Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1835 (PNJ)

Devanshi Sharma v. Panjab University

2008-11-03

HEMANT GUPTA, NAWAB SINGH

body2008
Judgment Hemant Gupta, J. 1. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court claiming admission to Masters of Business Administration (MBA) in the University Business School, Panjab University, Chandigarh, against the seat meant forsports quota. 2. The petitioner graduated from Goswami Ganesh Dutt Sanatan Dharam College, Sector 32, Chandigarh, with 79% marks in the academic year 2007-08. The petitioner is a player of Korfball game and participated in Inter University Tournament as well as at State Level. The petitioner applied for admission in MBA Course at University Business School, Panjab University, Chandigarh, and also claimed seat under the sports category The petitioner appeared in the Entrance Test held on 18.11.2007 and obtained 71.25 percentile score \n the written examination. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that in terms of the conditions in the prospectus, the number of candidates to be called for Group Discussion and Personal Interview are contemplated to be equal to eight times of the number of seats in all the courses in each category. It was, thus, alleged that the total number of seats are 90 and, therefore, 720 candidates of general category would be called for Group Discussion and Personal Interview. Similar number of candidates were to be called in respect of other categories. 4. It is contended by the petitioner that total 8 seats were required to be filled up from amongst sports persons in view of 5% reservation based upon achievement in sports as per prospectus and, therefore, eight times i.e. 64 candidates were required to be called for Group Discussion and Personal Interview. However, the respondent-University has proceeded ahead in calling all the sports persons for Group Discussion and Personal Interview and on the basis of such Group Discussion and Personal Interview from amongst all the candidates who have applied against sports quota, merit list has been prepared. It has been, thus, alleged that calling of all the candidates who applied for seats against sports quota is in violation of the conditions published in the prospectus and, thus, admission granted to respondents No. 5 to 11 is in contravention of the conditions published in the prospectus. 5. On behalf of the respondent-University, it has been pointed out that the admission in the sports category in the University Business School have been made on the basis of legal opinion dated 12.08.2008 of the University Legal Retainer. 5. On behalf of the respondent-University, it has been pointed out that the admission in the sports category in the University Business School have been made on the basis of legal opinion dated 12.08.2008 of the University Legal Retainer. The relevant extract from the said opinion reads as under:- ".......A strict application or enforcement of Clause-1 (as also Clause 2) of the UBS Prospectus at page 15 would completely defeat the very object and purpose of sports reservation and invalidate any claim to the rationality of sports category as a separate class. The Abhinav Bindras of the sports world must be given pride of place/priority in the sports quota over those who may have better academic merit but are far poorer sportspersons, or else the sports quota or category must be abolished as a separate class in the system of admissions. To make the metaphor more technically precise, Olympians or international players in Category A must naturally and inevitably stand above national players in Category B. Quite obviously, Category A must stand above category C as well (and so on and forth). To allow a category C candidate to get a seat in the sports category as against a category A candidate, by a strict application of Clause 1 at page 15 of the UBS Prospectus, will reduce the very concept of reservation of sports to a mockery. The candidate at the top of the sports category after final sports gradation by the Directorate of Sports viz., Shalini is placed in the A-3 Grade i.e., "a person representing India in the Olympic Games/World Cup tournaments/Commonwealth Games/Afro Asian Games/Asian Games/ Asian Championships/World University Games (FlSU)/Davis Cup/Grand Slam/SAF Games". She has a CAT score of only 1.33% [far, far below the 64th candidate as per the CAT score viz Avinash Kumar with 9.90% marks]. The last or 25th eligible & graded candidate in the final sports list viz Harvinder Singh Johal, who has been graded as C-ll-ll [i.e. a person getting any of the first three positions in Inter-District/Union Territory Championships for Seniors"] a CAT score of 23.14% which is about 20 times higher than Ms. Shalinis CAT score. The last or 25th eligible & graded candidate in the final sports list viz Harvinder Singh Johal, who has been graded as C-ll-ll [i.e. a person getting any of the first three positions in Inter-District/Union Territory Championships for Seniors"] a CAT score of 23.14% which is about 20 times higher than Ms. Shalinis CAT score. Obviously, however, and that is the entire point, Ms Shalini is far superior to H.S Johal as a sportsperson [being an Olympian/World Cup/Commonwealth/Asian Games player while Johal is only an Inter-District/UT player] and, has, therefore, a far better claim to admission as a sportsperson. The 64th candidate in the CAT list viz. Avinash Kumar (referred to above) does not find place at all in the final sports list as graded by the Sports Directorate. Examples can be multiplied. It is apparent that Clause 1 of the UBS Prospectus at page 15 must yield place to the first principle of reservation for sports, if the sport category or quota is to be sustained