The Common Committee constituted for the Selection of Eminent Sports Personsat Anna University, GuindyChennai 600 025 v. Minor B.Praveena Devi

1. Minor B.Praveena Devi rep. By her father & Guardian Mr.P.Boopathy Raj2. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. By Secretary to Govt. Health Department Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.3. The Director of Medical Education Teynampet, Chennai 600 018.4. Selection Committee rep. By its Secretary Directorate of Medical Education No.163, Periyar EVR Road Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010.5. The Common Committee constituted for Selection of Eminent Sports Persons at Anna University, Chennai.6. S.Padmaja.. Respondents/ Petitioner/ respondents 1-4 in W.PW.A. No.1371 of 2009Minor S.Santhosh Srinivasanrep. By Father & GuardianMr.R.Sekar.. Appellant/ Petitioner in W.P.- Vs -1. Minor B.Praveena Devi rep. By her father & Guardian Mr.P.Boopathy Raj2. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. By Secretary to Govt. Health Department Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.3. The Director of Medical Education Teynampet, Chennai 600 018.4. Selection Committee rep. By its Secretary Directorate of Medical Education No.163, Periyar EVR Road Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5. The Common Committee constituted for Selection of Eminent Sports Persons at Anna University, Chennai.6. S.Padmaja.. Respondents/ Respondents 2 to 6W.A. No.1568 of 2009Minor V.Abinayaarep. By Father & GuardianR.Venkatasubramani.. Appellant/ 3rd party- Vs -1. Minor B.Praveena Devi rep. By her gather & Guardian Mr.P.Boopathy Raj2. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. By Secretary to Govt. Health Department Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.3. The Director of Medical Education Teynampet, Chennai 600 018.4. Selection Committee rep. By its Secretary Directorate of Medical Education No.163, Periyar EVR Road Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010.5. The Common Committee constituted for Selection of Eminent Sports Persons at Anna University, Chennai.6. S.Padmaja.. Respondents/ Petitioner / Respondents 1-5Writ Appeal filed u/clause 15 of the letters patent againstthe order dated 3rd Sept., 2009, passed by learned single Judgein W.P. No.11101 of 2009.Writ Petition praying to writ of certiorarified mandamuscalling for the prospectus issued by the respondents foradmission to MBBS/BDS for Academic Sessions 2009-2010 and quashparas 1 and 2 of Appendix III of the prospectus and consequentlydirect the respondents to consider the academic achievementsamong the candidates falling under each category of sports or in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the alternative to take into account the achievement in all thetournaments during the years 2005-2009 and make the selectionbased thereon.For Appellants: Mr.A.Navaneethakrishnan in WA 1371/09 Mr.Mani Sundar Gopal for M/s.G.M.Mani Associates in WA 1342/09 Mr. AR.L.Sundaresan, SC, for Ms.AL.Gandhimathi in WA 1344 & 1568/09For Respondents: Mr.R.Muthukumaraswamy, SC, for Mr.P.Gunaraj for R-1 in all Was Mr.G.Sankaran, Spl.G.P. (Edn.) for RR-2 to 4 in all Was Mr. Mani Sundar Gopal for M/s.G.M.Mani Associates for R-5 in WA 1371, 1344 & 1568/09COMMON JUDGMENTS.J.MUKHOPADHAYA, J.The matter relates to admission in MBBS Course.Applications were called for, for admission in the course forthe session 2009-2010, including the seats meant for selectionof eminent sports persons. One B.Praveena Devi, 1st respondentin W.A. No.1371/09 challenged clause (1) and (2) of Appendix-IIIof prospectus with further prayer to direct the respondents toconsider the academic achievements among the candidates fallingunder each category of sports, or in the alternative to takeinto account the achievements in all the tournaments during theyear 2005-2009 for preparation of selection list and makingselection. Learned single Judge, by impugned judgment dated 3rd Sept.,2009, allowed the writ petition in part, set aside clause (2) ofAppendix-III of the prospectus for admission in MBBS/BDS coursefor the year 2009-2010 to the effect it stipulated “the highestachievement of the candidate in only one annual tournament inthe sport discipline in a year will be considered for awardingmarks” and directed the appellant, Common Committee forSelection of Eminent Sports Persons (hereinafter referred to as'Common Committee') to work out the process of selection amongthe four candidates, viz., 1) B.Karthik (Application No.554), 2)V.Abhinaya (Application No.282), 3) S.Padmaja (ApplicationNo.523) and 4) B.Praveena Devi (Application No.294) as per theorder and to select accordingly. