Pay ₹10 Lakh To MBBS Student Who Was Denied Sports Quota Seat Despite Representing India Abroad In Chess Tournament: Karnataka HC To State
The Karnataka High Court has directed the state government to pay Rs 10 lakhs as compensation to an MBBS student and chess player, who was wrongly denied a seat under sports quota even though she had represented India abroad in Chess Competitions, compelling her to take admission in a private college on a private seat.
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind while disposing of a petition by one Sanjana Raghunath in its order said, “The participation of the petitioner in Asian Youth Chess Championship 2018 is while representing India. Further, the winning in Asian Youth Chess Championship 2018 is in a Super-A game under Schedule–II to Rule 2006. The petitioner is therefore declared to be eligible to be categorised as P-I, and the categorization of the petitioner as P-V was wrong in view of the Rules and the same is unsustainable.”
It added “The petitioner was denied the opportunity to be admitted as a P-I candidate. The petitioner is entitled to compensation of Rs.10,00,000, within six weeks.”
Background
The court passed the order while hearing Raghunath's plea who had appeared in the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (UG Examination of 2022- 2023). She then filed an application seeking admission to Government seats in Medical Colleges against the quota reserved for sports. She sought for her application to be considered as a preference P-I or P-III candidate, however, she was given P-V and placed at Serial No.9 in the provisional eligibility list by the state government.
She said that she represented India in the Asian Youth Chess Championship 2018 through the All India Chess Federation and had won a Medal, adding that players participating in the competition were through sponsorship by the Federation. Her prayer was to consider her case for a sports quota reserved seat.
The government opposed the plea contending that the list of eligible candidates is prepared as per Rule 9(1)(B) of the Karnataka Selection of Candidates for Admission to Government Seats in Professional Educational Institution Rules, 2006. As per the Circular of June 23, 2023 participation and winning medals would be considered between June 1, 2018 and March 31, 2023; any achievement thereafter is not considered.
It contended that participation in the Asian Youth Chess Championship 2018 in Thailand is on invitation and does not represent the country, thus the same cannot be considered while evaluating eligibility and preference.
Opposing this the petitioner contended that the All India Chess Federation regulates chess activities in India and is recognized by the Government. Participation in international events as authorised by the All India Chess Federation is to be considered as representing the country, she added.
Findings
The court noted that the Chess Federation of India is a member of the Federation International Des Eches (FIDE). The court took note of a document stating that it indicates that the Thailand Chess Association, along with the Asian Chess Federation and FIDE, had invited the Chess Federations to participate in the Asian Youth Chess Championship, 2018. A document released by the Thailand Chess Association is the list of candidates who participated was also on record, which included the petitioner as well.
Considering the bylaws of AICF, which is set up with the object of promoting the chess game and that AICF–the apex body to organise national and international championships, can also select teams to represent India and maintain a National rank list of players. The State Chess Associations are affiliated members and any chess competition is through AICF, the court said.
Petitioner selected to participate in Asian Youth Chess Championship 2018, represented India
The court thereafter said “The candidates representing in the competitions at State level, National level and International level would be selected by the State Federation or All India Chess Federation. The petitioner, having been selected by the All India Chess Federation to participate in the 7th National Chess Championship, 2018 and Asian Youth Chess Championship, 2018, is to be considered as representing the Country.”
It added “The respondent-State except contending that the participation in 7th National Chess Championship 2018 and Asian Youth Chess Championship 2018 is on invitation and not representing the State or the Country, no material is placed on record to show any other mechanism, how the candidates are selected in Chess tournaments to represent the State or the Country. The certificate issued by the All India Chess Federation dated 09.11.2023 certifying the special entry of the petitioner in the Asian Youth Chess Championship 2018 would support the aforesaid view”.
It said that in the absence of any specific rule or guidelines made available to it, the petitioner's contention that candidates selected by the All India Chess Federation would represent the country needs to be accepted.
Candidate winning medal while representing India in Super A Game is categorised as P-I
It further observed that a certificate issued by AICF on the petitioner's participation in the Asian Youth Chess Championship 2018 would evident representing the Country.
It added, “As per Rule 9 read with Second Schedule, the Asian Championship is in the list of Super-A Games. The candidate who has won a medal while representing the country in the Super-A Games is to be categorised as P-I.” It further observed that the settled position was a Circular should complement the statutory requirement and not contradict it and that in the present case, the June 2023 communication cannot override Rule 9.
“The Court is of the view that the respondent-State has committed a serious error in placing the petitioner in the category P-V if not in P-I as contended," the court added.
Petitioner's categorization as P-V illegal, error committed due to non-application of mind
Further, it said, “The categorization of the petitioner as P-V is on the face of it illegal. The respondent authorities have committed serious errors either due to non-application of mind or the arbitrary exercise of the power. This action of the respondent authorities has deprived the petitioner's aspiration to pursue MBBS Course under Government seat reserved as sports quota.”
Noting that the petitioner is pursuing an MBBS Course in a private seat the court observed that due to the arbitrary action of the respondent-authorities, the "ambition of the parents and the student in pursuing sports activity to claim an incentive of preference for admission is totally scattered".
"The Court is bound to recognize the volume of time and money spent on pursuing the sport, apart from sacrificing academic training. Another aspect to be noticed and recognized is the moment of pride for the nation that was brought about by winning the certificate," it underscored.
Authorities' arbitrary action adds to the petitioner's financial burden, and affects rights
Stating that the additional financial burden on the petitioner to spend a higher amount for her MBBS Course is a result of the action of the authorities being arbitrary and in breach of the rules and regulations, which affected the rights of the petitioner and her further prospects.
It thereafter directed the government to pay compensation to the petitioner; it however said that relief of admission cannot be granted noting that if a direction is given to consider the petitioner under sports quota as P-I category, the admissions already concluded would be disturbed.
The court also rejected the contention of the government in regards to the requirement of achievements for the years 8th to 12th standard based on a circular issued in 2023.
It held “The requirement of achievements for the year 8th to 12th standard is mandated under Rule 9 of Rules 2006. Any exception can be as provided under the relevant Rules or any other statutory provisions. The communication dated 23.06.2023 is without any source of power to issue the same.”
Case Title: Sanjana Raghunath AND Karnataka Examination Authority & Others
Counsel for Petitioner: Advocate Srikanth M P
Counsel for State of Karnataka and Director of Medical Education: AGA M.N Sudev Hegde
Counsel for KEA: Advocate N K Ramesh
Counsel for National Medical Commission: Advocate N Khetty
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 422
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.18327 of 2023