Judgment : 1. Thepetitioner in the instant cases had knocked at the doors of this Court even in the year 1995 in W.P.No.2141 of 1995 for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Tamil Nadu Cricket Association to include him in the Tamil Nadu Under-13 Cricket Team for 1994-95 season. He had two grievances then. One was that the person who was not in the list of 48 candidates prepared earlier had been selected and (ii) three persons. Who were over-aged and not eligible, had been included in the list of 15 candidates. The writ petition was closed on the basis of the submission made on behalf of the respondent Association that one candidate by name Sridhar who was studying along with the petitioner in the same school was selected on the basis of merit and his name was included in the list and so far as the three candidates who were said to be over-aged it was stated that they had not been included in the list of 15 persons who constituted the team, but they came o the ground for the purpose of practising and it was also stated that the petitioner himself could join them for the practice. The statements were placed on record and the writ petition was closed. 2. After that, the petitioner filed a writ petition in 1999 in W.P.No.9465 of 1999 praying for a declaration that Clause 4.5 Note (xii)(1), Sub-clauses (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. The petitioner was an applicant for admission to the Engineering Course under the special category for eminent sportsmen. He had participated in the 43rd National Schools Games in 1997. He had captained the team in the C.K.Naidu tournament held in New Delhi during 1997-98. According to him, 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 Authorities of India. As such he was eligible to be considered in the special Category for the 7 seats allotted by the Anna University for the first year B.E. courses. 3. As such he was eligible to be considered in the special Category for the 7 seats allotted by the Anna University for the first year B.E. courses. 3. Therelevant clause ran as follows: “All 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 the purpose of selection during the academic year 1999-2000, sports person proficient in the following games would be preferred: Table Tennis, Tennis, Athletics, Rowing, Swimming, Shuttle, Badminton, Basket Ball-Men and Volley Ball-Man. .(b) If suitable sports person proficient in the above games are not available, the sports persons proficient in the following games would be considered: Chess, Football, Hockey, Cricket. Other things being equal, preference would be based on the requirements of the University to be assessed by the Selection Committee.” It was contended on behalf of the petitioner in that writ petition that there was a classification within classification, which was illegal and a discrimination against in particular cricket. 4. It was contended on behalf of the Registrar, Anna University, which was the fifth respondent therein, that the impugned clause was only a source of admission and it was just a question of preference of one game over another. It was further contended that one Vijay Sai Suri, who represented the State in Cricket at the National level for under 19 in the year 1998-99 had been selected as the one amount the seven candidates for Anna University and since he had come under the category of National level participant, he had been preferred. It was also contended that cricket was played only in 11 countries in the whole world as compared to other events and preference might vary from year to year since it was the object of the University to cover as far as possible more number of games and sports within the limited seats available. 5. Shanmugam, J. set aside the classification within classification and quashed Clause 4.5 Note (xii) (1) Sub-clauses (a) and (b) in the information and Instructions to Candidates seeking admission to the Tamil Nadu Engineering Admissions for the year 1999-2000 as arbitrary and unconstitutional. 5. Shanmugam, J. set aside the classification within classification and quashed Clause 4.5 Note (xii) (1) Sub-clauses (a) and (b) in the information and Instructions to Candidates seeking admission to the Tamil Nadu Engineering Admissions for the year 1999-2000 as arbitrary and unconstitutional. However, the learned Judge held that, “The petitioner could not have any grievance in so far as his non-selection on merits was concerned, since it had been conceded that an eminent cricket player had been selected under the sports quota. The petitioner was allowed to assail the impugned clause as a person aggrieved and interested in the matter.” As regards the contention of the University that preference would vary from year to year depending upon the requirement, the learned Judge observed that it would lead to an arbitrary decision of selecting and choosing the person for a particular discipline for a particular year. The learned Judge ultimately held that the University should have a uniform preference for all sports and events for selection to the special category of eminent sportsmen. 6. The petitioner filed a petition for review of the order dated 11. 