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. Apart from the Common Committee of W.A. No.1342/09, otherpersons, who were selected pursuant to the prospectus foradmission in MBBS course and are undergoing study for thesession 2009-2010, they having affected, have challenged theaforesaid judgment. The other appellant of W.A. No.1371/09,while supported the impugned judgment, is aggrieved against thelast portion of the order, whereby it was ordered to reconsiderthe case of four persons only and not the other eminent sportspersons, including the said appellant.3. The 1st respondent/writ petitioner, who belongs tobackward class community has developed her skill in swimming andhad participated in the State Level, Junior Level and NationalLevel sports and has won 114 medals in all levels during thepast four years. She has secured first position and won 48 goldmedals at the Divisional, Zonal, State and National levels,besides obtaining second position and secured 37 silver medalsin the abovesaid levels. She has also secured third positionand won 17 bronze medals having participated in number ofnational tournaments. She has passed in +2 examination underCBSE pattern during March/April, 2009 and secured the followingmarks in science subjects :-i) Biology-95 / 100 marksii) Chemistry-95 / 100 marksiii) Physics-93 / 100 marksShe had applied for admission to first year MBBS course forthe year 2009-2010. Being an eminent sports person, she beingaggrieved by two clauses, i.e., clauses (1) and (2) of Appendix– III, which enables the selection authorities to takeachievement in sports alone irrespective of qualifying marks andeven amongst achievements in sports only, one annual tournamentin the discipline, out of the performance of the four yearspreceding, challenged the same before the Court.4. It was submitted on behalf of the 1st respondent/writpetitioner that she secured one gold medal in 2007-2008, twosilver medals during 2006-2007 and 2008-2009 and one Bronzemedal in 2005-2006. Therefore, as per the other terms of theprospectus, if the achievement of the petitioner in the fouryears are taken into consideration, she will be entitled for7195 marks. However, if the impugned provisions are applied,i.e., if only one annual tournament is taken into account, shewould be getting only 600 marks. If the tournaments of the fouryears are taken into consideration, she would be selected surelyunder the quota of eminent sports category, but in view of twoclauses inserted in Appendix-III for admission to first yearMBBS course for the year 2009-2010, as she is excluded, she haschallenged the portion of the prospectus on various legalgrounds including --i) The eminence at all levels, viz., international, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ national, zonal, divisional levels should be taken intoconsideration altogether; andii) Amongst such persons, the persons with higher marks inthe academic examination alone are entitled for selection.Before learned single Judge, Supreme Court decision in AsifHameed – Vs – State of Jammu & Kashmir (1989 Supp. (2) SCC 364)was relied. It was also contended that the impugned provisionis violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Evenif the impugned first clause is acceptable, the second clause isirrational, since even in respect of eminent sports persons onlyone tournament is taken into consideration for awarding marks.5. Learned single Judge noticed the aforesaid provisions andother decisions rendered by this Court and Supreme Court and nowhaving found a variation from the earlier prescription in clause(2) of Appendix-III in the prospectus for admission to MBBS/BDScourse for the session 2009-2010, observed as follows :-“23. It is true that there is a fool-proofmethod to select the candidates among the eminentsports persons called, absolute criterion.There are bound to be some fall-outs, but takingthe over all situation, it can be stated withoutany fear of contradiction which was happened from2004-05 till 2008-09, that the inclusion of marksfor each participation alone should a justifiablecriterion for the purpose of deciding the personseligible to be selected the persons among theeminent persons. Even after choosing suchmethod, if two candidates obtain same marks, thencertainly the selection committee has to