JYOTHIR R versus SUNISHA N.S. & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 12 S.C.R. 343 · Decided: 05-09-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: INDU MALHOTRA, SANJIV KHANNA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
343
JYOTHIR R
v.
SUNISHA N.S. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 7025-7026 of 2019)
SEPTEMBER 05, 2019
[INDU MALHOTRA AND SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.]
Education/Educational institutions: Admission – Sports quota
– Issue in these appeals pertained to admission to M.B.B.S course
in the State of Kerala, for the academic year 2019-20, for the seats
reserved for the Sports quota – Appellant-candidate had applied
for admission under Sports quota – As per the Prospectus, the
applications for admission under Sports Quota are submitted to the
Kerala Sports Council, which allots marks to candidates according
to their   proficiency   in   sports – The marks  list of candidates
under “Individual   Events” and “Team Events” are prepared
separately and forwarded to the Commissioner for Entrance
Examinations (CEE) – In the case of candidates seeking admission
to Medical courses, the marks for proficiency in sports are awarded
out of 500, which are added to the marks obtained by the candidates
in  NEET-UG 2019 – The seats under the Sports Quota are filled up
by giving equal representation to students in both the team categories
– NEET-UG 2019 Examination was conducted on 5.5.2019    – On
19.5.2019, the Sports Council published the provisional list of
candidates eligible for the Sports Quota, both in the Individual and
the Team Categories, and   invited objections to the same – Appellant
raised   no objection to the provisional list – On 27.5.2019, the
Final List of eligible candidates under both the Individual and Team
Quotas was prepared – Appellant did not  raise any objection even
at  this stage – Final list  was forwarded to the State CEE – On
6.6.2019, the All  India   NEET-UG 2019  result was declared –
CEE published the category-wise list of candidates eligible for
M.B.B.S., including the Sports Quota in the Individual and the Team
Category on 28.6.2019 – There were 7 seats available for the Sports
Quota for admission to M.B.B.S. course, while 2 seats  were reserved
for B.D.S. – Out of 7 seats, 4 seats were allotted to the Individual
event category, and 3 were allotted to the Team event category –
   [2019] 12 S.C.R. 343
343
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
344
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 12 S.C.R.
Appellant secured final marks of 548.4722 in the NEET-UG
examination, after including the marks awarded to him in the
Individual category – Respondent No.5 was awarded 669.1667 in
the Sports Individual category while Respondent No.1 was   awarded
594.0278 in the Team category – Appellant filed a   Representation
to the  Sports Council alleging that Respondent No. 5  had wrongly
been included in the Individual List, as he had participated in a
Team event – Appellant   then  filed  writ petition  before High
Court praying  inter alia  for   a   direction to Sports Council to
re-consider the marks allotted to him and consider shifting
Respondent No. 5 to the Sports (Team) List – During the pendency
of the Writ Petition, on 6.7.2019, the State   Sports Council informed
CEE that 4 candidates including Respondent No.5 had erroneously
been included in the Final Individual List, even though they ought
to have been included in the Team List – CEE declined to consider
communication  dated 6.7.2019 received after the publication of
the final list – Single Judge of High Court allowed the Writ Petition,
holding that CEE was obligated to act on the communication of the
State Sports Council – Accordingly, Respondent No.5  was directed
to be considered for admission in the Sports (Team) List – Aggrieved,
Respondent no.1 filed writ appeal – Division Bench of High Court
set aside the order of single judge and directed that the rank of
Respondent no. 1 and 5 be retained as per the list prepared on
28.6.2019 – Hence the appeal – Held: Writ Petition by the Appellant
was wholly speculative in nature – The entire case of the Appellant
was based upon shifting Respondent No.5 from the Individual Quota
to the Team Quota so that Appellant gets selected in the Individual
category, and having the marks added to his NEET score – Such a
plea was wholly unfounded, particularly since out of the candidates
in the Sports (Individual) category, the Appellant admittedly scored
the lowest marks – Respondent No. 1 had secured 57 marks, while
Respondent No. 5 had secured 53 marks – Appellant did not disclose
in the Writ Petition, that if the relief prayed for was granted, it would
have resulted in the displacement of another student in the Team
category who had scored 60 marks in the final

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.