HC upholds changes in Punjab sports quota criteria for MBBS admissions

The Punjab and Haryana high court has upheld the decision of the Punjab government to make changes in the admission criteria under sports quota category seats for the MBBS course for the academic session 2023-2024 after the issuance of the prospectus.

The high court bench of chief justice Sheel Nagu and justice Sumeet Goel asserted that no doubt prospectus carries the force of law and must be adhered to without any deviation, however, it cannot be said with certitude that under no circumstances no change whatsoever can be brought about in the criteria of the admission process.

“…the criteria of admission process can be varied after the process has commenced provided such change satisfying the dual test viz. firstly the extant rules should so permit and secondly such change should meet the test of reasonableness/non-arbitrariness in terms of Article 14 and article 16 of the Constitution of India,” the bench observed.

In the case at hand, an MBBS course aspirant Ibadat Sekhon had challenged the decision of the government to make changes in sports quota admissions criteria effected on August 1, 2023.

With this notification, the government changed the criteria from sports achievements secured in class 9 to class 10 to achievements by a candidate between the years 2019-20 and 2022-2023.

These changes were effected after the prospectus was released in March 2023 but before the counselling in view of the fact that sports activities were affected due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The petitioner argued that the government could not have changed the criterion as it was against the well-settled principles of law and that the rules of the game cannot be changed after it has begun.

The court said that any alteration in the already notified conditions within the ambit of necessary changes, which can be effected cannot be termed ultra vires or contrary to the sanctity of the prospectus as it operates within the contemplated framework of permissible modifications.

The court also took note of the submissions from the state that the change in reservation criteria was to bring about a level playing field among candidates on account of the unprecedented situation emerging from the Covid-19 pandemic. “Therefore, the change in criteria for the sports category seats can be said to be neither arbitrary nor beyond permissible scope of exercise of amending power as envisaged by the extant rules,” the court observed.

The court added that since no sporting events were effectively conducted during the Covid-19 pandemic, the achievements of players during other times could not be compared with the pandemic period and would be tantamount to manifest arbitrariness. Hence, changes made in the criteria would create a level playing field for all the candidates.

“Therefore, in this backdrop, it cannot be said that the eligible candidates were left out from the fray in any manner or that the reasonable opportunity was not provided to all the concerned to test their fate,” the court said while dismissing the plea.