JYOTHIR. R vs. SUNISHA N.S.

     REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.     7025­7026      OF 2019 (arising out of SLPs (Civil) Nos. 20085­20086 of 2019) JYOTHIR R                   …APPELLANT Versus SUNISHA N.S. & ORS.    …RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7028 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C)No. 20529 of 2019) O R D E R  IN S.L.P.(C) Nos. 20085­20086 of 2019 Leave granted. 1. The   present   Appeals   have   been   filed   by   the   Appellant   to challenge the Judgement and Order dated 07.08.2019 passed by a division bench of the Kerala High Court in W.A. Nos. 1757 & 1758 of 2019. 2. The issue raised in the present Appeals pertain to admission to the M.B.B.S. course in the State of Kerala, for the academic year 2019­20, for the 9 seats reserved for the Sports Quota.  3. The Appellant – candidate had applied for admission under the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by DEEPAK SINGH Date: 2020.07.09 13:21:10 IST Reason: rd Sports Quota, on the basis of having secured the 3  position 1 in Kerala under 25 Chess Championship conducted by the Sports Association of Thiruvanthpuram in January 2019. The Appellant had represented the Kollam District.  4. The Prospectus for Admission to Professional Degree Courses st (KEAM – 2018) was issued on 1  February, 2019. Clause 1.6 of the Prospectus states that :   “The Prospectus is subject to modification/addition/ deletion   as   may   be   deemed   necessary   by   the Government”. The   allotment   to   sports   quota   seats   in   professional degree   courses   is   governed   by   clause   5.2.6   of   the prospectus   for   admission   to   professional   degree courses, approved by the State Government vide G.O. (M.S.) No. 22/2019/H.Edn.dated 1.2.2019.” Clause 5.2.16 reads as follows :  “5.2.16   Sports   Quota   (SP):   Candidates   who   claim reservation   under   Sports   Quota   shall   fulfil   their eligibility based on the norms of Kerala State Sports Council   appended   in   Annexure   XVIII   (ii)   prior   to submission of application, for the seats as prescribed in the Prospectus.” As per the Prospectus, the applications for admission under   Sports   Quota   are   submitted   to   the   Kerala   States Sports Council, which allots marks to candidates according to   their   proficiency   in   sports.   The   maximum   marks   for proficiency is 500. The Guidelines of the Sports Council for awarding marks for proficiency in sports is provided under Annexure   XVIII(ii)   of   the   Prospectus.   The   marks   list   of candidates   under   “Individual   Events”   and   “Team   Events” are prepared separately and forwarded to the Commissioner th for the Entrance Examinations on or before 30  April 2018.  5. In   the   case   of   candidates   seeking   admission   to   Medical courses, the marks for proficiency in sports are awarded out of 2 500, which are added to the marks obtained by the candidates in the NEET­UG 2019.  The   Sports   Council   allots   marks   to   the   candidates according to their proficiency in sports. The seats under the Sports Quota are filled up by giving equal representation to students in both the individual and team categories. The principle for allotment is 1:1 to be implemented by allotting the   seats   alternatively   between   the   two   categories   of individual event and team event.   6. The   NEET­UG   2019   Examination   was   conducted   on   the 05.05.2019   for   the   current   academic   year   2019­20   for admission to the undergraduate M.B.B.S. course. th 7. On   8/9   May,   2019   the   verification   of   candidates   was conducted by the Kerala Sports Council. th 8.   On 19   May, 2019 the Kerala Sports Council published the provisional list of candidates eligible for the Sports Quota, both in   the   Individual   and   the   Team   Categories,   and   invited objections/complaints   to   the   same.   The   last   date   for th submission of objections was 25  May, 2019. It   is   relevant   to   note   that   the   Appellant   raised   no objection to the provisional list. th 9. On 27   May, 2019, the Kerala Sports Council published the Final List of eligible candidates under both the Individual and Team   Quotas.   The   Appellant   did   not   raise   any objection/complaint   even   at   this   stage.   The   Final   list   was forwarded to the State CEE. th 10. On 6   June, 2019 the All India NEET­UG 2019 result was declared. 3 11. The State CEE published the category­wise list of candidates eligible   for   M.B.B.S.,   including   the   Sports   Quota   in   the th Individual and the Team Category on 28  June, 2019. 12. There   were   7   seats   available   for   the   Sports   Quota   for admission   to   the   M.B.B.S.   course,   while   two   seats   were reserved for B.D.S. Out of the 7 seats for M.B.B.S., in the Sports Quota, 4 seats were allotted to the Individual event category, and 3 were allotted to the Team event category. 13. The Appellant secured final marks of 548.4722 in the NEET­ UG examination, after including the marks awarded to him in the Sports (Individual) category.  Respondent No.5 – Sujithraj U. Mallan was awarded 669.1667 in the Sports (Individual) category. Respondent   No.1   –   Sunisha   N.S.   was   awarded 594.0278 in the Sports (Team) category. 14. The Appellant filed a Representation to the Secretary of the Sports Council of Kerala alleging that Respondent No. 5 – Mr. Sujithraj Mallan had wrongly been included in the Individual List, as he had participated in a Team event. 15. The Appellant then filed W.P.(C) No. 17995/2019 before the Kerala   High   Court   praying     for   a   direction   to   the inter   alia Sports Council of Kerala to re­consider the marks allotted to the Appellant, and consider shifting Respondent No. 5 to the Sports (Team) List.  The Appellant impleaded two students i.e. Respondent No.5   –   Sujithraj   U.   Mallan,   and   one   Mr.   Vinay   Thomas Abraham as party Respondents in the Writ Petition.  16. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, on 06.07.2019, the Kerala   State   Sports   Council   informed   the   Commissioner   of 4 Entrance   Examinations   that   four   candidates   including Respondent No.5 – Sujithraj U. Mallanhad, had erroneously been included in the Final Sports (Individual) List, even though they ought to have been included in the Sports (Team) List. 17. The   Commissioner   of   Entrance   Examinations   declined   to consider the communication of the Kerala State Sports Council dated 06.07.2019 received after the publication of the final list at a belated stage of the admission process. 