JUDGMENT : Deeply aggrieved by the reduction of grace marks for sports quota in the KEAM-2020 examination being conducted by the Government of Kerala, the petitioners who are students with achievements in sports, are before this Court. They seek to quash Ext.P4 and P4(a) and also Ext.P1 to the extent it vests powers on the Government for modification/addition/deletion of the prospectus without specifying conditions of circumstances under which such modification/addition/deletion can be effected. 2. The petitioners are applicants for admission to professional degree courses. Admission to the said courses are made through the examination called KEAM-2020. As per Clause 5.2.16 of Ext.P1 prospectus governing admission, the petitioners are eligible to get 61 marks. Ext.P1 was issued on 30.01.2020. On 10.02.2020, the Government of Kerala issued Ext.P4 order revising the existing criteria for allotting grace marks for sports quota admission to professional degree courses in Kerala. By serial No.53 to the said GO, the grace mark allocable to the candidates belonging to the sports category to which the petitioners belong, was reduced to 48. The petitioners contend that prospectus to admission to a professional course is an important document and once it is issued and acted upon, the selection criteria mentioned therein cannot be altered. Clause 1.6 of Ext.P1 prospectus which provides that it is subject to the modification/addition/deletion as may be deemed necessary by the Government, vests unfettered powers on the Government, having no guidelines for exercise of such powers. 3. Dr. K.P. Pradeep, the counsel representing the petitioners would point out that by Ext.P4, reduction has been made only in respect of four items connected with School Games Federation of India (SGFI) performance/participation. For all other items, the marks have either been increased or retained. The reduction of marks in respect of the category to which the petitioners belong is therefore discriminatory. Though the petitioners have filed Ext.P5 representation addressed to the Secretary to Department of Higher Education and other competent authorities, they have not paid their attention to the grievance of the petitioners. 4. Relying on the Full Bench judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Amardeep Singh Sahota v. State of Punjab [ (1993) 104 PLR 212 ], the counsel argued that since the prospectus issued by the Entrance Commissioner has the force of law, it was not open to the State Government to alter the same. 4. Relying on the Full Bench judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Amardeep Singh Sahota v. State of Punjab [ (1993) 104 PLR 212 ], the counsel argued that since the prospectus issued by the Entrance Commissioner has the force of law, it was not open to the State Government to alter the same. Relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in Parmender Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and others [ (2012) 1 SCC 177 ], the learned counsel argued that for the evaluation procedure, the conditions notified in the prospectus have to be strictly followed and changes in the procedure subsequently, are impermissible. 5. Learned Government Pleader opposing the writ petition, argued that the revision of marks were based on the recommendations of the Prospectus Revamping Committee (PRC) in consultation with the Kerala Sports Council, which is the authority competent to submit recommendations for award of proficiency marks for sports quota admission. The learned Government Pleader submitted that level of merits commensurate with the level of achievement is determined based on the amplitude of the competition and the degree of difficulty of the competition concerned. It is a universally accepted criteria for determining assortment of merits. 6. The learned Government Pleader submitted that Clause 1.6 of Ext.P1 prospectus enables the Government to suitably modify the prospectus according to the situations that arise. The petitioners have submitted their applications knowing the powers of the Government under Clause 1.6. There is no departure from the conditions in the prospectus in the matter of award of grace marks for sports quota admission. 7. The learned Government Pleader further pointed out that the prospectus in question was issued on 30.01.2020. Though the last date for submission of applications in response to the prospectus was originally decided as 25.02.2020, it was eventually extended up to 18.09.2020. During the interregnum, fresh applications were permitted and 3063 new applications were received. In fact, petitioners 3 and 4 submitted their applications subsequent to the changes made to the allocation of grace marks as per Ext.P4 dated 10.02.2020. In the circumstances, the writ petition is only to be dismissed. 8. Heard. 9. The argument of the petitioners against changes made to the allocation of grace marks for sports quota admission to KEAM-2020, is primarily based on the sanctity of the prospectus. In the circumstances, the writ petition is only to be dismissed. 8. Heard. 9. The argument of the petitioners against changes made to the allocation of grace marks for sports quota admission to KEAM-2020, is primarily based on the sanctity of the prospectus. According to the petitioners, prospectus once issued is sacrosanct and the conditions contained in the prospectus cannot be altered. But, in the present case, it has to be noted that Clause 1.6 empowers the Government to make modification/addition/deletion as may be deemed necessary. It is in exercise of this power retained by the Government in Ext.P1 that the changes have been effected by Ext.P4. Therefore, it cannot be stated that by issuing Ext.P4, the Government have violated the conditions in prospectus. The judgment in Parmender Kumar and others (supra) relied on by the petitioners will not apply to the facts of the case for that reason. Furthermore, the ratio emerging from the said judgment is that once the results have been declared and a select list has been prepared, it was not open to the State Government to alter the terms and conditions just a day before counselling was to begin, so as to deny the candidates who had already been selected, an opportunity of admission. In the present case, the changes were made in respect of the grace marks by the Government even before the last date for submission of applications. By Ext.P4 changes, it cannot be said that any right of the candidates are affected. Grace marks allocable to sports quota candidates, is by way of an encouragement and it cannot be said to be a vested right. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioners also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another [ (2008) 3 SCC 512 ]. In the said case, the Hon'ble Apex Court was considering permissibility of changes in marks in respect of a recruitment process to public services. In the case of recruitment to public service, citizens have a fundamental right under Article 16 of the Constitution of India. The dictum in the case of K. Manjusree (supra) would not apply to the present case which relates to admission for professional courses. 11. In the case of recruitment to public service, citizens have a fundamental right under Article 16 of the Constitution of India. The dictum in the case of K. Manjusree (supra) would not apply to the present case which relates to admission for professional courses. 11. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that Clause 1.6 confers unbridled powers on the Government in the absence of any guidelines for exercise of the same, can also not be accepted. It has come out from the pleadings that allocation of grace marks for sports quota candidates is as per the recommendations of PRC and the Sports Council which are experts in the sports field. The Government decides the marks based on the recommendations of the expert bodies taking into account the amplitude of the sports competitions concerned. 12. Furthermore, I find that this Court has considered the same question in W.P.(C) No.17920/2019, and a learned Single Judge of this Court held that the Government is vested with ample powers as per the KEAM Prospectus 2019 to modify or amend or alter the prospectus. The applicants participating in the KEAM examination and aspiring for sports quota grace marks, are not at liberty to turn around and attack the powers on the Government. There is no reason to take a different view in this writ petition. For all the above reasons, this Court finds that there is no merit in the writ petition filed by the petitioners and hence it is dismissed.