1999. His prayer for a fresh selection on the basis that the note “quashed” was illegal, was not granted. It was contended in the review petition by the petitioners father representing as party in person that there should be a fresh selection. By an elaborate order Shanmugham, J. rejected the application. There were 733 applicants claiming special reservation. The petitioner was ranked 119 in the overall ranking. But, he was not found selected for the 37 seats set apart for the reserved category. It was contended on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner was not considered to be eligible as a person in any of the categories, viz., International/National/State level or District/State National level. The issue whether the petitioner satisfied any of those requirements was not raised by the petitioner. It was contended on behalf of the respondent that none of the certificates produced by the petitioner was of National level or State level for consideration of the petitioner. The learned Judge dismissed the review application holding as follows: “The writ petition was concerned only with the preferred games and not as to the qualification of the petitioner. It was contended on behalf of the respondent that none of the certificates produced by the petitioner was of National level or State level for consideration of the petitioner. The learned Judge dismissed the review application holding as follows: “The writ petition was concerned only with the preferred games and not as to the qualification of the petitioner. Hence, it is not open to the petitioner now to raise the contention that he should have been treated as an International level or National level participant.” 7. After this the present writ petition has been filed for a declaration in the absence of separate counselling for candidates under sports quota, the entire admission done by the counselling without any communication to the candidates applied under this quota of selection is arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and the same is to be declared void ab initio for the year 1999-2000 and that a fresh selection should be conducted and the petitioner may be allotted with a seat in Anna University as per eligibility. 8. It is statedin the affidavit in support of the present writ petition that only from the counter filed in the said writ petition for the first time the petitioner learnt that as many as 733 candidates had applied against sports quota and 114 candidates were called for special counselling, that 37 candidates were selected and out of that 7 candidates were allotted to Anna University and that the petitioner had not satisfied the criteria of selection under this category. The petitioner had participated in the national level games in cricket in Vinod Mankad and C.K.Naidu Trophies for Under 16 and Under 19 respectively and these tournaments had been recognised by the Board of Cricket Control of India. the respondent had not seen the petitioners certificates at all and had failed to scrutinise the same with reference to documents that had been produced in the other writ petition. There is no provision for conducting special counselling for sports quota. There is no provision set out in the instruction and information to the candidates for Engineering Admission for the year 19992000. This query was raised by the learned Judge in the other writ petition and the same was not answered as there was no provision in the rules for conducting separate counselling under sports quota as has been done by the respondent. This query was raised by the learned Judge in the other writ petition and the same was not answered as there was no provision in the rules for conducting separate counselling under sports quota as has been done by the respondent. It is further contended that under sports quota of selection it is only the level of participation in the game, number of years of participation and the latest participation which are the basis for the rankings and the marks scored by the candidates would take a secondary place. The petitioner is fully qualified for selection under the sports quota. Ranking has to be done to all the candidates with reference to the level of participation and the number of years of participation and the latest participation together with the marks on the secondary place. Now that the classification of games has also been taken away by the decision in the earlier writ petition, the task in now simple. The petitioners mark is second highest among the candidates selected for Anna University and he should have been given Computer Science Branch in the normal course since the other candidate with the highest mark has opted for electronics Branch of study the selection had not been done in a fair manner. The petitioner was forced to accept the payment seat in a self-financing college against his wish and his objections were over ruled on the date of counselling on 8. 1999 under the pretext that he might lose even that opportunity if he did not opt in time. 9. It is in these circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed. The prayer is for the issue of the writ of declaration to decision that in the absence of specific provision to conduct a separate counselling for candidates under sports quota, the entire admission done by the counselling without any communication to the candidates applied under this quota of selection is arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional and the same has to be declared as void ab initio for the Tamil Nadu Engineering 1999-2000 and that a fresh selection should be conducted and the petitioner may be allotted with a seat in Anna University as per eligibility. 10. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Secretary, selection Committee. 10. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Secretary, selection Committee. It is stated in the counter as follows: Out of 733 candidates who had applied under sports quota, the Committee found that only 114 candidates had fulfilled the eligibility criteria and therefore he was not called for the interview. He had played Cricket only in School level games conducted by the School games Federation of India and he had not represented the State or District or National Level. As per the certificate received from the Tamil Nadu Cricket Association, C.K.Naidu & Vino Mankad Trophy Tournaments in which the petitioner participated were conducted by the School games Federation of India and not recognised by the Board of Control for Cricket in India. TNCA and BCCI are necessary parties and ought to have been impleaded as party respondents. Out of 114 candidates, who were found eligible to be considered under sports quota, the Selection Committee selected and enlisted 47 candidates as against actual vacancies of 37 in all the institutions/colleges including Anna University based on their proficiency in sports/games, the year and level of participation applying the rule of exclusion as per criteria and rearranged them according to their inter se academic merit and called them for counselling. Out of the 47 selected candidates, admissions to Anna University were made based on preference of games set out in the note to para 4.5 clause (xii) which note had been struck down by this Court in W.P.No.9465 of 1999. The mere striking down by this Court would not automatically entitle the petitioner to admission to Anna University or any other institutions without reference to clause (xii) and the criteria for selection thereto minus the note which govern admission to all colleges/ institutions including Anna University. Since the petitioner was not found eligible even to be considered for selection under clause (xii) read with the criteria for selection (minus note), he is not entitled to get admission to Anna University or any other institution against sports quota. He got admitted to Sathyabama Engineering College in Mechanical Engineering Branch as per his choice based on his academic mark and he is continuing his study there. Out of 7 seats in Anna University reserved for eminent sportsmen, 3 seats are allotted to women candidates. He got admitted to Sathyabama Engineering College in Mechanical Engineering Branch as per his choice based on his academic mark and he is continuing his study there. Out of 7 seats in Anna University reserved for eminent sportsmen, 3 seats are allotted to women candidates. Under the single window system, the candidates having higher academic merit have a pre-emptive right of choosing the college and branch of their choice. In the list of 47 candidates. 7 candidates who were selected by Anna University, had secured more marks than the petitioner. Out of the 7 persons except Vijay Sai Suri, others could not secure admission to Anna University in view of the note prescribing preferences of games by Anna University. Now that the note has been struck down by this Court. If there are any vacancies they have to be offered only to those six candidates who had been denied admission to Anna University earlier. Even if the petitioner had been included in the selection list, he could not have secured admission in Anna University. All the vacancies in Anna University against sports quota had been filled up and there are no vacancies. In the interest of justice the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.9495 of 1999 has to be applied prospectively since the first semester as also the semester examination are over and the second semester has already commenced. Anna University follows semester system while the other colleges including the college in which the petitioner is studying follow the annual pattern. Even if fresh selection under sports quota is considered as per the pleading of the petitioner, the question of admitting any fresh candidates in the first semester at this juncture is not feasible as the proficiency of already admitted candidates, who are now in the second semester will be affected. 11. A counter has been filed by the Registrar of Anna University adopting the detailed counter affidavit filed by the Chairman of Selection Committee. 12. A detailed rejoinder to the counter has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. It is contended in the rejoinder that the respondent had not allowed the petitioner to appear before the Selection Committee with his original Certificates to establish his proficiency in the game of cricket as instructed by the Government in letter No.(Ms.) 87, Higher Education, dated 13. A detailed rejoinder to the counter has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. It is contended in the rejoinder that the respondent had not allowed the petitioner to appear before the Selection Committee with his original Certificates to establish his proficiency in the game of cricket as instructed by the Government in letter No.(Ms.) 87, Higher Education, dated 13. 