18. The   first   round   of   allotment   was   made   by   the   Entrance Commissioner on 08.07.2019 with an option to the candidates to join on or before 12.07.2019.  19. The   Single   Judge   of   the   High   Court   vide   Judgment   dated 05.08.2019,   allowed   the   Writ   Petition,   holding   that   the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations was obligated to act on   the   communication   of   the   Kerala   State   Sports   Council. Accordingly, Respondent No.5 – Sujithraj U. Mallanhad was directed to be considered for admission in the Sports (Team) List. 20. Aggrieved by the said Judgment, Respondent No. 1 – Sunisha N. S. on 07.08.2019, filed Writ Appeal No. 1757 of 2019 to challenge   the   Judgment   dated   05.08.2019   passed   by   the learned Single Judge. 21. The Division Bench, after hearing the Counsel for Respondent No. 5 – Sujithraj U. Mallanhad, on the same day set­aside the Order of the Single Judge and directed that the Rank List be re­cast   by   amending   the   category   of   Respondent   No.5   – Sujithraj U. Mallan had in the Sports (Individual) category. The consequence of implementing the direction of the Single Judge 5 at this belated stage would mean that the entire admission process would require to be re­done, which was undesirable. It was ordered that the Rank of Respondent Nos. 1 and 5 be retained as per the list prepared on 28.06.2019. 22. The Appellant was not issued Notice in the Writ Appeal, and hence was not heard by the Division Bench.  23. Aggrieved, by the judgment dated 07.08.2019 passed by the Division Bench, the Appellant has filed the present Appeals. 24. We have heard the learned Counsels for all the parties, and perused   the   material   on   record.   We   affirm   the   judgment passed   by   the   Division   Bench   for   the   reasons   set   out hereunder : 24.1. The Writ Petition filed by the Appellant before the High Court   was   wholly   speculative   in   nature.   The   entire case   of   the   Appellant   was   based   upon   shifting Respondent   No.5   from   the   Individual   Quota   to   the Team   Quota,   which   would   result   in   the   Appellant getting selected in the Sports (Individual) category, and having the marks added to his NEET score. Such a plea was wholly unfounded, particularly since out of the candidates in the Sports (Individual) category,   the   Appellant   has   admittedly   scored   the lowest marks. Respondent No. 1 had secured 57 marks, while Respondent No. 5 had secured 53 marks. 24.2. The Appellant did not disclose in the Writ Petition, that if   the   relief   prayed   for   was   granted,   it   would   have resulted in the displacement of another student in the Team category  viz . Antony P. Alappat, who had scored 60 marks in the final result.  6 The Appellant did not even join Mr. Alappat as a party to the proceedings. Hence, the prayer made by the Appellant herein was liable to be rejected on this ground also. 24.3. The Appellant had admittedly not raised any objection th to   the   provisional   list   which   was   published   on   19 May, 2019 even though an opportunity was given to all candidates to raise objections. The final list came was on 27.05.2019, which was also not objected to by the Appellant.  The Appellant raised a challenge only after the category wise list of reserved candidates was published on 28.06.2019, when the Appellant chose to file his Writ   Petition   on   01.07.2019   after   the   seats   were allotted in the Sports quota.  The   entire   case   of   the   Appellant   is   an afterthought, and has been made at a belated stage of the admission process, and cannot be entertained.  24.4. If the plea of the Appellant was to be accepted, it would impact the criteria adopted for admission not only to the M.B.B.S. course, but also other professional degree courses,   for   which   the   same   norms   for   selection   of candidates in the Sports category are applicable.  24.5. The   Appellant   did   not   reveal   in   the   Special   Leave Petition that the counselling had been completed on 08.08.2019,   and   all   the   students,   including   the Appellant, Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 5 had   secured   admission   in   various   medical   colleges, and were undergoing the course. 7 This fact was not disclosed to the Court even at th the time of admission hearing on 19   August, 2019 when this Court issue notice and granted an interim order in favour of the Appellant. These facts came on record in the Counter Affidavit filed by Respondent No. th 1 on 27   August, 2019. The Appellant ought to have approached this Court with candour, and disclosed the correct facts. 24.6. The Kerala State Sports Council was wholly unjustified in making a recommendation for shifting Respondent No.   5   after   the   Final   List   had   been   released.   The consequence of implementing such a direction at such a belated stage, would be that the entire admission process under the Sports Quota would require to be re­done.   The   letter   dated   06.07.2019   was   wholly unjustified,   and   the   Division   Bench   has   rightly disregarded the same. 25. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the prayer of the Appellant to consider Respondent No. 5 in the Sports (Team) Quota is unsustainable on merits. It is made clear that for the purposes of admission to the M.B.B.S course in the Sports Quota, the position   awarded   to   the   candidates   in   the   final   Rank   List published by the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations on 28.06.2019, shall be the basis for granting admission by the authorities. 26. Accordingly, the Civil Appeals are dismissed.  The interim Order passed on 19.08.2019 is vacated. Pending applications, if any, are dismissed. 8 In S.L.P.(C) No. 20529 of 2019 Leave granted. The Appeal is disposed of in terms of the order passed in the Civil appeal Nos. 7025­7026 of 2019. ...…...............………………J. (INDU MALHOTRA) .......................................J. (SANJIV KHANNA) New Delhi; September 5, 2019. 9