in law. Merit in sports, and not the CAT/academic merit, must determine entitlement for admission in the sports category. Let admissions to be UBS against the Sports Quota be proceeded with as per merit of candidates in List III enclosed herewith, which is the final graded sports list, subject to clause (4) of Clause 9 at page 16 of the UBD Prospectus (the provision applicable in case of a tie within the, category), The "academic merit" referred to in the Clause 9(4) would include the GDPI score as well, apart from the CAT score, as expressly stated in the starred footnote at page 16 of the UBS Prospectus. As a necessary corollary, candidates in the enclosed List III should be called for GDPI immediately." The relevant extract from the prospectus relating to admission process reads as under: "1. Admission for these courses will be made on the basis of merit determined by scores of the candidates in CAT conducted by IIMs, followed by group discussion and personal interview. Candidates under various reserved, categories and Foreign/NRI category wil complete within their categories on same criteria. 3. Admission for these courses will be made on the basis of merit determined by scores of the candidates in CAT conducted by IIMs, followed by group discussion and personal interview. Candidates under various reserved, categories and Foreign/NRI category wil complete within their categories on same criteria. 3. (a) The number of candidates to be called for group discussion and personal interview will be equal to eight times the total number of seats of all these courses in each category i.e. There are 24 seats in MBA at UBS, 6 seats in MBA (Biotechnology), 15 each in MBA (IB) and MBA (HR) in general category and 30 seats in PURC, Ludhiana. This makes the total number of seats in these management courses equal to 90. Therefore, 720 (seven hundred & twenty) which is eight times the ninety seats, will be called for Group Discussion and Personal Interview in general category. Similar calculation wil! be applicable to other reserve categories & Foreign/NRI category on the basis of number of seats available. XX XXX XX. XX XX 8. The Group Discussion and Personal Interview of the shortlisted candidates will be held at University Business School, Panjab University, Chandigarh. 11. Students in the category of Sports and Defence would be short-listed on the basis of CAT percentage score. However, at the time of admission the precedence of merit will be according to university criteria for their categories". Guidelines for admission to the reserved category of sports "Five per cent of the total number of seats in each course of UBS/PURC, Ludhiana are reserved under this category. No benefit on the basis of sports will be given to candidates not applying for admission in this category (see Instructions with application form) - 1. There are two seats in MBA and one seat each in MBA (IB) and MBA (HR), MBA (Biotechnology) and 3 seats in MBA PU Regional Centre, Ludhiana, in this category. This makes the total number of candidates to be called for Group Discussion & Personal Interview will be eight times the number of seats i.e. 64. Thus, the cut off point for sports category will be CAT score of the 64th candidate. No candidate below this score will be called for Group Discussion and Personal Interview Interview. 2. The sport eligibility of these 64 candidates will be determined by the Sports Department of Panjab University, Chandigarh. 3. Thus, the cut off point for sports category will be CAT score of the 64th candidate. No candidate below this score will be called for Group Discussion and Personal Interview Interview. 2. The sport eligibility of these 64 candidates will be determined by the Sports Department of Panjab University, Chandigarh. 3. Each applicant applying for admission in this category shall along with the application will submit self-attested photocopy of sports certificates, class X. and class XII details marks certificates showing Date of Birth. A photocopy of the application form complete in all respect, with self-attested original photograph must be submitted to the office of Deputy Director Physical Education Campus Sports, (Nehru Sports Complex (Gymnasium Hall), Panjab University, Chandigarh, before the last date of submission of form. The Deputy Director Physical Education, Campus Sports can reject the application form which it regards as incomplete. 7. A committee constituted by the Vice-Chancellor shall screen all the applications under this category through interviews and by holding actual sports trials in the respective games on the University Grounds as per schedule of trials given in Annexure-V. Page 22. Only such applicants will be allowed to appear for the interviews and actual sports trials, whose applications are in conformity with the requirements/qualifications mentioned in the Guidelines. No separate intimation will be sent for actual sports trials. Applicants are to appear for interview with all original sports certificates. No certificates on letter-pad/letter-he ad will be accepted. 9. The order of precedence in the selection of candidates for admission will be as per Annexure-IV-: 1. A student falling under category A shall be placed higher in merit than a student falling under category B. Similarly, a student falling under category B shall be placed higher in merit than a student falling under category C and so on. 2. Likewise, within each category a student felling in category A (1) will be placed higher in merit than a student falling in category A (2) and so on. 3. A student who attains first position in a competition shall be rated higher in merit than the one who gets second position in a competition of the same level. Similarly, second position will be rated higher in merit than the third in the same level of competition and so on. 4. 