Judgment : AR. Lakshmanan, J. The prayer in the writ petition, which is very widely couched, runs as follows: To issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order calling for the records that culminated in the selection of students for Free Seats in First Year B.E. course under Sports Category for 1993-94 and quash the same and direct the respondents to select the petitioner for First Year B.E. course either in P.S.G. College of Technology or R.E. College Trichy, where there is much scope for continuing his career in Basket Ball or in any other Government College under the category of Free Seats under Sports Category for the year 1993-94. 2. The facts in brief are as follows: According in several sports events including those of All India and State Level Tournaments for which participation certificates were not issued. The petitioner represented his school Basket Ball Team and played in the All India Gerhard Fisher Open Basket Ball Tournaments conducted by the I.I.T. Madras, in the years 1989, 1990 and 1992. The petitioner was the Captain of his school basket ball team which came upto the quarter finals in the P.S.G. College of Technology, Coimbatore in 1992. The petitioner also represented his school Super Senior Team which emerged winners in the South Madras Zonal Basket Ball Tournament 1991-92. The petitioner represented his school basket ball team in a number of tournament during 1989-90 to 1992-93. He has received a number of certificates, gold medals and cups in various sports and games activities. 3. The petitioner had good academic career in his school. Despite the heavy demands of his time with regard to sports and extra auricular activities and his father being N.R.I, unable to encourage his son, the petitioner did well in his studies and obtained the following marks in the subjects relevant for Engineering Course in the Higher Secondary Examination, Tamil Nadu, in March, 1993, with the Registration No.851329. Mathematics 172/200 Physics 159/200 Chemistry 154/200 4. The petitioner took the Tamil Nadu Professional Course Entrance Examination held in June, 1993 with Registration No.235694 and obtained 41.7 out of 50 in Mathematics and 39.6 out of 50 in Physics and Chemistry. Thus, the total marks obtained by the petitioner for the Engineering with the marks weightage for such admission is 245.15 (245.55) out of 300. 5. The petitioner took the Tamil Nadu Professional Course Entrance Examination held in June, 1993 with Registration No.235694 and obtained 41.7 out of 50 in Mathematics and 39.6 out of 50 in Physics and Chemistry. Thus, the total marks obtained by the petitioner for the Engineering with the marks weightage for such admission is 245.15 (245.55) out of 300. 5. The petitioner had applied to the respondents for admission to the 1993-94 first year B.E. Degree Course under the Sports Quota since reservations are made for admission to outstanding sports persons. The petitioner was neither selected nor called for counselling during admission to the first year B.E. Course. The petitioner is entitled to the admission to the first year B.E. Course for the academic year 1993-94. 6. The non-selection is challenged by the petitioner as under: .(a) The petitioner’s non-selection resulted in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. .(b) The petitioner being an outstanding sports person participated at All India level with good academic career in his studies securing 245.55 out of 300, ought to have been selected under the Sports Quota for outstanding sports person. .(c) The students selected in the Sports Quota obtained less marks than the petitioner and also less meritorious in sports than the petitioner. .(d) The respondents failed to consider the marks obtained by the candidates in the qualifying examination as well as entrance examination while the selection was made under the Sports Quota, and thereby adopted different yardstick which is not disclosed in the prospectus. .(e) In the prospectus issued by the respondents for admission to the B.E. Course for 1993-94, there was reservation of 20 seats for the category ‘Eminent Sports Person’ without indicating the order of preference. Whereas, the respondents have proceeded with the selection in the order of preference as ‘National level participation’, State level participation, and ‘District level participation’ by giving a go-by to the academic excellence of the sports students. Hence, the entire mode of selection under Sports Quota gave much room for arbitrariness and that resulted in not selecting the petitioner. The respondents having not given the order of preference as set out above in the instructions to the candidates applied for admission to the B.E. Degree Courses are estopped from adopting the order of preference. Hence, the entire mode of selection under Sports Quota gave much room for arbitrariness and that resulted in not selecting the petitioner. The respondents having not given the order of preference as set out above in the instructions to the candidates applied for admission to the B.E. Degree Courses are estopped from adopting the order of preference. .