75% Eligibility Condition For Admission To Sports Quota 'Unwarranted & Discriminatory': Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Wednesday(August 9) held that the requirement of minimum 75% in the qualifying examination imposed by the PEC (Punjab Engineering College) University of Technology for admission through the sports quota, i.e. 2% of intake of students, was ‘discriminatory’ and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

A division bench of Justice S Ravindra Bhat and Justice Aravind Kumar was of the view that the objective of the sports quota, was to promote and encourage sports, and sportsmanship in educational institutions. Expecting the same degree of academic excellence as that of general candidates will defeat the purpose of the sports quota the Court opined:

“The imposition of the minimum 75% eligibility condition, therefore, does not subserve the object of introducing the sports quota, but is, rather destructive of it; the criterion, in that sense subverted the object and is discriminatory; it therefore, falls afoul of the equality clause, in Article 14 of the Constitution.” The Apex Court held.

The Top Court was considering an appeal to an order of the Punjab & Haryana High Court that dismissed the challenge to the imposition of 75% marks as an eligibility criteria in the sports quota for admission in engineering courses.

The Secretary Technical Education, Chandigarh Administration had given approval to the respondent university to give admission to students through the Central Counselling System at the National level from 2016-2017. Hence, admission to institutions in Chandigarh are regulated by the said rules. Based on this, the respondent university issued its admission brochure for 2023-24 that included the said criteria for the sports quota in for engineering courses.

It was argued by Senior Adv. P S Patwalia, appearing for the appellant, who had failed to secure a seat under the quota, that such a criteria defeats the objective of the sports quota, since it requires sports persons to exhibit the same degree of academic excellence as general candidates. It was also contended by the appellant that in the past such a high criterion was not set for the sports quota. It was also pointed out by the appellant that the admission brochure specifies that Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (SC/ST) students must have secured 65% marks to be eligible, and hence vertical reservations do exist in such institutions.

Adv. Sanchar Anand, appearing for the respondent, argued that since it was a policy matter, the court ought not to intervene. He also submitted that out of the 34 who had applied, 28 had fulfilled the eligibility criteria and 16 out of the 17 seats had already been filled by them. He also contended that if the Court were to intervene at this stage it would result in large scale disruption of the allocations already made.

The Apex Court observed that the purpose of implementing a sports quota is not to prioritize academic excellence, but rather to promote sports within the institution, university, and the entire country:

“The objective of introducing sports quota, however, is not to accommodate academic merit, but something altogether different: promotion of sports in the institution, the university, and ultimately, in the country. Among others, universities are the nurseries or the catchment for sportspersons, who can represent in state, national, international level and Olympic sports. At the same time, the state or educational institution can insist upon a minimum eligibility condition. That is not to say that such condition would necessarily and mandatorily have to be what is applicable to general (or open category) candidates. The latter kind of criteria would tend to exclude meritorious sportspersons, and place the less (academically) meritorious sportspersons, at a disadvantageous position, because they satisfy the open category candidates’ criterion of higher academic merit."

Prescribing such a criteria without considering the individual's unique circumstances, goes against the principle of equality outlined in Article 14, the Court observed:

“For instance, it is quite possible that a sportsperson, who has and continues to represent the country in international Olympic sports, and gained such excellence as to have bagged a medal or two, in say, wrestling, would be altogether excluded in the eventuality of a wrestler, of the same category (but who has never reached the national level) securing 80% marks in the qualifying examination. It exactly this consequence which this court had warned would be the “unequal application” of a uniform criteria, a wooden equality without regard to the inherent differences, which Article 14 frowns upon, and forbids.”

The Top Court while replying on Manish Kumar v Union of India (UOI) & Ors ), 2021 (14) SCR 895 observed that equality under Article 14 has many dimensions and that unequals must not be treated equally:

“It is now entrenched in our constitutional jurisprudence, that the doctrine of equality has varied- and layered dimensions, one of which is that under Article 14, “Equals must be treated equally. Unequals must not be treated equally. What constitutes reasonable classification must depend upon the facts of each case, the context provided by the statute, the existence of intelligible differentia which has led to the grouping of the persons or things as a class and the leaving out of those who do not share the intelligible differentia. No doubt it must bear rational nexus to the objects sought to be achieved.”

The Court also found such a condition discriminatory because, for those candidates benefitting from vertical reservation, the eligibility in the sports quota is lowered too:

“Another reason which leads this court to conclude that discrimination has resulted, is because in respect of sports too, the state has lowered the criterion for those enjoying vertical classification, under Article 15 (4). In such event, it was open to the state to lower the eligibility criterion, for sports quota, to other candidates too; the dissimilarity in treatment is therefore, egregious. Moreover, the record indicates that except for the academic years 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2023-24, for all the previous years, the eligibility prescribed was lower”

The Court thus found the exclusion of the appellant and other like candidates, on the ground that they secured less than 75% in the qualifying examination, to be ‘unwarranted and discriminatory’.

"..it is held that exclusion of the petitioner and other like candidates, on the ground of their securing less than 75% in the qualifying examination, was unwarranted and discriminatory. The reference to, and incorporation of clauses giving effect to such criterion is held unenforceable and void." the Top Court held.

However, the Court also took note of the fact that allocation for admission to the seats were almost complete and that only one seat was remaining. The Court directed that the remaining seat be filled by the criteria applicable to the preceding academic year. The Court also stated that the candidates who had already been selected would not be disturbed.

Case Title: Dev Gupta V. Pec University of Technology, Civil Appeal No(s).    of 2023, Arising out of SLP (Civil) No(S). 15774 Of 2023.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 623

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment