Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6
PETITIONER:
KHALID HUSSAIN (MINOR), REPRESENTEDBY FATHER DR. AKTHAR HUSS
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
COMMISSIONER & SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OFTAMIL NADU, HEALTH
DATE OF JUDGMENT19/08/1987
BENCH:
SEN, A.P. (J)
BENCH:
SEN, A.P. (J)
RAY, B.C. (J)
CITATION:
1987 AIR 2074 1987 SCR (3)1049
1987 SCC Supl. 329 JT 1987 (3) 370
1987 SCALE (2)351
ACT:
Professional Colleges--Admission to: Category of ’emi-
nent sportsmen’--Selection of--Validity of--Selection must
necessarily depend upon academic merit.
Constitution of India, Arts. 226 & 136: Powers of the
Court--Not obligatory to interfere unless justice of the
case so demands.
HEADNOTE:
The State Government of Tamil Nadu reserved three seats
for the category ’eminent sportsmen’ for admission to the
MBBS Course for 1986-87 in the Government Medical Colleges.
Category (iii) in Annexure I to the prospectus indicated
their order of preference as participation at (a) Interna-
tional level, (b) National level, and (c) State level.
Candidates securing 50 per cent aggregate marks in science
subjects in the qualifying examination were made eligible.
The Selection Committee adopted participation at the nation-
al level to be the criterion and selected three candidates
on the basis of merit in the qualifying examination. Four
candidates were placed in the waiting list in order of
merit. The petitioner who was next in order of merit and
could not be selected, filed a petition under Art. 226 of
the Constitution assailing the select however, struck down
the selection of respondent No. 6 placed third in the select
list since he had actually not played at the national level,
and directed the Selection Committee to fill up the vacancy
from the waiting list and go by the order of merit. Dismiss-
ing the appeal by the petitioner the Division Bench held
that the decision of the Selection Committee was reached
bona fide on the basis of academic merit and that it was not
just and proper that the respondent No. 6 should lose his
seat in the medical college for no fault of his but at the
instance of the petitioner who stood no chance compared to
the other candidates in the waiting list.
In this special leave petition, it was contended for the
petitioner that the only criterion for selection was pre-
eminence in sports and not
1050
academic excellence, and that the Division Bench was in
error in not sustaining the order of the Single Judge set-
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6
ting aside the selection of respondent No. 6, who had played
in the Zonal tournament which was not of national level.
Dismissing the special leave petition,
HELD: 1. All that Category (iii) does is to lay down a
rule of preference. A candidate who had participated at
international level would exclude a candidate participating
at National level and a person who had participated at
National level would exclude a person participating at State
level. There are no guidelines provided for determination of
comparative eminence as between candidates belonging to the
same class, e.g. at National level. Nor does it provide for
any guidelines by which the choice has to be made between
the candidates who have excelled in a particular field of
sports, e.g. acquatics, or when there is more than one
candidate who have excelled in their respective fields of
sports e.g. cricket, football, hockey etc. and the number of
seats reserved are less than the candidates found eligible.
All of them being more or less equal, the best method is to
go by marks obtained at the qualifying examination. The
selection must, therefore, necessarily depend upon their
academic merits. If the adjudging of comparative merit
amount the eligible candidates is left to the discretion of
the Executive that would necessarily introduce an element of
subjectivity, which would introduce arbitrariness. [1055B-F]
2. It is not obligatory for the Court to interfere in
all cases unless justice of the case so demands. In the
instant case the High Court was entitled to take the view
that the Court ought not to, in the facts and circumstances
of the case, exercise its discretionary powers under Art.
226 of the Constitution at the instance of the petitioner
who was not entitled to any relief. Any other view would
have been manifestly unjust. [1056C-D]
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petitions
(Civil) Nos. 5535-36 of 1987.
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.4. 1987 of the
Madras High Court in W.A. No. 1302 and 1307 of 1986.
Nalini Chidambaram and Ms. Seita Vaidyalingam for the
Petitioner.