(f) The Selection Committee proceeded on wrongful assumption adopting the order of preference and consequently the entire selection under the Sports Quota is nothing but farce and make believe affair. (g) As regards the category ‘Eminent Sportsman’, the instructions themselves do not provide for any comparative eminance between different candidates in the Sports Category, .(h) The selection Committee should have taken into consideration the academic merit of the students who applied under Sports Category as laid down by the Apex Court as well as by this Court. .(i) In case of professional courses, merit alone should be the criterion and therefore, reservation of seats under the category ‘Emminent Sportsman’ could be availed of only by deserving candidates having academic merits, .(j) As laid down by the Apex Court in the decision reported in Khalid Hussain v. Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Health Department,A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 2074 at 2077, the best method is to go by marks obtained at the qualifying examination as well as in the entrance examination, .(k) The Selection Committee has completely given a go-by to the academic merits of the petitioner and that resulted in not selecting the petitioner under the Sports Category. 7. The 2nd respondent filed a detailed counter affidavit with annexures. It is stated therein that the committee scrutinised the applications and ranked the candidates and since the special reservation is for promoting ‘sports’ the performance of the candidates alone was considered for the purpose of ranking as done in the previous years and neither the community nor the marks was considered, and only according to the evaluation of certificates in ‘sports’ submitted by the applicants, selections were made under the special category. The petitioner was placed in the 38th rank and hence he was not selected under the special category because of his lower ranking in either categories. It is further stated in the counter that the very purpose of ear-marking under the Special Category in sports is to encourage eminent sportsman to secure admission in the professional colleges. 8. The petitioner was placed in the 38th rank and hence he was not selected under the special category because of his lower ranking in either categories. It is further stated in the counter that the very purpose of ear-marking under the Special Category in sports is to encourage eminent sportsman to secure admission in the professional colleges. 8. We have heard the arguments of Mr.V.P.Venkat, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.Shanmugam learned Special Government Pleader for Education and perused the annexures filed along with the counter affidavit of the 2nd respondent. 9. The matter, in our view, lies in a very narrow campus, and we shall deal with the same presently as argued by the respective counsel on either side. .10. Admittedly, the petitioner claimed admission in the B.E. Degree Course for 1993-94 both under the General Category and also under the Special Category viz., ‘Sports Man Quota’. The petitioner has secured 164.25 marks in Maths, Physics and Chemistry put together and 81.30 marks in Entrance Test. Since his rank the merit list is 10431, he was not selected for admission under the General Category. So far as the admission for the Special Category (Sports Quota) is concerned, the 2nd respondent had received 1,000 applications against 20 seats reserved for that category. With a view to screen the applicants, a committee was constituted consisting of Physical Directors from Anna University, Vivekananda College and the Liaison Officer of the 2nd respondent. 11. The Committee evaluated the certificates submitted by the applicants claiming seats under the Special Category. The criteria adopted for ranking the candidates for seeking admission under the above category is set out in Annexure II to the counter-affidavit. The said criteria appears, in our view, to be fair and reasonable. By adopting the criteria, all the certificates of the candidates including that of the petitioner were evaluated and on the basis of such evaluation, the petitioner was assigned 38th rank. Therefore, the petitioner was not selected under this category also. As a matter of fact, the committee consisted of two experts in the field of sports and they evaluated the sports certificates produced by the candidates by adopting the criteria set out in Annexure II. 12. Therefore, the petitioner was not selected under this category also. As a matter of fact, the committee consisted of two experts in the field of sports and they evaluated the sports certificates produced by the candidates by adopting the criteria set out in Annexure II. 12. It is pertinent to mention that it is not the case of the petitioner that the committee either acted arbitrarily or that proper credit marks was not given to the certificates produced by him. The respondents have also produced the list of candidates selected under Special Category and the points awarded