MINOR C ARVIND Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is an applicant for admission to the Engineering Course under a special category for eminent sportsmen. In this writ petition, he has prayed for a declaration to declare Clause 4.5 Note (xii) (1) Sub-clause (a) and (b) contained in the Information and Instructions to candidates seeking admission in Tamil Nadu Engineering Admissions, 1999 for the year 1999-2000 as arbitrary and unconstitutional.

(2.) PETITIONER is an eminent sportsman in cricket in that he had participated in the 43rd National Schools Games in, 1997 and also captained the team in the G.K. Nayudu Tournament held in New Delhi during 1997-98. He further states that he had represented the State of Tamil Nadu in the category meant for persons under the age group of 16 and under the age group of 13 conducted by the Sports Authority of India. As such, he is eligible to be considered in the special category for the seven seats allotted by the Anna University for the I year B.E. Degree course. As per the Information and Instructions to candidates under Clause 4.5. it is stated as follows: "An eminent sports person (International. National/State level participants): No. of seats under D.O.T.E. -30 No. of seats for Anna University " 7 In the heading "Preferred Games", it is stated as follows: Note: Anna University has certain preference for" Sports persons depending upon the requirement as given below:- (1) Preferred Games: (a) For purpose of selection during the academic year 1999-2000, sports person proficient in the following games will be preferred: Table Tennis, Tennis. Athletics, Rowing, Swimming, Shuttle Badminton. Basket Ball " Men, Volley Ball Men. (b) If suitable sports persons proficient in the above games are not available, the sports persons proficient in the following games will be considered: Chess, Football, Hockey. Cricket. Other things being equal, preference will be based on the requirements of the University to be assessed by the Selection Committee."

(3.) THE petitioner cannot have any grievance insofar as his non-selection on merits is concerned since it has been conceded that an eminent cricket player has been selected under the sports quota. However, learned counsel for the petitioner is right in assailing the impugned clause as a person aggrieved and interest in the matter. Petitioner is an applicant for a sports quota and that he is an interested person. THErefore, the question whether the University is entitled to have a preference within the various disciplines of sports is; a matter to be considered. According the respondent University, they have certain preference for sports persons depending upon their requirement. It is further admitted that the preference varies from year to year. THE reservation of seats for a particular category is a concession and is a source of admission and not the reservation in the strict sense of the term. However, this source of admission should also stand the test of reasonableness. THE admission that the preference varies from year to year and depending upon the requirement is likely to lead to an arbitrary decision of selecting and choosing a particular discipline for a particular year.