Summary
For session-2024, after applications for MBBS/BDS admission under the Punjab sports quota had been submitted, the State and Baba Farid University changed the policy to count sports achievements in Classes IX and X as well as Classes XI and XII. The Court quashed the change. Changing the criteria midstream was arbitrary and contrary to Article 14, and the change was vitiated because it was made on the representation of a coach who did not disclose that his own daughter would gain from it. The two appellants were moved into the government medical college seats of the two beneficiaries, and the session-2025 aspirants were given liberty to approach the High Court again.
Issues
- Whether the State and the University could enlarge the zone of consideration for sports achievements under the MBBS/BDS sports quota to include Classes IX and X after the session-2024 admission process had begun and applications had been submitted.
- Whether the policy change was vitiated because it was made on the representation of a person who did not disclose that his daughter would benefit from it.
- Whether the 2024 policy could be relied on as a continuation of the session-2023 corrigendum, which was expressly limited to that session because of Covid-19.
- What relief could be given to the appellants for session-2024 and to the session-2025 aspirants.
Provisions considered
- Article 14, Constitution of IndiaRelying on Mandeep Singh, Bannari Amman Sugars and Sivanandan C.T., the Court held that a change of policy must be fair, reasoned and transparent and must not suggest arbitrariness or ulterior motive. The midstream change, made at the instance of an interested person and applied only to MBBS/BDS and not to other courses in the same session, failed this test. (¶¶ 23, 31, 32, 33, 36, 37)
Held
- The rule that the rules of the game cannot be changed once the game has begun, laid down for recruitment in Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve, K. Manjusree and Tej Prakash Pathak, applies equally to admission processes. An admission process must also be fully defined before it starts, so that authorities cannot settle the norms later to suit themselves or to favour particular candidates. (¶ 18)
- The Corrigendum dated 01.08.2023 enlarged the zone of consideration to Classes IX and X for session-2023 only, because of Covid-19. The State could not rely on it to justify again including those classes in session-2024 when the basic sports policy was unchanged and the prospectus limited consideration to Classes XI and XII. The change should not have been made midstream after applications were submitted. (¶¶ 12, 16, 35)
- The original files showed that the change originated in an undated representation by a roller-skating coach whose daughter (respondent no. 4) ranked first in the resulting merit list, and he did not disclose that interest. His lack of probity was enough to vitiate the modification, even if the State acted bona fide and in ignorance of his interest. (¶¶ 20, 21, 22, 25, 33)
- The principle that internal file notings carry no legal sanctity (Harinagar Sugar Mills, Pimpri Chinchwad) did not prevent the Court from examining the notings to trace how a policy decision developed from stage to stage and who prompted it. (¶ 34)
- Applying the expanded zone only to MBBS/BDS, while other courses in the same session counted only Classes XI and XII, underlined the arbitrariness. Leaving the norms elastic so that policy could be changed during the admission process is contrary to fair play and opens the door to arbitrariness and nepotism. Courts ordinarily do not interfere with policy, but they may nullify a policy riddled with arbitrariness or one that leaves room for it. (¶¶ 19, 23, 36, 37)
- On relief, the Court declined to redraw the whole session-2024 merit list, since that would unsettle the admissions of candidates not before it, and limited relief to the two appellants. Respondent no. 5, though not at fault, could not keep a benefit derived from the vitiated change and was a proper and necessary party. (¶¶ 27, 38, 40)
- Continuing the vitiated policy for session-2025 is open to challenge on the same ground. But admissions had already been made and the affected candidates were not parties, so the session-2025 aspirants were only given liberty to approach the High Court in properly constituted proceedings. (¶¶ 41, 42)
Result
Appeals allowed. The policy modification was quashed; the State may take a fresh, reasoned decision before each admission process. For session-2024, the two appellants take the government medical college seats of respondents 4 and 5, who move to the appellants' private college seats, with studies and fees unaffected. The session-2025 appellants are given liberty to approach the High Court, impleading all necessary parties. Parties to bear their own costs.