to each one of the candidates in the order of merit. We have carefully perused the said list and find that the candidates were selected purely on the basis of merit and their performance at the National State Level etc. .13. So far as the petitioner is concerned, he only produced certificates which show that he has taken part in basket ball game at the District/Inter District and Regional level only whereas the 20 selected candidates had taken part at the national and State level tournaments. The ranking assigned by the Selection Committee depending upon the performance of the candidates in the sports and in particular, the ranking assigned to the petitioner cannot be found fault with. Consequently, we are unable to accept the contention of Mr.V.P.Venkat, learned counsel for the petitioner. 14. Mr.V.P.Venkat, learned counsel for the. petitioner invited our attention to the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Khalid Hussain v. Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Health Department, A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 2074 and placed reliance on the observations contained in paragraphs 5 and 6. The said judgment, in our view, does not assist the petitioner in any manner. 15. In the present case, we have already noticed the criteria adopted by the Selection Committee. This is not a case where the petitioner can claim that he stands on par with or excel the 20 selected candidates/Therefore, there is no necessity to go by the marks obtained in the qualifying examination. The comparative eminence of the candidates has already been decided by the Expert Committee by adopting a reasonable criteria. .16. This is not a case where the petitioner can claim that he stands on par with or excel the 20 selected candidates/Therefore, there is no necessity to go by the marks obtained in the qualifying examination. The comparative eminence of the candidates has already been decided by the Expert Committee by adopting a reasonable criteria. .16. Paragraph 6.4 of the Informations and Instructions to Candidates for B.E. Degree Course Admissions, 1994, reads as follows: ."‘Candidates coming under the categories of items 16 to 20 of para.4 above need not write the Entrance Examination but they have to satisfy the marks and age rule, etc., prescribed for BE. admissions. Candidates who are applying for the reserved special categories of seats under items 1 to 15 and 21 of para 4 and admission under reciprocal basis in the other State Engineering Colleges should satisfy the rules stipulated for admission and should also write the Entrance Examination 94. Selection for items 1 to 13 and 21 will be based on their ranking on the total marks (out of 300) obtained in the qualifying Examination and Entrance Examination. For selection under items 14 and 15 the ranking of the candidates shall be based on their proficiency in their respective fields alone. Representation in District/ State/National shall be considered as State Level/ National Level/International Level. If there is any vacancy under anyone of the items under the Special reservation till a week before the last date prescribed by the Universities in Tamil Nadu it shall be filled up with the candidates from the common waiting list." .17. As a matter of fact, paragraph 6.4 of the Informa-tioh and Instructions to Candidates for admission to B.E. Degree Course 1994 clearly inter alia provides that for selection under Sportsman Category, the ranking of the candidates shall be based on the proficiency in the respective fields alone, Therefore, the above decision of the Supreme Court does not assist the petitioner. 18. The reliance placed by Mr.V.P.Venkat learned counsel for the petitioner on the decision reported in Senthil Kumar v. The Government of Tamil Nadu, 1992 W.L.R. 728 is again will not be of any assistance to the petitioner. 18. The reliance placed by Mr.V.P.Venkat learned counsel for the petitioner on the decision reported in Senthil Kumar v. The Government of Tamil Nadu, 1992 W.L.R. 728 is again will not be of any assistance to the petitioner. That was a case where consequent upon the undertaking given by the State before the Supreme Court to increase the Seats by 10% in the professional courses for the academic year 1992-93 and as to how those seats should be filled up. 19. Equally, the decision reported in Dr.A.Rathnaswami v. Director of Medical Education, 1986 W.L.R. 207, does not come to the aid of the petitioner and the principle laid down in the said decision is that the prospectus issued should be scrupulously adhered to and followed. Though the petitioner has in Ground No.(f) has alleged violation of the prospectus, the materials placed by the respondents pertaining to the constitution of the Expert Committee and the criteria adopted by them in awarding marks, does not show that the respondents have violated the conditions set out in the prospectus. 20. All the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner fail. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly the same is dismissed. However, we award no costs.