DEV GUPTA versus PEC UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY AND ORS.

Citation: [2023] 11 S.C.R. 232 · Decided: 09-08-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAVINDRA BHAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 11 S.C.R. 232 : 2023 INSC 695 
232
CASE DETAILS
DEV GUPTA
v.
PEC UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 5013 of 2023)
AUGUST 09, 2023
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND ARAVIND KUMAR, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration : Order of the High Court rejecting 
the appellant’s Writ Petition which had questioned the imposition of a 
minimum 75% aggregate marks as an eligibility condition (in the qualifying 
examination) for enabling a candidate to claim admission in engineering 
courses under the 2% sports quota.
Education Institution – Sports quota – Imposition of a minimum 
75% aggregate marks as an eligibility condition (in the qualifying 
examination) for enabling a candidate to claim admission in engineering 
courses under the 2% sports quota – Discriminatory or not:
HELD : The objective of introducing the sports quota i.e. 2% of 
intake, was to promote and encourage those who excelled and gained 
a certain degree of prescribed proﬁ ciency and achievement in deﬁ ned 
competitive sports – The objective of introducing sports quota, however, 
is not to accommodate academic merit, but something altogether diﬀ erent: 
promotion of sports in the institution, the university, and ultimately, in 
the country – In the instant case, the record indicates that except for the 
academic years 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2023-24, for all the previous years, 
the eligibility prescribed was lower; indeed, for 2020-21, 2021-22 and 
2022-23, the criterion was “10+2 Pass” – Lastly, the sports policy, itself 
underlines that the quota would be available to students who “pass their 
qualifying examination from schools/colleges recognised by the Chandigarh 
administration” or had studied in Chandigarh for two preceding years – The 
imposition of the minimum 75% eligibility condition, therefore, does not 
subserve the object of introducing the sports quota, but is, rather destructive 
233
DEV GUPTA v. PEC UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY 
AND ORS. 
of it; the criterion, in that sense subverted the object and is discriminatory; it 
therefore, falls afoul of the equality clause, in Article 14 of the Constitution 
– Therefore, the exclusion of the petitioner and other like candidates, on the 
ground of their securing less than 75% in the qualifying examination, was 
unwarranted and discriminatory. [Paras 17 and 18]
Education Institution – Sports quota  – Rejection of candidature 
on the ground of ineligibility due to their securing less than 75% marks 
in the qualifying examination – Direction issued:
HELD : Seventeen (17) seats were earmarked for the sports category 
(under the 2% quota) – The university received a total of 34 applications, of 
which 28 applicants fulﬁ lled the eligibility criterion -of securing 75% marks 
and above – Further, 16 out of the total 17 seats in the Sports Category were 
allocated to eligible candidates and only 1 seat was vacant – In view of the 
ﬁ ndings, direction issued to ﬁ ll the remaining seat or seats by application 
of the standards spelt out in the sports policy of the UT of Chandigarh, as 
applied by the respondent university to determine inter se sports merit of 
the candidates who had applied, but whose candidature was rejected on 
the ground of ineligibility due to their securing less than 75% marks in the 
qualifying examination – These candidates however should have qualiﬁ ed 
in terms of the immediately preceding academic year’s criterion, applicable 
for the balance sports quota seat(s) – At the same time, candidates who were 
selected and given admission not to be disturbed. [Paras 4 and 19]
Constitutional Law – Constitutional jurisprudence – Doctrine of 
equality and classiﬁ cation – Discussed.
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Manish Kumar v Union of India (UOI) & Ors [2021] 14 SCR 895; 
Ashutosh Gupta v. State of Rajasthan [2002] 2 SCR 649; Venkateshwara 
Theatre v. State of A.P [1993] 3 SCR 616; Roop Chand Adlakha v Delhi 
Development Authority [1988] Supp 3 SCR 353 – relied on.
State of J&K v. Triloki Nath Khosa [1974] 1 SCR 771; Deepak Sibal 
v Punjab University [1989] 1 SCR 689; Subramanian Swamy v Central 
Bureau of Investigation [2014] 9 SCR 283 – referred to.
234
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 11 S.C.R.
Jagatpreet Kaur And Ors. vs Punjab University (2004) 138 PLR 
896 – referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.5013 of 
2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.07.2023 of the High Court of 
Punjab & Haryana
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.