3. A student who attains first position in a competition shall be rated higher in merit than the one who gets second position in a competition of the same level. Similarly, second position will be rated higher in merit than the third in the same level of competition and so on. 4. If there is a tie within the same category, this tie shall be resolved by considering the "academic merit" of the students. 11. The inter-se merit of the candidates seeking admission to any course under the reserved category of sports shall be determined only on the basis of their merit in Sports as per grading criteria in Annexure-IV". 6. The respondent-University has appended three lists with the written statement. The first list is of 64 candidates as per academic merit of the candidates who applied against the sports category seats. List II is the list of 55 candidates found eligible for admission in sports category. List III is the list of candidates who have been graded by the Department of Sports. Ms. Shalini having obtained 1.33 % of marks in CAT has been graded A-3, whereas the petitioner having obtained 15.15% marks has been graded C-1 and ranked at serial No. 17 in the sports persons in List III. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the prospectus has the force of law and, therefore, admission criteria published in the prospectus cannot be deviated. As per conditions published, the cut off for sports category is CAT score of 64 candidates, therefore, Group Discussion and Personal Interview has to be from amongst the candidates who are upto 64th rank in the sports category. For such argument, vehement reliance has been placed on clauses 1 and 2 of the Guidelines for Admission to Reserved Category of Sports. Reliance is also placed upon Full Bench judgment of this Court reported as Amardeep Singh Sahota vs. The State of Punjab, 1993(2) PLR 212 and Rahul Prabhakar vs. Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar and others, 1997(3) PLR 13. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent University has argued that Clauses 9(4) and 11 of the Guidelines are indicative of the fact that excellence in sports is the guiding star for admission to the seats meant for sports persons. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent University has argued that Clauses 9(4) and 11 of the Guidelines are indicative of the fact that excellence in sports is the guiding star for admission to the seats meant for sports persons. It is pointed out that such view was taken keeping in view the objective for which seats have been reserved forthe sports persons and by harmonious construction of Clauses 1 and 2 with other Clauses of the Guidelines. The respondent-University has rightly determined that excellence in sports would be the guiding principle for the seats meant for sports persons. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any merit in the present petition. Though in the first impression, Clauses 1 and 2 lead to the inference that only 64 candidates who applied for admission against the sports category are to be graded on the basis of sports trial and then called for Group Discussion and Personal Interview. But the basic fact which is required to be mentioned is whether mere making of an application for admission to a seat meant for sports person is sufficient to determine the cut off marks of 64th candidate or it is a valid application for admission to the seat meant for sports persons. We are of the opinion that mere making of an application for admission to a seat meant for sports person is not sufficient. Such an application has to be accompanied by requisite certificates and testimonials so as fo be eligible for seat meant for sports persons. The certificates so furnished are graded on the basis of sports trial. As per List II, 55 candidates were found eligible for admission against the seats meant for sports persons. These 55 candidates were the only eligible candidates for admission against sports category seats. The gradation by the Department of Sports was conducted in respect of these 55 candidates and 25 candidates were graded on the basis of their achievements in sports. Therefore, it is apparent that as against 64 candidates who were to be considered against the seats meant for sports persons only 55 candidates were eligible and have been graded. The gradation by the Department of Sports was conducted in respect of these 55 candidates and 25 candidates were graded on the basis of their achievements in sports. Therefore, it is apparent that as against 64 candidates who were to be considered against the seats meant for sports persons only 55 candidates were eligible and have been graded. Therefore, the argument raised by the petitioner that irrespective of the status of the application form, once candidate has applied as a sports person then the last candidate who could be called for sports trial is 64th candidate, is not tenable. In fact, the candidates who were eligible for admission as sports persons alone are to be considered for the purpose of determining the cut off merit. 10. The only dispute is in respect of short listing of candidates. The gradation in sports and the rank obtained in the sports gradation is not in dispute. As we have found that only 55 candidates could be subjected to sports trial being eligible for admission as a sports person i.e., less than 64 candidates required to be considered, we do not find that the action of the respondent-University in the admission process suffers from any patent illegality or material irregularity which may warrant interference in writ jurisdiction of this Court. Consequently, the present writ petition is dismissed.