M.S.Shailaja v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 09.12.2009CORAM:THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRUW.P.No.12724 of 2009 andM.P.No.1 of 2009M.S.Shailaja (Minor 17 years)Represented by her fatherand natural guardian M.Sundar ..Petitioner Vs1.State of Tamil Nadu rep. By Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Fort St.George, Chennai -9.

The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Engineering Admission – 2009, Office at Anna University Campus, Guindy, Chennai – 600 025. ..Respondents Prayer :Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiapraying for a Writ of mandamus, directing the respondents herein to select the petitioner herein viz. M.S.Shailaja for EngineeringAdmission – 2009 under sports quota by considering all the certificates submitted by her including the one issued by Women'sCricket Association of India for having represented South ZoneWinner Team in the National Level Tournament at Allahabad. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Meenakshi Sundaram For Respondents: Mr.A.C.Manibharathi,G.A. For R1 Mr.Manisundar Gopal for R2

O R D E RHeard both sides.2. The petitioner is a minor represented by her father and natural guardian. She has come forward to file the present writ https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petition seeking for a direction to the respondents to select the petitioner for B.E.Course in the Engineering admission conducted for the year 2009 under the sports quota by considering all the certificates submitted by her including the one issued by Women'sCricket Association of India for having represented South ZoneWinner Team in the National Level Tournament at the Allahabad.

The petitioner belongs to Most Backward Community. She had secured 1001 out of 1200 marks in the higher secondary examination. She is also an eminent sports person, particularly in Cricket. It was claimed that she had excelled in most of the events in Cricket. Shehad participated in various matches including the National LevelTournament. She had applied for admission to the EngineeringCourses – 2009 and staked her claim under the sports quota.

Pursuant to her application for admission under Sports Quota, she was called for an interview by the second respondent. At the time of interview, the petitioner had submitted all her testimonials including the Sports (Cricket) certificates. It was submitted that Annexure II Item No.22 of the prospectus attached to the ApplicationForm sets out scope of selection of candidates under "Quota for Eminent Sports Persons", wherein it was stated that the quota is to recognize and give weight age to the sports eminence of the candidatesand hence marks for sports achievements alone will be considered while ranking the candidates. The candidates are expected to continue good performance in sports even after selection. The highest achievement of the candidate will be the annual tournament in the respective sports discipline in a year will be considered forawarding marks and selection of the candidates will be based on the marks obtained by the candidates following the guidelines in page 33of the prospectus.

In respect of candidates seeking admission under the category of eminent sports person, they were required to enclose attested photo copies of participation certificates and the forms issued by the relevant sports authorities as set out in the prospectus together with their application. If any person claiming to have participated in National Level (Representing the State) the competent authority is the Member Secretary, Sports Development Authority of TamilNadu/Secretary of the State Association (recognised bySDAT/TNOA). The certificate will have to be given under Form No.II.In the note appended to the Tabular Column in page 6, it was stated for Cricket matches, the annual official championship tournaments conducted within the country under the auspices of TNCS/BCCI at District/State/National Level alone will be taken into consideration for that year.

The petitioner claimed that she had participated in the National Level tournament for Cricket (Chandra Tripati Tournament)held at Allahabad from 05.05.2006 to 09.05.2006 under the auspices of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Women's Cricket Association of India. She also obtained winner certificate.

Subsequently, Women's Cricket Association of India (WCAI) got merged with the BCCI in the year 2007 and it is not in existence. Therefore, the petitioner could not obtain and produce Form-II in respect of the National Level Tournament for the winner certificate. She had made a representation to TNCA claiming for the said certificate. She got a Form II certificate signed by the Tamil NaduCricket Association (TNCA) by its Honorary Secretary. The petitioner also enclosed the certificate dated 28.07.2009 from the TNCA which is affiliated to BCCI that she had represented the South Zone Under -19Team for the Chandra Tripathi Inter Zonal Tournament who are winner team for the year 2006 held at Allahabad and the said certificate was given on the basis of the information received from the Tamil NaduWomen's Cricket Association (TNCWA). Since the certificate produced by the petitioner was not entertained, she has come forward to file the present writ petition.