1998 wherein the Government have clearly instructed that the system of verification and attestation of certificates by the Sports Authority of Tamil Nadu has been disposed with and the original certificates of sports persons be verified at the time of interview by the Committee. The rank allotted to the petitioner as 119 based on his marks is not correct. Rule (xii) (b) of paragraph 4.5 clearly states that in sports quota it is only the level of participation in the game and number of years of participation are the basis for rankings. The rule has been ignored. The petitioner with three times latest participation at National level (Junior) should be placed above in rank and according to his turn, he should have been allotted with Computer Science Branch as Study as per his choice. The other candidates stated to be above the petitioner have not approached this Court for relief. They have taken their allotment as per their choice in other self-financing institutions and as of now the petitioner with 246.14 marks stands second in the rank of allotees to Anna University as per marks. In paragraph 15 of the counter affidavit, the respondent has stated that out of 7 seats reserved for eminent sportsmen, 3 seats are allotted to women candidates. But, other than Vijay Sai Suri who had been selected for proficiency in Cricket, the six candidates selected have scored less marks than the petitioner and there is only one woman candidates among them being K.Sangeetha with Register No.2114002 and false information has been furnished to this Court. 13. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the guidelines for selection under sports quota the petitioner satisfied all the criteria. The petitioner should have been called for the interview and the original certificates should have been verified and rankings should have been based on merits as per the Government Instructions in No.(Ms) 87 Higher Education Department, dated 13. 1998. The petitioner should have been called for the interview and the original certificates should have been verified and rankings should have been based on merits as per the Government Instructions in No.(Ms) 87 Higher Education Department, dated 13. 1998. The respondent had arbitrarily short-listed 114 candidates for reasons best known to them for the purpose of interview without any basis. Out of these candidates, 47 candidates were finally selected and 7 among them were allotted to Anna University. The details of the 7 selected candidates were furnished by the respondent in the Review Application No.121 of 1999 in W.P.No.9495 of 1999 wherein it was found that all the candidates were only upto the National level (Junior) participation in the respective games. Some of them had not participated even at this level in the preceding three years. The candidate by name K. Dwarak with Registration No.1111604 in the faculty of Game of Chess did not participate in any event during 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99 due to knee problem, according to his own admission available on record. There is no rule to short-list the candidates to 114 according to the whims and fancies of the Government. The only reason furnished by the respondent that the tournaments in which the petitioner participated were not recognised by Tamil Nadu Cricket Association is an after-thought and not tenable under law since the Association was a registered association under the Societies Act, whereas the petitioner has participated in the tournament recognised by the Ministry of Education, NCT, Government of India, New Delhi, and the selections were done by the Directorate of School Education Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, That is under the angle of Sports Federation of India and is recognised under the rules issued by the respondent. The Schools and the University teams are selected by the authorities concerned and not by TNCA or any other organisation. Anna University and Madras University teams were selected by the University Authorities themselves in the recent Vizzy Trophy Cricket Tournament at the National level and not TNCA. Gross injustice has been done to the petitioner. With three preceding years at the National level participation (Junior) the petitioner should be the top ranking candidate for selection under sports quota in Anna University. 14. The learned counsel for the respondent made the following submissions: The prospectus issued for the year 1999 relating to admissions to the first year of B.E./B.Tech./B.Arch. With three preceding years at the National level participation (Junior) the petitioner should be the top ranking candidate for selection under sports quota in Anna University. 14. The learned counsel for the respondent made the following submissions: The prospectus issued for the year 1999 relating to admissions to the first year of B.E./B.Tech./B.Arch. Degree Courses in Tamil Nadu does not make any reference to any University/College or Branch. The prospectus was issued by the Co-ordination Committee through the Secretary, Engineering Admissions. It is common for Anna University, Government, Aided and Self-financing Engineering Colleges including Regional Engineering College, Tiruchirapallai, and IRTT, Erode. There is no separate application for admission to Anna University or any other institution irrespective of his academic merits and rights of the candidates above him. In the list of applicants against sports quota numbering 733, the petitioner ranked 119 as per academic merit. As per the decision of the Supreme Court in, A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 2074, the list was prepared as per academic merit for future convenience and this list should not be confused with the selection list. There were only 37 seats put together in all the institutions referred to above including the 7 in Anna University allotted to eminent sports persons. The Committee, on verification of the certificates enclosed with the applications, found that only 114 will be eligible to be considered. There was no short-listing as claimed by the petitioner. As the said list did not contain the name of the petitioner, he was not called for the interview. In the interview, the Selection Committee selected 47 candidates based on the criteria laid down by the Supreme Court for initial selection in Khalid Hussains case, noted above and applying the rule of preference enumerated in para 4.5 (xii) of the prospectus. The additional ten candidates were selected more to meet the eventuality of some of the candidates up in the list not joining the course. It does not mean that any additional seats were created or anyone beyond 37 was offered or given admission. The petitioner, though he was not selected against sports quota, he was called for counselling as per his merits, in general category in which he opted for Mechanical Engineering in Sathyabama College of Engineering. In the meantime, the petitioner challenged the note to clause 4.5 in W.P.No.9465 of 1999. The petitioner, though he was not selected against sports quota, he was called for counselling as per his merits, in general category in which he opted for Mechanical Engineering in Sathyabama College of Engineering. In the meantime, the petitioner challenged the note to clause 4.5 in W.P.No.9465 of 1999. The note had been included in the prospectus at the request of the Anna University as a place of information to candidates at the time of counselling for admission after selection and not for consideration of the Selection Committee at the time of selection regarding the preference of games based on the facilities available in the University, so that the candidates could choose the college where facilities of the games in which they were proficient were available. The Selection Committee was not concerned only in selection of candidates for admission to the various courses in the State as a whole and not to any particular institution like Anna University or Branch. It has been specifically observed in the order in the writ petition referred to above that the petitioner could not have any grievance in so far as non-selection on merits was concerned since it had been conceded that an eminent cricket player had been selected under the sports quota. The order in the writ petition was not challenged by way of any appeal. The review petition filed by the petitioner was also dismissed. Neither in the earlier writ petition nor in the review petition the Selection Committee consisting of members noted in the counter set up for selection of candidates against sports quota for 1999-2000 was made a party. Even in the present writ petition the petitioner has not chosen to implead the Selection Committee as a party for selection of candidates against sports quota the members of which are set out in the counter. In the order in the review petition which was dismissed on 212. 1999 it is pointed out in para 1 that in the earlier order the petitioners prayer for fresh selection was not granted and that the petitioner could not have any grievance for his non-selection on merits. In the order in the review petition which was dismissed on 212. 1999 it is pointed out in para 1 that in the earlier order the petitioners prayer for fresh selection was not granted and that the petitioner could not have any grievance for his non-selection on merits. It is also further observed in the review petition that the issue whether the petitioner had satisfied any of the requirements was not raised by him and that it was not open to the petitioner to contend in the review petition that he should have been treated as an International level or a National level participant. This observation read in conjunction with what is stated in para.1 would show that the petitioner had conceded that an eminent cricket player had been selected on merits. Whatever contentions were available to the petitioner should have been raised before the learned Judge. The petitioner also did not seek any led reserving any right to file a fresh petition. The present writ petition is therefore barred by principles of constructive res judicata. 15. The learned counsel for the respondent also in this connection relied on the following two judgments: (1) Maharashtra Vikrikar Karamchari Sanghatan v. State of Maharashtra Maharashtra Vikrikar Karamchari Sanghatan v. State of Maharashtra Maharashtra Vikrikar Karamchari Sanghatan v. State of Maharashtra , (2000)2 S.C.C. 552 and (2) Uda Ram v. Central State Farm , A.I.R. 1998 Raj. 186. 16. The committee considered the various certificates enclosed to the application and found that the petitioner was ineligible to be considered against sports quota. He cannot rely upon any certificate not enclosed to his application for selection. The observation dated 22. 