Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the rejection of a writ petition by the Punjab & Haryana High Court, which challenged the imposition of a minimum 75% aggregate marks requirement for admission to engineering courses under the 2% sports quota. The appellant, Dev Gupta, argued that this sudden eligibility condition was arbitrary and defeated the purpose of the sports quota. The university had received 34 applications for 17 sports quota seats, with only 28 candidates meeting the 75% requirement, including the appellant who did not qualify. The court noted that the eligibility criteria for other reserved categories were lower, thus highlighting the discriminatory nature of the 75% requirement for sports candidates. The court analyzed the historical context of the eligibility criteria, noting that previous years had lower thresholds for sports quota admissions. The court emphasized that the objective of the sports quota was to promote sports and that imposing a high academic standard could exclude deserving candidates who excelled in sports. Ultimately, the court held that the exclusion of candidates based on the 75% criterion was unwarranted and discriminatory, directing that the remaining seat(s) be filled based on the standards set out in the sports policy. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside, with no costs awarded.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Equality Before Law - Discriminatory Admission Criteria - Constitution of India, Article 14 - The imposition of a minimum 75% eligibility criterion for sports quota candidates was held to be arbitrary and discriminatory as it undermined the objective of promoting sports. The court directed that remaining seats be filled based on the standards outlined in the sports policy, not the higher academic threshold (Paras 19-20).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the imposition of a minimum 75% aggregate marks as an eligibility condition for the sports quota is arbitrary and discriminatory.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court held that the imposition of the 75% eligibility criterion was arbitrary and discriminatory, directing that remaining seats be filled based on the standards outlined in the sports policy. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside.
Law Points
- eligibility criteria
- sports quota
- discrimination
- Article 14
- reasonable classification