go tothe academic excellence to decide one among thesaid two. Therefore, except in such acontingency, in other circumstances, when acandidate obtains the required academicqualifications and comes within the eligibilitycriteria for consideration, thereafter, it is thesports activities and eminence in the same asexplained exhaustively in Appendix III have to betaken into consideration. While taking the sameinto consideration, the marks obtained in each ofthe participation have to be taken intoconsideration which alone can give a proper andjustifiable process of selection among theeminent sports persons for the bare minimum threeseats which are available for MBBS course everyyear.”6. For proper appreciation of the case, it is necessary tonotice the relevant clauses (1) and (2) of Appendix-III enclosedwith the prospectus of the year 2009–2010, wherein stipulationhas been made as to the manner in which marks to be allotted tothe candidates, as quoted hereunder :- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ “APPENDIX - IIISELECTION OF CANDIDATES UNDER QUOTA FOR EMINENT SPORTSPERSONS1. The purpose of this quota is to recognize and giveweightage to the sports eminence of the candidates andhence marks for sports achievements alone will beconsidered in ranking the candidates. The candidatesare expected to continue good performance in sports,even after selection.2. The Highest achievement of the candidate in onlyone annual tournament in the sports disciplines in ayear will be considered for awarding marks.3.Selection of the candidate will be based on themarks obtained by the candidate, following theguidelines given in the table:Table (I) – Marks for International AchievementCompetitionGoldSilverBronzeParticipationInternational(RepresentingIndia Category -I)500450400150International(RepresentingIndia Category –II)350300250125Table (II) – Marks for Recognised National AchievementSl.No.CompetitionsAllocation of marksGoldSilverBronzeParticipation 1.NationalChampionships –Organised by NationalFederations175150125402. School GamesFederation of India(SGFI) Meet (NationalLevel)175150125403.All India RuralSports Meets(National Level)175150125404.National SportsFestival for Women(National Level)17515012540 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sl.No.CompetitionsAllocation of marks5.National Inter SchoolCompetition (NationalLevel)17515012540Table (III) – Marks for Recognised South ZoneAchievementSl.No.CompetitionsAllocation of marksGoldSilverBronzeParticipation 1.South ZoneTournaments/Meets –Organised by StateAssociations andFederations.75604520Table (IV) – Marks for Recognised State ChampionshipSl.No.CompetitionsAllocation of marksGoldSilverBronzeParticipation 1.South ChampionshipRepresenting RevenueDistrict – Organisedby State Associates.65503515Table (V) – Marks for Recognised State Level AchievementsSl.No.CompetitionsAllocation of marksGoldSilverBronzeParticipation 1.Bharathiar Day SportsMeet (State Level)554025102.Republic Day SportsMeet (State Level)554025103.State Inter SchoolChampionship (StateLevel)554025104.KVS/CBSE NationalSports Meet (StateLevel)55402510 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Table (VI) – Marks for Divisional Level AchievementsSl.No.CompetitionsAllocation of marksGoldSilverBronzeParticipation 1.Bharathiar Day SportsMeet (Division Level)45301552.Republic Day SportsMeet (Division Level)45301553.KVS/Regional/CBSESouth Zone Meet(Divisional Level)45301554.Inter-DivisionalPolytechnic Meet(Divisional Level)45301555.District Inter SchoolCompetition (DivisionLevel)4530155Gold(I Position) Silver (II Position) Bronze (IIIPosition)4.(a) For International Tournaments:Category – I : Olympics, World Cup/World Championship,Commonwealth Games, Asian Games, Asian Championships,Junior World Cup/World Championships, Asian JuniorChampionships, World UniversityGames/Championships,World School Games, Afro AsianGames,South Asian Federation Games and Junior SouthAsian Federation Games.Category – II : All other International tournaments notcovered under Category I and wherein not less than sixcountries had participated.1.Participation/achievement in Internationaltournaments will be considered only with earlierachievements at National/State Level Tournaments.2.Only tournaments officially recognised by theIndian Olympic Association/respective officialNational Federations will be considered for theaward of marks (for each year) (1.6.2005 to31.5.2006, 1.6.2006 to 31.5.2007, 1.6.2007 to31.5.2008 and 1.6.2008 to 31.5.2009).3.Participation/Achievements in tournaments, withForm I alone are eligible for marks indicated inthe table (I) above. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (b). For National Tournaments:1.The highest achievement in only one annualtournament, officially recognised as the regularannual championship/tournament by Indian OlympicAssociation SDAT/SAI/respective official NationalFederation will be considered (for each year) forthe award of marks.2.Marks will not be awarded for selection trials.(c). For State Tournaments:1.The highest achievement in only one annualtournament, officially recognised as the regularannual championship/tournament bySDAT/SAI/respective official State Associationwill be considered (for each year) for the awardof marks”.7. It will be evident that similar provision was availablein the prospectus for admission in the medical college for theacademic session 2003-2004, which was questioned before theCourt and was upheld. The relevant clause of Appendix – III ofthe prospectus for admission in MBBS course for the session2003-2004, which reads as follows, was noticed by learned singleJudge for coming to the conclusion as recorded above :-“Appendix – IIISelection of Candidates under Quota for Eminent SportsPersons – 20031. As the purpose of this quota is to recognise andgive weightage to the sports eminence of the candidate,sports mark alone will be considered in ranking thecandidate. The candidate is expected to showperformance in sports, if selected.2. Selection of the candidates will be based on themarks obtained by the candidates following theguidelines given in the table below:(A) Marks for (each) Participation:CategoryInternational(Representing Nation)National(Representing State)Individual2010Team105(B) Marks for (each) achievement: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ International(RepresentingNation)National(RepresentingState)State (RepresentingRevenueDistrict)CategoryGoldSilverBronzeGoldSilverBronzeGoldSilverBronzeIndividual60402040271327189Team302010201371395Other Recognised National/State Level Sports Meet:(C) Marks for (each) achievement:Sl.No.SponsorCategoryGoldSilverBronze1.School GamesFederation ofIndia (SGFI)(National Level)IndividualTeam301520101052.All India RuralSports(National Level)IndividualTeam301520101053.Bharathiyar DaySports (State)IndividualTeam2010137-44.Republic DaySports Meet (StateLevel)IndividualTeam201013774(D) Marks for over all Championship:CategoryInternational(Representing Nation)National(RepresentingState)State (RepresentingRevenueDistrict)Championship3025208. The only question that requires determination in thiscase is :-Whether the clause (2) of Appendix-III ofprospectus for admission in MBBS course for theyear 2009-2010 is irrational, arbitrary and,thereby, violative of Article 14 of theConstitution of India in view of the fact thatearlier during the session 2003-2004 it wasdecided to select candidates on the basis ofmarks obtained by candidates in all the prioryears. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

9. Clause (2) of Appendix – III for the session 2009-2010,reads as follows :-“2. The Highest achievement of the candidate inonly one annual tournament in the sportsdisciplines in a year will be considered forawarding marks.”10. Mr.Mani Sundar Gopal, learned counsel appearing onbehalf of the appellant, Common Committee submitted that thepurpose of creating sports quota for eminent sports persons isto recognise and give weightage to sports eminence of thecandidates and, thereby, to encourage the development of sports.Three seats are reserved for eminent sports persons in MBBScourse and 100 seats are reserved for eminent sports persons inEngineering course. For the academic year 2009-2010, for MBBScourse, total 193 applications were received for considerationagainst eminent sports persons category. Similarly, 3379applications were received against eminent sports personscategory for the academic year 2009-2010 for admission inengineering colleges.It was contended that the list of sports discipline,numbering 51, is listed in the prospectus, consisted of groupsof sports discipline, wherein, more than one gold medal can beachieved and the other group with only one medal in any givenevent. The following are the list supplied by the counsel forthe appellant, Common Committee for Selection of Eminent SportsPersons :-S.No.Sports Disciplineswhere opportunity towin multiple medalsin a given eventSports discipline whereonly one medal could