On behalf of the second respondent, a counter affidavit dated29.09.2009 was filed. It was stated that the counseling for admission of students under eminent sports person category for EngineeringCourses commenced on 05.07.2009 and all the seats reserved for the said category had been allotted as early as 05.07.2009. There was no provision for waiting list or re-counseling. In the prospectus given by the second respondent, the guidelines stipulate that Form II has to be given by candidates in case they seek admission under the category of eminent sports person. Since the petitioner did not produce the relevant Form II certificate from the authorities prescribed in Clause 5.3 of Annexure II, the said certificate could not be considered for awarding marks under the National Level games. Therefore, She was awarded 70 marks based on the sports certificates produced by her. It was also stated that the reason given by the petitioner cannot be accepted and the certificate produced from TNCAis not sustainable. It was also stated that the petitioner had applied the Form- II certificate on 30.06.2009, which was much later to the last date for submission of application form. Hence her claim was not considered under the sports quota.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was not the fault of the petitioner that she could not submit the said certificate. In this context, it is necessary to refer to a DivisionBench judgment of this Court in V.Premanand vs. The State of TamilNadu and others reported in AIR 1995 Madras 316. In paragraph 5, the Division Bench of this Court held as follows:-"5. It must be pointed out that clause 13.5 only prescribed the procedure in order to eliminate persons who do not belong to that category, to take undue advantage. As long as it is not in dispute that the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner belongs to that category of children born of inter-caste marriage between S.C/S.T and ForwardCommunity and in addition to this, he was able to produce the certificate before the application was scrutinised for admission, rejection of such application amounted to giving greater value to the procedure than to the substantive right. The procedureis intended to facilitate enforcement of substantive right and not to defeat the substantive right. Procedure is hand-maid of justice and not to defeat justice. Therefore, the Selection Committee acted arbitrarily when it rejected the application, even though it had before it the certificate produced by the petitioner to the effect that he satisfied the category of children born of inter-caste marriage between S.C/S.T and Forward Community. As long as the application was able to satisfy the requirement of production of certificate from the appropriate authority, before his application was considered for selection, it was not at all open to the SelectionCommittee to refuse to consider the application only on the ground that such a certificate had not been produced along with the application. We have already pointed out that as per the marks obtained by the petitioner, he was entitled to be admitted to the medical course for the academic year 1994-95. We are informed that the academic year 1994-95 has not yet been over. Therefore, there is no difficulty in issuing a direction to the respondents to admit the petitioner to the course in question, viz., I MBBS for the academic year 1994-95. Event though he may not beable to appear for the examination, at least, he would be entitle to continue the course in the next year without seeking fresh admission. "(Emphasis added)

Similarly, a subsequent Division Bench in Midhuna Nathan vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others reported in AIR 1996 Madras 178 also dealt with the reservation meant for sportsmen in Governmentcolleges. In paragraph 26, it was observed as follows:-"26. No doubt Clause 14.5 requires production of certificates in the prescribed form. But the form found at page 38 of the prospectus does not need a second look to reject it. The form is not in conformity with Clause 3.5(v). There is no provision for eminence in sports attained when the candidate was studying in the University. Nordoes the form refer to international level sports. It does not provide for team events in which a player cannot be said to have secured First Place/Second Place. It travels https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ beyond the rule in Clause 3.5(v). While in the rule participation at District level sports cannot beconsidered for eligibility, the form reads as if securing first place/second place in District Level games issufficient. Further, the rule in Clause 3.5.1(v) talks of participation at International/National/State level having been sponsored respectively by a National Body/State body or University/Zonal or District Association, but the Certificate reads, District/State/National level having been sponsored by District/State/National Body. To saythe least, it is absurd on the face of it. We wonder whether a sane humen brain could have thought of prescribing this form. It is rather strange that vehement arguments are advanced that the form should be read as part of the rule. We have no hesitation to reject the said arguments and strike down the form at page 38 of the prospectus for 1995-96 as invalid, null and void. Non-production of a certificates in that form is inconsequential and does not affect the eligibility of the concerned candidate. "

If these two decisions are applied, certainly the petitioner cannot be non-suited from being considered especially when she had participated in a National Level sports. It was only because of the merger of the WCAI with the BCCI, she could not get the Form-IICertificate from the specified authority. However, the TNCA had certified her participation in the National Level sports. Hence, she cannot be denied admission to the Engineering Course and she ought to have been granted full marks for having participated in the NationalLevel Sports. Though the respondent contended that the entire admission was over, it cannot be a ground to deny the petitioner in granting a seat. As pointed out, the object of granting such certificate is only to encourage sports and an eminent sports person coming under the category. Hence, it is wrong on the part of the respondent to deny her a seat.