.)
Facts: The present appeal challenges an order of the Punjab & Haryana High Court whereby the 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.
Issue: Whether the imposition of a minimum 75% aggregate marks as an eligibility condition to claim admission in engineering courses under the 2% sports quota is arbitrary and unreasonable?
Arguments on behalf of counsel for appellant: Mr. P.S. Patwalia
It is contended 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 participating in sports have to be treated differently and the 2% quota was specifically carved out for this purpose. It was submitted that in the past too, the UT had not imposed high criterion for candidates to be admitted in the sports quota for qualifying in the examination. Learned counsel also pointed out that in the past, sports quota guidelines had prescribed what specified sports would be graded for the purpose of determining inter se rankings and furthermore, the types of events, and the conditions guiding the eligibility and assessment criterion. These guide and regulate both the determination of inter se ranking of sports candidates, to ensure that those who achieve higher proficiency in the concerned sports, rather than academic qualification, are duly accommodated.
Arguments on behalf of counsel for respondent: Mr. Sanchar Anand
The counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, urged this court not to intervene, and submitted that admissions have almost concluded. He points out that earlier too, the UT had insisted upon the relevant criterion of 75% minimum cut-off in the qualifying examination. It was argued that whilst for 2017-18, the minimum qualifying marks required for sports category candidates was 60%, it was increased for the years 2018-19 and 2019- 20 to 75%. Learned counsel, therefore, urged that there is nothing inherently arbitrary or discriminatory in the insistence of such criterion. He reiterated that in the present case too, out of the 34 applications received, 28 fulfilled the 75% threshold and all but one (out of 17) seats had been filled by them. Learned counsel further stated that evolving a minimum threshold educational qualification for the purposes of allocation in the sports quota was essentially a policy matter which the UT exercised legitimately in the present case. He submitted that this Court’s intervention would result in large scale disruption of the allocations made till date and that it would be futile to intervene since several other candidates who might not have applied and who might be better off than the appellant would be kept out of consideration.
Held: The court while allowing the present appeal, set aside the judgment of the high court and held that, “the 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.”
The court also observed that, “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.” The court thereby directed the process of filling the remaining vacant seat(s)- in the sports quota to be completed within two weeks.