beachieved in a givenevent1AthleticsAtya Patya2BadmintonBall Badminton3Body BuildingBaseball4BoxingBasketball5CarromBeach Volleyball6CyclingBilliards & Snookers7FencingChess8GymnasticsCricket9JudoFootball10Karate - DoGolf11MallkhambHandball12Motor SportsHockey https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 13Power LiftingKabaddi14Roller SkatingKho-Kho15RowingKorf Ball16SailingNet Ball17ShootingRugby18SilambamSepak Takraw19SquashSoft Ball20SwimmingThrow Ball21Table TennisVolleyball22Taek – Won - DoWushu23Tennikot24Tennis25Triathlon26Weightlifting27Wrestling28Yatching29Yogasanas11. To illustrate, it was contended that in the case ofswimming, a sports person can obtain medals in variouscategories, such as Butterfly, Freestyle, Back Stroke, etc., inaddition to different sub-categories, such as 50 M Freestyle,100 M Freestyle, etc., in a single meet. However, a sportsperson participating in Basketball can get only one medal in agiven sports meet.The stand taken by the appellant, Common Committee is thatthere are sets of sports discipline, wherein number of eventsare organised annually at State and National meets, which aremany when compared to other sets of sports discipline, which, iftaken into account, would give undue advantage to a group ofsports persons over the others. It was also found that in theprevious years, in view of the abovesaid inequalities, sportspersons from certain sports discipline are taking a march overthe other sports person in securing seats allotted for eminentsports persons category. For example, in the academic year2007-2008, all three seats in medicine (MBBS) were secured bysports persons from the sports discipline 'Swimming'.12. Learned counsel for the appellant, Common Committeesubmitted that in order to create a level playing field for allapplicants from various sports disciplines, the impugned clause(2) has been introduced since the academic year 2008-2009.Thereafter, sports persons from sports discipline, such as https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Yogasana, Volleyball, Throwball could secure seat in medicine(MBBS) during the academic session, 2008-2009. The aforesaidfact clearly shows that the impugned clause (2) would be a levelplaying field for all sports persons. The same would promoteall the sports discipline and sports persons without any undueadvantage to a particular group of games.13. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties andperused the record. It will be evident from the judgment thatlearned single Judge has not declared clause (2) as irrationalor arbitrary or declared the same violative of Article 14 ofConstitution of India. The main ground given is that theearlier clause (2) regarding marks obtained in each of theparticipation was better and, thereby, observed that marksobtained in each of the participation have to be taken intoconsideration, which alone can give a proper and justifiableprocess of selection amongst eminent sports persons for the bareminimum three seats.Learned single Judge has failed to notice that sportsconsists of different disciplines, such as athletics, Badminton,Boxing, Football, Cricket, etc. Learned single Judge alsofailed to notice that there sets of sports disciplines whereinnumber of events are organised either at the same time orannually, both in the international, national, zonal anddivisional levels. For example, cricket is played almost everyyear between nations like India and other countries. Footballis also played throughout the year in different countries.Annually football tournaments are commonly conducted at theState as well as at the international and zonal level.Similarly, cricket is also played at zonal and State level.There are also games, which are not played every year. Forexample, World Cup in football is played after certain years;cricket World Cup is generally played every four years andOlympic events takes place after about every four years.Further there are games, which are of different levels as wehave pointed out, like international level, national level,zonal level, divisional level, etc. and all cannot be equatedtogether. For example, a person, would have obtained a goldmedal in Olympics cannot be equated with a person who hasobtained a gold medal in a State level. Equating such personwill amount to making two unequals as equals and will beviolative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is forthe said reason, in the prospectus, while higher marks (500) hasbeen given for International Level representing India Category-I, 350 marks given for International Competition representingIndia Category-II and lesser marks of 175 given for Nationallevel and other levels. In this background, no person can claimthat a person having obtained higher medals in different eventsshould be equated for the purpose of determination of merit. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