1051
B. Datta, Additional Solicitor General, Shanti Bhushan
S. Padmanabhan, M.A’. Krishnamurthy, K.K. Mani, K. Swami
anti A.V. Rangam for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SEN, J. The short question involved in these special
leave petitions is whether the proper criterion to adopt for
selection of candidates belonging to the category ’eminent
sportsmen’, for admission to the MB.B.S. course, is pre-
eminence in sports, and not academic excellence. In the
prospectus issued by the State Government of Tamil Nadu for
admission to the M.B.B.S. course for 1986-87 in the Govern-
ment Medical Colleges in the State, there was reservation of
three seats for the category ’eminent sportsmen’ as speci-
fied in category (iii) to Annexure I, also indicating the
order of preference. The relevant provision reads:
"(iii) Eminent Sportsmen,
The order of preference is as follows: -
(a) participation at International level, the
candidate being sponsored by a national body.
(b) participation at National level, the
candidate being sponsored by a State Body or
University.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6
(c) participation at State level, the candi-
date being sponsored by Zonal or District
Association.
Sponsorship Certificate should be produced. If
not produced, candidate will not be considered
under this category.
Note: Candidates applying for admission to
categories (i), (ii) and (iii) must have
secured 50% aggregate marks in science sub-
jects in the qualifying examination."
It appears that the petitioner along with 2 16 others ap-
plied for the sports quota reserved for ’eminent sportsmen’.
The petitioner who is a champion in acquatics had been
sponsored by the Tamil Nadu State Acquatic Association
showing participation in several tournaments at National
level. The Selection Committee adopted participation at
1052
National level to be the criterion and thus 16 candidates
were left in the field. It selected respondents nos. 4-6 for
the three seats reserved for ’eminent sportsmen’ on the
basis of marks obtained by them at the qualifying examina-
tion. The petitioner having obtained 174.50 marks was not
placed either in the select list or in the waiting list. It
is necessary to set out the marks obtained by the petitioner
as well as respondents nos.4-6 as also.the candidates placed
in the waiting list:
1. Khalid Hussain, Petitioner 174.50
2. R. Vijaya Sree, 4th Respondent 215.40
3. Seshasayee Narasimhan, 5th res. 202.95
4. K. Subramaniam, 6th res. 200.90
Waiting List Candidates
1. T. Jayaraj 196.55
2. Suja Ramakrishnan 192.80
3. Praveen Kumar David 190.58
4. G. Rajalakshmi 186.60
Aggrieved by the non-inclusion of his name in the select
list, he moved the High Court of Madras by a petition under
Art. 226 of the Constitution. A learned Single Judge (Mohan,
J.) by his judgment dated December 2, 1986 observed that the
whole purpose of reservation of three seats for the category
’eminent sportsmen’ was to encourage sports and held that in
order to show some distinction with regard to individual
achievements, three categorisations had been made, such as
participation at International level, National level and
State level and beyond that, he saw absolutely no scope for
importing the concept of determining eminence inter se among
the candidates falling within a particular category. He
further observed that the decision of a Division Bench in P.
Sabitha v. The Director of Medical Education & Ors., (W.P.
No. 9406/83 decided on April 6, 1984) which upheld the
validity of such reservation of seats for sportsmen was of
little avail to the petitioner. The learned Judge struck
down the selection of respondent no. 6 as invalid on the
ground that the Selection Committee proceeded on a wrongful
assumption that he had actually played at National level in
the V. Pattabhiraman Trophy Tournament, while he had only
been selected to play at the Tournament. He, however, dis-
missed the writ petition and declined to grant the petition-
er any relief since he had no chance of getting admission as
there were candidates in the waiting list who had obtained
higher marks than him and made a direction that the Selec-
tion Committee would fill up the vacancy from the waiting
list and go by the order of merit.