2000 made in the present writ petition is qualified by the further observation that the petitioner should be otherwise eligible. Again admission to second year is governed by rules of migration/transfer applicable to the particular institution to which migration/transfer is sought for. If the petitioner wants migration/transfer to Anna University and that too in computer engineering, he has to approach Anna University and satisfy the rules of both Anna University and Madras University for such migration/transfer. Again the DTE has to agree to such migration and pass orders. If the petitioner wants migration/transfer to Anna University and that too in computer engineering, he has to approach Anna University and satisfy the rules of both Anna University and Madras University for such migration/transfer. Again the DTE has to agree to such migration and pass orders. It has been held in National Institute of Mental Research and Neuro Science v. Dr.K.Kalyana Raman and others National Institute of Mental Research and Neuro Science v. Dr.K.Kalyana Raman and others National Institute of Mental Research and Neuro Science v. Dr.K.Kalyana Raman and others , A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 1806 that the Selection Committee need not give reasons. It is also not the case of the petitioner that the Committee had not jurisdiction to short-list. Again, it would be evident from the list of eligible candidates that the first 17 candidates therein have higher academic marks, but during selection 10 of them were eliminated applying the rule of preference referred to already. In the selection list the first seven had secured higher academic marks than the petitioner. But only one of them, viz. Vijai Sai Suri, a Cricketer, could opt for admission to Anna University. Even conceding without admitting that the order in W.P.No.9465 of 1999 can be applied retrospectively. The petitioner is not entitled to admission in Anna University since there are six other meritorious candidates apart from Vijai Sai Suri who were denied the opportunity of opting for Anna University, merely because the petitioner alone has come to this Court and the other six above him had not approached this Court, it will not entitle him for a direction as prayed for. In support the learned Counsel relied on the following judgments: (1) State of Kerala v. T.P.Roshana State of Kerala v. T.P.Roshana State of Kerala v. T.P.Roshana , (1979)1 S.C.C. 572 and (2) Dr.Santhosh Kumari v. Union of India Dr.Santhosh Kumari v. Union of India Dr.Santhosh Kumari v. Union of India , (1995)1 S.C.C. 289. 17. Let us now see whether the petitioner has made out a case for invoking Art.226 of the Constitution. The petitioner filed W.P.No.13982 of 1999 against the Government and the Secretary, Engineering Admission, for a direction to allot a sent in information Technology in PSG College of Technology, Coimbatore, which was dismissed by this Court. 18. The petitioner subsequently approached this Court challenging the provision relating to preference among the various sports. The petitioner filed W.P.No.13982 of 1999 against the Government and the Secretary, Engineering Admission, for a direction to allot a sent in information Technology in PSG College of Technology, Coimbatore, which was dismissed by this Court. 18. The petitioner subsequently approached this Court challenging the provision relating to preference among the various sports. The note was struck down by this Court. At the same time, the learned Judge held that the petitioner could not have any grievance in so far as his non-selection on merits was concerned, since it had been conceded that an eminent cricket player had been selected under the sports quota. The case in the writ petition was considered on the ground that the petitioner was an applicant for sports quota and that he was an interested person. The petitioner sought for review of the order. The learned Judge rejected the case of the petitioner that the impugned clause of the prospectus having been quashed as illegal, there must be a fresh selection. While rejecting the review petition, the learned judge observed as follows: “The clause concerned with was the note on the preference of Anna University and the preferred games. The question whether the petitioner is an eminent sports person was not an issue. It is submitted that there were 733 candidates claiming special reservation. The petitioner was ranked 119 in the overall ranking. But, he was not found selected for the 37 seats set apart for the reserved category. The issue whether the petitioner had satisfied any of those requirements was not raised by the petitioner before the learned judge. This issue, in my considered view, ought to have been raised before the learned judge in the writ petition. In as much as the same had not been raised before the learned judge, the petitioner cannot be allowed to raise it by way of another writ petition. The learned Judge categorically held that “hence it is not open to the petitioner now to raise the contention that he should have been treated as an International level or National level participant.” I am of the view that having failed to raise the issue before the learned Judge, it is not open to the writ petitioner to raise the issue now. 19. 19. In Maharashtra Vikrikar Karamchari Sanghatan v. State of Maharashtra Maharashtra Vikrikar Karamchari Sanghatan v. State of Maharashtra Maharashtra Vikrikar Karamchari Sanghatan v. State of Maharashtra , (2000)2 S.C.C. 552 the Supreme Court upheld the ground of res Judicata constructive res judicata raised in the case before it in almost identical circumstances where in the earlier proceedings merits of the case were also considered and decided. 