JUDGMENT M. Srinivasan, C.J.— Petitioner is challenging the selection of the third respondent to the B. Ed. training course held by the first respondent on the ground that he has secured more marks in the entrance test than the third respondent Admittedly, the petitioner had applied under the Sportsmen Category in the entrance test. He had secured 64 marks where as the third respondent had secured 51 marks According to the petitioner Clause 4 in the prospectus says very clearly that admission would be completely on the basis of merits in the pre-entrance test for B. Ed (Arts/ Science) conducted by the H. P. University and the candidate should satisfy all other conditions regarding admission Our attention is drawn to Clause 107 which reads "basis of selection of the of candidate- merit in the pie-entrance test conducted by H. P. University provided the candidate fulfilled all other conditions". Our attention is also drawn to Clause 10 4 (vii) which reads that in order to have convenience/precedence in the case gory of sportsman, the eligible candidate will give detailed account of which participation m the games and sports and shall also annexe certified copies of certificates alongwith the application The clause provides that m order to be eligible in the category of sportsman, a candidate should have represented the. University or the State in one of the games ft s contended that the petitioner having taken part in the inter university cross country games is eligible to apply under the Sportsmen category and having secured more marks than any other sportsman, who had applied under that category, he is entitled for admission as against the third respondent 2. The second respondent has filed a reply, in which it is stated that the third respondent has the highest performance in the field of sports as compared to the petitioner herein- It is pointed out that the third respondent has participated in games at National level in Hockey and inter University level in the same game as well as junior National Hockey Championship According to the reply, his performance is certainly more meritorious than that of the petitioner, who had participated only in one championship of inter University Cross-country. 3 It is the contention of the petitioner that the prospectus has not said anything about the competence of the candidate in the sports as against the marks secured by him in the pre-entrance test. Therefore, according to learned Counsel, if there is an eligible candidate, who applied under the Sportsmen categary, then his marks in the entrance test should be taken into account as against the marks of other eligible candidates in the category. There is no merit whatever in this contention and it is hereby rejected Once a reservation is made for outstanding sportsman then the first consideration to be taken into account by the authorities concerned is his competence in the sports and it is only such competence which should be compared with the other sportsmen, if there are two candidates of the same or equal competence in sports then the marks in the pre-entrance test may be taken into account for the purpose of selection. This is a basic principle of reservation. It need not be mentioned in the prospectus as such. If the contention of learned Counsel is accepted, there will be no meaning at all for reservation and no outstanding sportsman can get admission if he has not secured as many marks in the pre-entrance test as others. That will only be giving importance to competence in education or academic side and no importance whatever will be given to the sports side. The basis of reservation for sportsman can only be that he should be outstanding in the sports field. In this case, undoubtedly, the third respondent is more eminent in sports field than the present petitioner. 4. We do not find any mala fide whatever in the selection of the third respondent and as per Annexure RA, he is the most outstanding among the nine candidates who had applied under the sports category. 5. It is pointed out by learned Counsel for the petitioner that in the preliminary submissions contained in the reply filed by the second respondent, a reference is made to the instructions contained in Himachal Pradesh Government letter dated 8-11-1994. It is argued that a copy of the letter has not been produced and such letter cannot over-ride the prospectus. 5. It is pointed out by learned Counsel for the petitioner that in the preliminary submissions contained in the reply filed by the second respondent, a reference is made to the instructions contained in Himachal Pradesh Government letter dated 8-11-1994. It is argued that a copy of the letter has not been produced and such letter cannot over-ride the prospectus. Again, there is no merit in this contention The letter may contain only guidelines with regard to selection, but the basic principle is writ large on the face of the prospectus itself. As pointed out earlier, once a reservation is made for sportsman then it is eminence in the sports which should be taken into account as against the eminence on the academic side. 6. Learned Counsel has also drawn our attention to Annexure P-7t which is said to be a part of the prospectus issued by the University. Clause (6) in paragraph 11.2 states that while considering admission against sports quota preference would be given to such candidates who have represented in the Inter-Varsity /Inter-State competition in certain games, which are set out therein One of the games in the said clause is "Cross Country”. Learned Counsel contends that preference should have been given to the petitioner among the sportsmen who had applied for admission as he had taken part in Cross Country game and he had also secured more marts in the pre-entrance test than any other sportsmen. Again there is a fallacy in this argument. The question of preference would arise only if two sportsmen are of the same category. For example, if there are two sportsmen in the National Level then the question will be considered as to who should be preferred under this clause. If there are two sportsmen, who are not in the same category, say, one participated in the National level and the other in the State level, certainly the person in the National level has to be preferred and the aforesaid clause will not apply in such a case. 7 We do not find any error whatever in the selection of the third respondent. We hold that there is no merit in this writ petition and it is dismissed. Petition dismissed.