1053
Being dissatisfied with the judgment, the petitioner
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6
preferred an appeal, but the Division Bench declined to
interfere. In delivering the judgment of the Division Bench,
M.N. Chandurkar, CJ speaking for himself and M. Srinivasan,
J. referred to P. Sabitha’s case which upheld reservation of
seats for the category ’eminent sportsmen’. As regards the
category ’eminent sportsmen’ appearing in the present rule,
the learned Chief Justice observed:
"It has to be pointed out that the rules
themselves do not provide for any comparative
degree of eminence between different candi-
dates in the same category. Such a determina-
tion of comparative eminence, apart from
introducing an element of subjective determi-
nation and providing a scope for discretion
which would be capable of being arbitrarily
exercised in the absence of any guidelines,
also appears to us to be impracticable. The
reservation for ’eminent sportsmen’ is not
restricted to any particular game. There are
different kinds of game and different kinds of
tournament. In some games, tournaments are
held more frequently than in others. To com-
pare the performance, whether qualitywise or
quantitywise, by a candidate proficient in one
game with the performance of a candidate in an
altogether different game is neither possible
nor feasible. The proper approach to determine
which of the candidates in one particular
category should be given a preference in the
selection must therefore necessarily depend
only on their academic merit."
We are in agreement with the observations made by the
learned Chief Justice.
In support of the petition, Ms. Nalini Chidambaram,
learned counsel for the petitioner sought to raise two
points before us. The first was that a Division Bench of the
High Court in P. Sabitha v. The Director of Medical Educa-
tion (supra) laid down a principle that preeminence in
sports was the only criterion for select-ion of candidates
falling under the category ’eminent sportsmen’, and not
academic excellence. She pointed out that the learned Advo-
cate General in P. Sabitha’s case adopted the stand that the
seats were reserved for eminent sportsmen and therefore it
is only eminence attained in the field of sports that can be
the guiding factor for selection of candidates in that
category, and not anything else, and submitted that it was
not open to the State Government to shift the stand now and
justify the action of
1054
the Selection Committee in selecting candidates, not by
their distinguished superiority as compared with others,
fame or excellence in the field of sports, but merely on the
basis of higher marks obtained in the qualifying examina-
tion. The contention was that the view expressed by the
learned Judges that in case of professional courses merit
alone should be the criterion and therefore reservation of
seats under the category ’eminent sportsmen’ could be
availed of only by deserving candidates which, it was said,
runs counter to the principle laid down by the earlier
Division. Bench in P. Sabitha’s case. The second contention
was that at any rate, the learned Judges were in error in
observing that though they were inclined to take the view
that respondent no. 6 had really not participated in a
national tournament as he had in fact played in the zonal
tournament, that the Selection Committee had wrongly select-
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6
ed him as a successful candidate on the impression that the
zonal tournament was of national level, even then they were
not inclined to sustain the order of the learned Single
Judge by which he set aside the selection of respondent no.
6. The learned Judges held that the Selection Committee was
justified in making the selection of respondents nos. 4-6
under the category ’eminent sportsmen’ on the basis of their
academic merit. The learned Judges further held that there
were no allegations of mala fides and the decision of the
Selection Committee was reached bona fide and merely because
respondent no. 6 had been wrongly selected, that was no
ground for interference inasmuch as respondent no. 6 had
been admitted to the Medical College and undergone studies
for the M.B.B.S. course for almost a period of six months,
and had given up his seat in another technical course for
which he had been admitted, namely, in the Regional Engi-
neering College, Kurukshetra and there was no change of his
getting back that seat, and it would not be just and proper
that he should lose his seat in the Medical College for no
fault of his but at the instance of the petitioner who stood
no chance compared to the other candidates in the waiting
list having secured much lesser marks. In ’taking ’that
view, the learned Judges observed that it was not obligatory
for the Court to interfere in all cases unless justice of
the case requires interference. We are afraid, we are unable
to accept any of the contentions.