20. Let us also have a look at the merits of the case. In , A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 2074, it has been held by the Supreme Court that,“where no guidelines are provided for determination of comparative eminence as between different candidates failing within same class. Selection has to be made on the basis of academic merit and not pre-eminence in sports.“ In that case, dealing with the provisions in prospectus for the year 1986-87 for, admission to M.B.B.S. the Supreme Court observed that, “all that the rule does is to lay down a rule of preference. A candidate who had participated at international level would exclude a candidate participating at National level and a person who had participated at National level would exclude a person participating at State level. The rule itself does not provide for determination of comparative eminence as between different candidates falling within the same classes but as between sportsmen who have participated at international level, National level and State level. It only provides for the rule of exclusion of one by the other.” 21. S.S.Subramani, J. in Charu Kalanidhi, etc. v. State of Tamil Nadu and two others, W.P.No. 12602 of 1997 by order dated 22. 1998 has followed the decision of the Supreme Court in , A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 2074. 22. It has been held in Dr.A.Rathinaswamy v. Director of Medical Education Dr.A.Rathinaswamy v. Director of Medical Education Dr.A.Rathinaswamy v. Director of Medical Education, 1986 Writ L.R. 207 by a Division Bench of this Court that, “It is highly desirable that a summary or an essence of the relevant norms and rules governing admissions are set out in the prospectus themselves or their existence at least indicated therein”. The Division Bench however observed that, “an omission to do so shall not be taken advantage of by any one to negate and ignore the very norms and rules.” Norms have indeed been set out in the present case and it cannot be said that they are in the present case and it cannot be said that they are in any way opposed to the guidelines provided by the Supreme Court in , A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 2074. 23. It has been held in Admission Committee, C.I.R. 1995 v. Anand Kumar Admission Committee, C.I.R. 1995 v. Anand Kumar Admission Committee, C.I.R. 1995 v. Anand Kumar, (1998)8 S.C.C. 333 by the Supreme Court that, “where there are conflicting versions of students and that of Selection Committee, in the absence of mala fides or any other material, the High Court should have preferred to accept the Selection Committees version. The Selection Committee cannot be required to justify each and every selection made which if done would amount to imposing an impossible burden on it.” There are no mala fides alleged and established in the present case. 24. As long as the Selection Committee observes procedural fairness, even if the Selection Committee does not give reasons for selecting candidate. Courts should be slow to interfere, National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Science v. Dr.K.Kalyana Raman National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Science v. Dr.K.Kalyana Raman National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Science v. Dr.K.Kalyana Raman, A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 1806. 25. Even otherwise, the Selection Committee had found that the petitioner did not satisfy the criteria of an eminent sportsman. The participation by the petitioner in the Vino Mankad / C.K.Naidu Trophy Tournaments conducted by the School Games Federation of India is not recognised by the Board of Control, Cricket of India. Such being the case, it is not open to the petitioner to contend that he satisfied the criteria. Again, it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the other candidates above him had not questioned the selection process and therefore he should be given a seat. Those persons have not been made parties here. Their case has not been heard. Merely because they have not come before this Court. It does not mean that they will not have any objection to petitioner being given a seat over their claim. 26. Those persons have not been made parties here. Their case has not been heard. Merely because they have not come before this Court. It does not mean that they will not have any objection to petitioner being given a seat over their claim. 26. It has been held in Dr.Santhosh Kumari v. Union of India Dr.Santhosh Kumari v. Union of India Dr.Santhosh Kumari v. Union of India, (1995)1 S.C.C. 289 that, “even if candidates with higher merit do not approach the court, while candidates with lower merit having approached the court, admission “should be made according to merit.” 27. As regards K.Dwarak, it is seen that he had scored more marks than the petitioner, which is evident from the counter affidavit filed by the Selection Committee. He has scored 249.44 marks while the petitioner has scored 2414. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that Dwarak who got selected, had not participated in any Chess Tournament at the National Level or at the State Level and in fact he ought not to have been selected. The Chairman of the Selection Committee for Sports Quota has filed an additional counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents trying to justify the selection of Dwarak. The Chairman of the Selection Committee for Sports Quota has filed an additional counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents trying to justify the selection of Dwarak. It is stated in the affidavit that the entire criteria for selection lay down a rule of preference and the same has to be read with the penultimate para of para 5.1 at page 16 of the Information and Instructions to the candidates which is to the following effect: “For selection under items 16, 18 and 19, the selection of the candidates shall be based on the proficiency in their respective fields alone, but branch and college allocation will be based on marks only.” and according to the Chairman of the Selection committee, since Dwarak claimed to be proficient in Chess, he was considered along with five other candidates claiming to be proficient in Chess and out of the said six candidates, his performance was the best and others had less number of participation than Dwarak and during th interview Dwarak had also produced the Certificate having represented the District in 1999, that the Selection Committee had taken the latest participation and preferred the same over persons having earlier participation, that the Selection Committee had construed the provision only in that manner and in any event, Dwarak having not been made a party in the proceedings, his selection cannot be challenged. No doubt, on the point raised with regard to the non-impleading of Dwarak, there is no answer on the side of the petitioner. 28. To get over this, Mr.Vijay Narayan submitted that as against 65 students for Electrical and Electronic Engineering, only 58 students were studying at present, Similarly, in Electronics and Communication, Computer Science and Mechanical Engineering subjects less than the eligible quota students were studying and therefore the claim of the petitioner could be favourably considered. The learned counsel also relied on the interim order already granted and submitted that it was not open to the University to refuse admission to the second year course if the petitioner succeeded in the writ petition. 29. The learned counsel also relied on the interim order already granted and submitted that it was not open to the University to refuse admission to the second year course if the petitioner succeeded in the writ petition. 29. Meeting this point the Registrar, Anna University, has filed an additional affidavit and it is stated therein that in as much as the petitioner had been admitted in Sathyabama Engineering College on his own option, his transfer/migration to second year to Anna University would be governed by the Rules of Migration framed by the Anna University and under the said Rules of the Anna University, there is no provision of migration from any private Engineering college like Sathyabama Engineering College to Anna University and even otherwise as per the Rules of Anna University, a candidate seeking transfer/migration to second year should have successfully completed the first year course subject to other eligible conditions and that the petitioner has not done this, in support of this, the leaned Counsel for the respondent relied on the marks obtained by the petitioner in Sathyabama Engineering College and out of ten first year papers the petitioner had passed only in five papers and he cannot therefore be migrated to second year B.E. Course in Anna University as per the rules. 30. Trying to explain this, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that it cannot be a condition precedent that a candidate for migration should complete the subjects and further submitted that in the event of his admission in the Anna University, he has to complete the arrear papers and then only he could go to the third semester, that the only question that has to be considered in an to whether he is qualified for allotment or not and that the statement that he has to complete the course to get migration certificate is not correct and even in Anna University a candidate could continue in the Second year irrespective or arrears of examination in the first year. It is not necessary to go into this question as to whether the petitioner can as a matter of course enter Anna University by migration. It is not necessary to go into this question as to whether the petitioner can as a matter of course enter Anna University by migration. Having regard to the finding earlier that the whole question relating to admission to Anna University ought to have been raised as an issue before the learned Judge in the earlier writ petition and the same not having been done, the present exercise appears to be unnecessary. 31. Again the person actually selected to Anna University who have scored less marks than the petitioner have not been made petitions here. It is not therefore possible to grant any relief to the petitioner. No doubt, it was observed in the course of the hearing in the writ petition that in the event of the writ petitioner succeeding in the writ petition, the University cannot refuse admission to the petitioner in the second year course. However, it is further stated in the order dated 2. 2000 that this would be further subject to the petitioner being otherwise eligible. In the written arguments submitted the petitioner has cleverly omitted the later part of the order.