Judgment :- Petitioner is an applicant for admission to the Engineering Course under a special category for eminent sportsmen. In this writ petition, he has prayed for a declaration to declare Clause 4.5 Note (xii) (1) Sub-clause (a) and (b) contained in the Information and Instructions to candidates seeking admission in Tamil Nadu Engineering Admissions, 1999 for the year 1999-2000 as arbitrary and unconstitutional. 2. Petitioner is an eminent sportsman in cricket in that he had participated in the 43rd National Schools Games in, 1997 and also captained the team in the G.K. Nayudu Tournament held in New Delhi during 1997-98. He further states that he had represented the State of Tamil Nadu in the category meant for persons under the age group of 16 and under the age group of 13 conducted by the Sports Authority of India. As such, he is eligible to be considered in the special category for the seven seats allotted by the Anna University for the I year B.E. Degree course. As per the Information and Instructions to candidates under Clause 4.5. it is stated as follows: “An eminent sports person (International. National/State level participants): No. of seats under D.O.T.E. -30 No. of seats for Anna University — 7 In the heading ‘Preferred Games’, it is stated as follows: Note: Anna University has certain preference for” Sports persons depending upon the requirement as given below:— (1) Preferred Games: (a) For purpose of selection during the academic year 1999-2000, sports person proficient in the following games will be preferred: Table Tennis, Tennis. Athletics, Rowing, Swimming, Shuttle Badminton. Basket Ball — Men, Volley Ball Men. (b) If suitable sports persons proficient in the above games are not available, the sports persons proficient in the following games will be considered: Chess, Football, Hockey. Cricket. Other things being equal, preference will be based on the requirements of the University to be assessed by the Selection Committee.” 3. The contention of the petitioner is that the preference among the various sports to a particular category of events is an illegal classification and a discrimination. He specifically objects to cricket being pushed down as the last game in the order of preference when for the people in the whole of India, it is a popular sport. Cricket cannot be delegated to a status of lesser importance and that will be arbitrary. He specifically objects to cricket being pushed down as the last game in the order of preference when for the people in the whole of India, it is a popular sport. Cricket cannot be delegated to a status of lesser importance and that will be arbitrary. It is further submitted that there is a classification within the classification in the name of preference, which is illegal. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the fifth respondent. At the outset, it is submitted that one Vijay Sai Suri, representing the State in Cricket at the national level for under 19 in the year 1998-99. has been selected as one among the seven candidates for Anna University. Since he has come under the category of national level participant, he has been preferred. It is further stated that the impugned clause is only a source of admission and it is just a question of preference of one game over another. It is submitted that no one has a fundamental right for a higher education and for getting admission on, the basis of concession extended to them under special peculiar circumstances. 5. Insofar as the sub-classification made in the impugned clause, it is justified on the ground that cricket is played only in 11 countries in the whole world as compared to other events. Cricket is not known in the Olympics, Asian Games, Common Wealth Games, European Games or the SAARC Games at all, whereas many individual games are played in most of the countries. It is further admitted that the other games and sports are preferred and that preference may vary from year to year since it is the object of the University to cover as far as possible, more number of sports and games within the limited seats available. 6. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and the respondent and considered the matter carefully. 7. The petitioner cannot have any grievance insofar as his non-selection on merits is concerned since it has been conceded that an eminent cricket player has been selected under the sports quota. However, learned counsel for the petitioner is right in assailing the impugned clause as a person aggrieved and interest in the matter. Petitioner is an applicant for a sports quota and that he is an interested person. However, learned counsel for the petitioner is right in assailing the impugned clause as a person aggrieved and interest in the matter. Petitioner is an applicant for a sports quota and that he is an interested person. Therefore, the question whether the University is entitled to have a preference within the various disciplines of sports is; a matter to be considered. According the respondent University, they have certain preference for sports persons depending upon their requirement. It is further admitted that the preference varies from year to year. The reservation of seats for a particular category is a concession and is a source of admission and not the reservation in the strict sense of the term. However, this source of admission should also stand the test of reasonableness. The admission that the preference varies from year to year and depending upon the requirement is likely to lead to an arbitrary decision of selecting and choosing a particular discipline for a particular year. 8. The petitioner counsel, though not raised in the grounds, specifically pleaded that the respondent University is taking decision to include a particular category of games in the first preference to suit then convenience so that persons of their choice can be admitted. Though no records are furnished, it is submitted that he will be able to establish this fact if details of all the admissions of the previous years are directed to be produced. However, without going into these allegations, it has to be seen that if the University were to include a preferred game, then it is likely to lead to an arbitrary fixation of a category. In other words, if there is an eminent sportsman in for example, Chess, Football, Hockey or Cricket, he cannot be denied the admission just because he does not come under the preferred games and in preference to these games, the University cannot be permitted to prefer Table Tennis, Tennis, Swimming etc. If that is permitted, suppose if there is an eminent sportsman in Hockey or Cricket, he will be able to get the reservation only if persons in the first category are not available. That means, even a person with a State level participation will have a preference over an International level participation will have a preference over an International level participant in Chess, Football, Hockey and Cricket. The source of selection is a concession shown for encouraging sports. That means, even a person with a State level participation will have a preference over an International level participation will have a preference over an International level participant in Chess, Football, Hockey and Cricket. The source of selection is a concession shown for encouraging sports. The University cannot choose between the various disciplines of sports. That will be discriminatory and an arbitrary treatment. The University cannot prefer or insist that a person should be eminent only in particular type of sports for the purpose of selection and cannot consider the other person eminent in certain other type of sports. Eminence in sports is acquired by ones aptitude and hard work. If a person has got good aptitude in Cricket or Hockey and he is able to perform, he must be preferred. The University cannot decide as to in which sports a person should be eminent. That will be contrary to the basic general principle that the student should be allowed to develop in their field of interest. That field should not be selected not be selected by the University. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents referred to a decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Shubhjot Singh v. Punjab University [1990 (1) S.L.R. 797]. In that case, the learned Judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court held that it is no ones right to claim that a particular game be included in the list provided in the prospectus. It is for the department to provide for such a list of games. The University has stated reasons for non-inclusion of Roller Skating Hockey on the ground that very few number of students are participating in this sport. The learned Judge agreed with the University that they have included the sports where there are maximum number of participants among the students. The judgment will not apply to the facts of this case, since the University varies the list of games every year, and that they give preference to one set of games over another set of games. There are no valid reasons as to why games like Cricket and Hockey be not included in the general list. 10. The judgment in Charu Kalanidhi v. State of Tamil Nadu (W.P. No. 12602 of 1997) dated 27.1.1998 also is of no help to the respondent. There are no valid reasons as to why games like Cricket and Hockey be not included in the general list. 10. The judgment in Charu Kalanidhi v. State of Tamil Nadu (W.P. No. 12602 of 1997) dated 27.1.1998 also is of no help to the respondent. The said judgment relates to the claim of allotment of branch after getting selection in the sports quota. The case of the University to decide the allotment of branch based on academic performance was upheld. 11. For all these reasons, the clause giving preference only to particular events should be set aside, and the University shall have a uniform preference for all sports and events for selection to the special category of eminent sportsmen. 12. While rejecting the claim of the petitioner for selection, the declaration sought for against the clause is ordered and it is hereby declared that Clause 4.5 Note (xii) (1) Sub-clause (a) and (b) in the Information and Instructions to candidates seeking admission to the Tamil Nadu Engineering Admissions for the year 1999-2000 is arbitrary and unconstitutional. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P. No. 13497 of 1999 is closed.