The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner does
not take note of the fact that the decision in P. Sabitha’s
case proceed on an interpretation of a provision for reser-
vation of seats for the category ’eminent sportsmen’ which
was altogether different. The importance of the decision in
P. Sabitha’s case lies only on the view that a provision for
reservation of seats in professional courses for sportsmen
was
1055
not irrational or arbitrary but had reasonable nexus to the
object sought to be achieved in public interest, namely,
promotion of sports. In the prospectus for the year 1986-87,
the State Government has brought about a change. The provi-
sion, as it now stands, provides for a rule of preference.
Category (iii) dealing with eminent sportsmen lays down the
order of preference as between candidates for selection and
makes sponsorship certificate a condition prerequisite for
eligibility. Further, candidates applying for admission to
category (iii) like categories (i) and (ii) must have se-
cured 50% aggregate marks in science subjects in the quali-
fying examination. The rule nowhere provides for any deter-
mination of comparative eminence. All that the rule does is
to lay down a rule of preference. A candidate who had par-
ticipated at International level would exclude a candidate
participating at National level and a person who had partic-
ipated at National level would exclude a person participat-
ing at State level. It has to be pointed out that the rule
itself does not provide for determination of comparative
eminence as between different candidates falling within the
same class but as between sportsmen who have participated at
International level, National level and State level. It only
provides for the rule of exclusion of one by the other.
There are no guidelines provided by which comparative emi-
nence can be judged as between candidates belonging to the
same class e.g. at National level, as here. Nor does it
provide for any guidelines by which the choice has to be
made as between the candidates who have excelled in a par-
ticular field of sports e.g. acquatics. The real difficulty
arises when there is more than one candidate who have ex-
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6
celled in their respective fields of sports e.g. cricket,
football, hockey etc. and the number of seats reserved are
less than the candidates found eligible. All of them being
more or less equal, the best method is to go by marks ob-
tained at the qualifying examination. In such a case, the
selection must necessarily depend upon their academic mer-
its. Even in P. Sabitha’s case, the Court realised the
difficulty to lay down any guidelines for adjudging compara-
tive eminence between sportsmen falling within the same
class and it was said that when candidates are shown to have
attained equal proficiency in sports, then their academic
superiority can be pressed into service as a tilting factor
in their favour.
In the absence of any guidelines for purposes of selec-
tion, the adjudging of comparative merits among the eligible
candidates falling under the category ’eminent sportsmen’
would necessarily introduce, as the learned Chief Justice
observed, "an element of subjectivity which would introduce
arbitrariness" in the selection of candidates
1056
because it would be left to the discretion of the Executive
in making the choice. In the absence of any guidelines,
there is. nothing for the Selection Committee to fall back
upon except the marks obtained by the candidates at the
qualifying examination. The argument of the learned counsel
obviously based on the observations in P. Sabitha’s case
that the proper test to adopt in the matter of selection of
candidates for admission to the M.B.B.S. course belonging to
the category ’eminent sportsmen’ was pre-eminence in sports
and not academic excellence, cannot be accepted. That test
cannot obviously be applied in interpreting the present
rule.
The remaining contention does not merit consideration.
The learned Judges although inclined to the view that re-
spondent no. 6 had really not participated in a National
tournament, were entitled to take the view that the Court
ought not to, in the facts and circumstances of the case,
exercise its discretionary powers under Art. 226 of the
Constitution at the instance of the petitioner who was not
entitled to any relief merely because the Selection Commit-
tee was wrong in its view that respondent no. 6 had played
in a National tournament although he had in fact played in a
zonal tournament. Any other view would have been manifestly
unjust as respondent no. 6 though admitted to the Regional
Engineering College, Kurukshetra had given up his seat there
on his being admitted to the M.B.B.S. course and had already
undergone his course of studies for more than six months.
The learned Judges rightly observe that it is not obligatory
for the Court to interfere in all cases unless justices of
the case so demands.
In the result, the special leave petitions must fail and
are dismissed.
P.S.S Petitions
dismissed.
1057