KHALID HUSSAIN MINOR Vs. COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO GOVERN MENT OF TAMIL NADU HEALTH DEPARTMENT MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 M.B.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 Government Medical Colleges in the State, there was reservation of three seats for the category 'eminent sportsmen' as specified in category (iii) to Annexure I, also indicating the order of preference. THE relevant provision reads :

(2.) 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 2/12/1986 (reported in 1987 Writ LR 9 1) 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 6/04/1984) 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, dismissed the writ petition and declined to grant the petitioner 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 Selection Committee would fill up the vacancy from the waiting list and go by the order of merit.

(3.) THE argument of learned counsel for the petitioner does not take note of the fact that the decision in P. Sabitha's case proceeded on an interpretation of a provision for reservation 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 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 provision, 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 secured 50 Per Cent aggregate marks in science subjects in the qualifying examination. THE rule nowhere provides for any determination of comparative eminence. All that the rule 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. 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 eminence 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 particular field of sports e.g. acquatics. THE real difficulty arises when there are more than one candidates 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. In such a case, the selection must necessarily depend upon their academic merits. Even in P. Sabitha's case, the Court realised the difficulty to lay down any guidelines for adjudging comparative 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.