SC Axes 75% Marks Requirement For Sports Quota In Engineering Course, Emphasizes On Prioritizing Sports In Educational Institutes
|The Supreme Court recently allowed an appeal that was filed challenging an order of the Punjab & Haryana High Court that had rejected a Writ Petition questioning the imposition of a minimum requirement of 75% aggregate marks in the qualifying examination for candidates to claim admission under the 2% sports quota for engineering courses.
The two-judge Bench of Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Aravind Kumar held,
“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.”
The appellant had challenged the 75% marks requirement for engineering admission under the 2% sports quota, approved by the Secretary of Technical Education, Chandigarh. Despite 28 of 34 applicants meeting the criteria, including the appellant's application that didn't meet the requirement, the High Court upheld the eligibility rule. This case highlighted the conflict over eligibility conditions for reserved categories in engineering admissions managed separately from the national Joint Seat Allocation Authority (JoSAA) program.
Senior Advocate P.S. Patwalia appeared for the Appellant and Advocate Sanchar Anand appeared for the Respondent.
Senior counsel for appellant contended that the 75% marks requirement for sports quota admission contradicts the purpose of providing a separate quota for athletes, as it assumes they should have the same academic excellence as general candidates. He emphasized that sports participants should be treated differently. He highlighted past guidelines that graded specific sports and events for inter-se rankings, focusing on sports proficiency over academic qualifications.
Counsel representing the respondent, argued against court intervention, citing nearly completed admissions and past instances where the UT imposed a 75% cut-off for sports quota eligibility. He suggested that setting a minimum educational requirement is a valid policy choice. He warned that court interference could disrupt existing allocations and exclude potentially better candidates who didn't apply.
The Court emphasized that equality doesn't mean absolute sameness but rather treating equals similarly and distinguishing unequals. The principle of reasonable classification was explained, highlighting that classification must be founded on intelligible differentia and must have a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved. The Court also warned against overemphasis on classification, which might erode the essence of equality.
It further cited specific cases to illustrate how the application of reasonable classification had been upheld or invalidated based on the context. As in the case of Deepak Sibal v Punjab University, 1989 (1) SCR 689 where a rule disqualifying employees of private establishments from admission was invalidated due to its divergence from the objective of accommodating evening class attendees. In Subramanian Swamy v Central Bureau of Investigation, 2014 (9) SCR 283 a classification based on status in government service was declared impermissible under Article 14 as it defeated the purpose of addressing corruption.
Finally, the Court applied these principles to the case at hand, emphasizing that the objective of introducing the sports quota was to promote and encourage sportsmanship. It argued that while universities can set eligibility criteria, these criteria should not negate the very purpose of the sports quota, which is to promote sports in educational institutions. The policy's objective is to encourage sports participation, and a uniform standard for all candidates contradicts this aim.
“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 Court found the 75% criterion discriminatory and ordered the vacant sports quota seat(s) to be filled using the existing sports policy's standards for inter-se merit among eligible candidates who applied. The appeal was allowed, upholding the sports policy's intent. The impugned order was set aside. No costs were imposed.
Cause Title: Dev Gupta v. PEC University of Technology & Ors.
Click here to read/download Judgment