14. We are just giving one example. Out of the marksprescribed for different achievement, a person who merelyparticipates in international level category-I is provided with150 marks whereas a person, who has obtained gold medal in aninternational level, say in Olympics, he is provided with 500marks. For participation in all the four years if marks iscounted, then a person, who participated in four years, butfailed to obtain a single medal, will get 150 X 4 = 600 marks,whereas a person who gets a gold medal in international levelCategory-I like Olympics will get only 500 marks. Thereby aperson who has not obtained a single medal will be preferredover the person who has obtained a gold medal in Olympics. Sucharbitrary action stands eliminated by the impugned clause (2),wherein it is stipulated that highest achievement of thecandidate in only one annual tournament in the sports disciplinein a year would be considered for awarding marks.Therefore, we hold that clause (2) of Appendix-III of theprospectus for the session 2009-2010 for admission in MBBScourse is rational; cannot be held to be arbitrary and is inconsonance with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. We,accordingly, uphold the provisions of clause (2) of Appendix-III. 15. In the case of State of Rajasthan – Vs Lata Arun (2002(6) SCC 252), the Supreme Court held that prescribing minimumeducational qualification for admission to a course andrecognising certain educational qualifications as equivalent toor higher education than the prescribed one are matters, whichfall within the relam of policy decision are to be taken by theState Government or the authority vested with the power underthe statute. Scope of interference by court in such mattersdiscussed and the Supreme Court held that the court cannotsuggest as to which policy to be followed.The eligibility criteria can be interfered with only in caseif it is arbitrary or discriminatory or on the ground of bias.It is not open to interfere with such policy merely because thecourt feels that some other terms would have been morepreferable. This is the finding of Supreme Court in Directorateof Education – Vs – Educomp Datamatics Ltd. reported in 2004 (4)SCC 19.In the case of Ekta Sakthi Foundation – Vs – Govt. of NCT ofDelhi (2006 (10) SCC 336), while dealing with a question ofinterference in policy matters, the Supreme Court held that inmatter of policy decision or exercise of discretion by theGovernment, so long as infringement of fundamental right is nowshown, the Courts will have no occasion to interfere and courtshould not substitute its own judgment for that of the executivein such matters. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

16. In view of the authoritative pronouncements of theSupreme Court as referred to above, we are of the view thatlearned single Judge ought not have substituted the policy byholding that the earlier policy is better than the presentpolicy, particularly when the court has not found the presentpolicy ultra vires Article 14.For the reasons stated above, impugned order dated 3rdSept., 2009, passed by learned single Judge in W.P. No.11101/09is set aside. In the result, W.A. Nos.1342, 1344 and 1568 of2009 are allowed and W.A. No.1371 of 2009 is dismissed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.However, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no orderas to costs. Sd/- Asst.Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar.GLNTo1. The Secretary to Government Health Department Government of Tamil Nadu Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.2. The Director of Medical Education Teynampet, Chennai 600 018.3. The Secretary Selection Committee Directorate of Medical Education No.163, Periyar EVR Road Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010.4. The Common Committee constituted for Selection of Eminent Sports Persons at Anna University, Chennai.2 ccs to Mrs. AL. Gandhimthi, Advocate, SR. 66325, 663241 cc to Mr.G.M. Mani Associates, SR. 662141 cc to Government Pleader, SR.66380 W.A. NO. 1342, 1344, 1371 & 1568 OF 2009GV (CO)kk 15/12