Supreme Court Upholds Admission List for MBBS Sports Quota in Kerala: Jyothir R vs. Sunisha N.S. (2019)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: September 5, 2019
Citation: 2019 INSC 958
Judges: Indu Malhotra, J. and Sanjiv Khanna, J.

Can a candidate challenge the final list of selected candidates for MBBS under the Sports Quota after failing to raise objections during the provisional list stage? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case concerning admissions to the MBBS course in Kerala. The Court upheld the decision of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, which had refused to interfere with the final list of candidates selected under the Sports Quota. The judgment emphasizes the importance of adhering to the prescribed timelines and procedures in the admission process.

The bench comprised of Justice Indu Malhotra and Justice Sanjiv Khanna. The judgment was authored by Justice Indu Malhotra.

Case Background

The case revolves around the admission process for the MBBS course in Kerala for the academic year 2019-20, specifically concerning the 9 seats reserved under the Sports Quota. The appellant, Jyothir R, applied for admission under this quota, citing his third-place finish in a state-level chess championship.

The admission process was governed by the Prospectus for Admission to Professional Degree Courses (KEAM – 2018), which stated that the prospectus was subject to modifications. The prospectus also stated that the sports quota admissions would be based on the norms of the Kerala State Sports Council. Candidates applying under the Sports Quota were required to submit their applications to the Kerala State Sports Council, which would then award marks based on their proficiency in sports. These marks were then added to the NEET-UG scores for medical course admissions.

The Sports Council published a provisional list of eligible candidates on May 19, 2019, inviting objections. The appellant did not raise any objections. A final list was published on May 27, 2019, which was also not challenged by the appellant. The NEET-UG results were declared on June 6, 2019, and the category-wise list of eligible candidates, including the Sports Quota, was published on June 28, 2019.

Jyothir R secured 548.4722 marks after including sports marks, while other candidates, such as Sujithraj U. Mallan and Sunisha N.S., secured higher marks. Jyothir R then filed a representation alleging that Sujithraj Mallan was wrongly included in the Individual List, as he had participated in a Team event.

The appellant filed a writ petition before the Kerala High Court seeking a direction to the Sports Council to reconsider the marks allotted to him and to shift Sujithraj Mallan to the Sports (Team) List. The Kerala State Sports Council, during the pendency of the writ petition, informed the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations that four candidates, including Sujithraj Mallan, had been erroneously included in the Individual List. However, the Commissioner declined to consider this communication.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the appellant, directing the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations to act on the communication of the Kerala State Sports Council and consider Sujithraj Mallan for admission in the Sports (Team) List.

Aggrieved by the order of the Single Judge, Respondent No. 1, Sunisha N.S., filed a Writ Appeal. The Division Bench of the High Court set aside the order of the Single Judge, directing that the rank list be recast by amending the category of Sujithraj Mallan in the Sports (Individual) category. The Division Bench held that implementing the direction of the Single Judge at such a belated stage would require the entire admission process to be redone, which was undesirable.

The appellant, Jyothir R, was not issued notice in the Writ Appeal and hence was not heard by the Division Bench. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Division Bench, the appellant filed the present appeals before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The admission process was governed by the Prospectus for Admission to Professional Degree Courses (KEAM – 2018), specifically Clause 1.6, which states:

“The Prospectus is subject to modification/addition/deletion as may be deemed necessary by the Government”.

Clause 5.2.6 of the prospectus states that the allotment to sports quota seats is governed by the rules approved by the State Government vide G.O. (M.S.) No. 22/2019/H.Edn. dated 1.2.2019.

Clause 5.2.16 of the prospectus reads as follows:

“5.2.16 Sports Quota (SP): Candidates who claim reservation under Sports Quota shall fulfil their eligibility based on the norms of Kerala State Sports Council appended in Annexure XVIII (ii) prior to submission of application, for the seats as prescribed in the Prospectus.”

The guidelines of the Sports Council for awarding marks for proficiency in sports are provided under Annexure XVIII(ii) of the Prospectus. The marks list of candidates under “Individual Events” and “Team Events” are prepared separately and forwarded to the Commissioner for the Entrance Examinations.

Arguments

The arguments presented by the parties are as follows:

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant contended that Respondent No. 5, Sujithraj U. Mallan, was wrongly included in the Sports (Individual) list.
• The appellant argued that Sujithraj Mallan should have been included in the Sports (Team) list, as he participated in a team event.
• The appellant submitted that if Sujithraj Mallan was shifted to the Team list, the appellant would have a higher chance of getting selected in the Sports (Individual) category.
• The appellant sought a direction to the Sports Council to reconsider the marks allotted to him.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The respondents argued that the appellant did not raise any objections to the provisional list published on May 19, 2019, or the final list published on May 27, 2019.
• The respondents contended that the appellant raised the challenge only after the category-wise list of reserved candidates was published on June 28, 2019, at a belated stage of the admission process.
• The respondents submitted that the Kerala State Sports Council was not justified in recommending the shifting of Respondent No. 5 after the final list was released.
• The respondents argued that accepting the appellant’s plea would impact the criteria adopted for admission to not only the MBBS course but also other professional degree courses.
• The respondents submitted that the counseling had been completed on August 8, 2019, and all students, including the appellant and respondents, had secured admission and were undergoing the course.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not frame specific issues but addressed the following points:

• Whether the Writ Petition filed by the Appellant before the High Court was speculative in nature.
• Whether the Appellant had disclosed all the facts in the Writ Petition.
• Whether the Appellant had raised objections at the appropriate time.
• Whether the Kerala State Sports Council was justified in making a recommendation for shifting Respondent No. 5 after the final list had been released.
• Whether the prayer of the Appellant to consider Respondent No. 5 in the Sports (Team) Quota was sustainable on merits.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Court did not cite any specific cases or books in its judgment. The legal provisions considered by the court were:

• Clause 1.6 of the Prospectus for Admission to Professional Degree Courses (KEAM – 2018), which allows for modifications to the prospectus.
• Clause 5.2.6 of the prospectus, which states that the sports quota admissions are governed by the rules approved by the State Government.
• Clause 5.2.16 of the prospectus, which specifies the eligibility criteria for candidates claiming reservation under the Sports Quota.
• Annexure XVIII(ii) of the Prospectus, which provides the guidelines of the Sports Council for awarding marks for proficiency in sports.

Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, dismissing the appeals filed by Jyothir R. The Court held that the writ petition filed by the appellant was speculative, that the appellant had not disclosed all the facts, and that the appellant had raised objections at a belated stage.

The Court also held that the Kerala State Sports Council was not justified in making a recommendation for shifting Respondent No. 5 after the final list had been released.

The Court stated that for the purposes of admission to the MBBS course in the Sports Quota, the position awarded to the candidates in the final Rank List published by the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations on 28.06.2019, shall be the basis for granting admission.

The Court considered the following authorities:

• Clause 1.6 of the Prospectus for Admission to Professional Degree Courses (KEAM – 2018): The Court noted that the prospectus is subject to modifications, but did not find it relevant to the issue at hand.
• Clause 5.2.6 of the prospectus: The Court considered this clause to understand that the sports quota admissions are governed by the rules approved by the State Government.
• Clause 5.2.16 of the prospectus: The Court considered this clause to understand the eligibility criteria for candidates under the Sports Quota.
• Annexure XVIII(ii) of the Prospectus: The Court considered this annexure to understand the guidelines of the Sports Council for awarding marks for proficiency in sports.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The speculative nature of the appellant’s petition, which was based on the possibility of another candidate being shifted to a different list.
• The appellant’s failure to disclose that his plea would displace another student, and his failure to include that student as a party to the proceedings.
• The appellant’s failure to raise objections at the appropriate time, i.e., during the provisional list stage.
• The belated nature of the challenge, which was raised only after the final list was published and the admission process had progressed.
• The potential impact of accepting the appellant’s plea on the admission process for other professional degree courses.
• The fact that the counselling process had been completed and all students, including the appellant, had secured admission.
• The unjustifiable recommendation by the Kerala State Sports Council to shift Respondent No. 5 after the final list had been released.

The court’s reasoning can be explained as follows:

The Court considered the argument that the Sports Council had made a mistake in including Respondent No. 5 in the Individual list, but rejected it because the Council made the recommendation to shift Respondent No. 5 at a belated stage. The Court also noted that the appellant had not approached the Court with candour, as he had not disclosed that the counselling process had been completed.

The Court concluded that the appellant’s plea was unsustainable on merits and that the final list published by the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations on 28.06.2019 should be the basis for granting admission.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“The Writ Petition filed by the Appellant before the High Court was wholly speculative in nature.”

“The entire case of the Appellant is an afterthought, and has been made at a belated stage of the admission process, and cannot be entertained.”

“The Kerala State Sports Council was wholly unjustified in making a recommendation for shifting Respondent No. 5 after the Final List had been released.”

Key Takeaways

• Candidates seeking admission under the Sports Quota must adhere to the prescribed timelines and procedures.
• Objections to provisional lists must be raised at the appropriate time.
• Challenges raised at a belated stage of the admission process may not be entertained.
• The final rank list published by the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations will be the basis for granting admissions under the Sports Quota.
• The Courts expect candour from the petitioners, and non-disclosure of material facts can be detrimental.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that for the purposes of admission to the MBBS course in the Sports Quota, the position awarded to the candidates in the final Rank List published by the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations on 28.06.2019, shall be the basis for granting admission.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that candidates must adhere to the prescribed timelines and procedures in the admission process, and that challenges raised at a belated stage may not be entertained. The judgment reinforces the importance of the final rank list published by the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations as the basis for granting admission under the Sports Quota. There is no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by Jyothir R, upholding the decision of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the prescribed timelines and procedures in the admission process, and held that challenges raised at a belated stage may not be entertained. The judgment reinforces the importance of the final rank list published by the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations as the basis for granting admission under the Sports Quota.