Supreme Court of India
JYOTHIR RversusSUNISHA N.S. & ORS.
- Citation
- 2019 INSC 1009
- Decided
- 5 September 2019
- Disposal
- Disposed off
Holding
The Supreme Court upheld the division‑bench judgment, holding that the writ petition was speculative, untimely and could not be entertained, and that the final rank list as published on 28‑06‑2019 remains determinative.
Summary
The case concerned admission to the MBBS programme in Kerala under the sports quota. The appellant, a candidate who had applied under the individual sports category, sought a writ directing the Sports Council to shift another candidate from the individual to the team list, which would have raised the appellant’s rank. The High Court initially ordered the shift, but a division bench set aside that order, retaining the original rank list. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the writ petition was speculative, filed after the final list had been published, and that granting the relief would disrupt the entire admission process. The Court also noted the appellant’s failure to raise objections at earlier stages and the undisclosed impact on other candidates. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed and the interim order vacated.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition seeking alteration of the sports‑quota rank list after its finalisation is maintainable.
- Whether the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations is bound to act on a post‑final‑list communication from the Kerala State Sports Council.
- Whether the appellant’s failure to object to the provisional and final lists bars any relief.
- Whether granting the relief would disturb the established admission procedure for the sports quota.
- Whether the petition is speculative and therefore liable to be rejected.
Subjects
AdmissionSports quotaMedical educationNEET-UGKeralaWrit petitionSpeculative reliefAdmission processRank list
Judgment
[2019] 12 S.C.R. 343 343
JYOTHIR R A
v.
SUNISHA N.S. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 7025-7026 of 2019)
SEPTEMBER 05, 2019 B
[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
C
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 D
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
E
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 F
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
G
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 –
H
343
344 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 12 S.C.R.
A 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
B
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
C 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,
D
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
E 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
F
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
G have resulted in the displacement of another student in the Team
category who had scored 60 marks in the final result who was not
even joined as a party to the proceedings – Hence, the prayer made
by the Appellant was liable to be rejected on this ground also – The
entire case of the Appellant was an afterthought, and made at a
belated stage of the admission process, and cannot be entertained
H
JYOTHIR R v. SUNISHA N.S. & ORS. 345
– Appellant ought to have approached this Court with candour, A
and disclosed the correct facts – Sports Council was wholly
unjustified in making a recommendation for shifting Respondent
No. 5 after the release of Final List – The consequence of
implementing such a direction at such a belated stage, would be
that the entire admission process under the Sports Quota would
B
require to be re-done – The prayer of the Appellant to consider
Respondent No. 5 in the Sports (Team) Quota was unsustainable on
merits – Appeals dismissed.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 7025-
7026 of 2019.
C
From the Judgment and Order dated 07.08.2019 of the High Court
of Kerala at Ernakulam in W.A. Nos. 1757 and 1758 of 2019.
With
Civil Appeal No. 7028 of 2019.
D
Renjith B. Marar, Ms. Lakshmi N. Kaimal, Sadchith P. Kurup,
Anil Sharma, Advs. for the Appellant.
P. N. Ravindran, Sr. Adv., Dillep Pillai, Ajay K. Jain, Atul Shankar
Vinod, Kannan Gopal Vinod, M. P. Vinod, G. Prakash, Jishnu M. L.,
Mrs. Priyanka Prakash, Mrs. Beena Prakash, Anas Muhammed S.,
E
James P. Thomas, Advs. for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was passed:
ORDER
IN S.L.P.(C) Nos. 20085-20086 of 2019
F
Leave granted.
1. The present Appeals have been filed by the Appellant to
challenge the Judgement and Order dated 07.08.2019 passed by a division
bench of the Kerala High Court in W.A. Nos. 1757 & 1758 of 2019.
2. The issue raised in the present Appeals pertain to admission to G
the M.B.B.S. course in the State of Kerala, for the academic year 2019-
20, for the 9 seats reserved for the Sports Quota.
3. The Appellant – candidate had applied for admission under the
Sports Quota, on the basis of having secured the 3rd position in Kerala
H
346 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 12 S.C.R.
A under 25 Chess Championship conducted by the Sports Association of
Thiruvanthpuram in January 2019. The Appellant had represented the
Kollam District.
4. The Prospectus for Admission to Professional Degree Courses
(KEAM – 2018) was issued on 1st February, 2019. Clause 1.6 of the
B Prospectus states that :
“The Prospectus is subject to modification/addition/ deletion
as may be deemed necessary by the Government”.
The allotment to sports quota seats in professional degree
courses is governed by clause 5.2.6 of the prospectus for
C admission to professional degree courses, approved by the
State Government vide G.O. (M.S.) No. 22/2019/H.Edn.dated
1.2.2019.”
Clause 5.2.16 reads as follows :
D “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.”
As per the Prospectus, the applications for admission under Sports
E
Quota are submitted to the Kerala States Sports Council, which allots
marks to candidates according to their proficiency in sports. The maximum
marks for proficiency is 500. The Guidelines of the Sports Council for
awarding marks for proficiency in sports is provided under Annexure
XVIII(ii) of the Prospectus. The marks list of candidates under “Individual
F Events” and “Team Events” are prepared separately and forwarded to
the Commissioner for the Entrance Examinations on or before 30 th April
2018.
5. In the case of candidates seeking admission to Medical courses,
the marks for proficiency in sports are awarded out of 500, which are
G added to the marks obtained by the candidates in the NEET-UG 2019.
The Sports Council allots marks to the candidates according to
their proficiency in sports. The seats under the Sports Quota are
filled up by giving equal representation to students in both the
individual and team categories. The principle for allotment is 1:1
H
JYOTHIR R v. SUNISHA N.S. & ORS. 347
to be implemented by allotting the seats alternatively between the A
two categories of individual event and team event.
6. The NEET-UG 2019 Examination was conducted on the
05.05.2019 for the current academic year 2019-20 for admission to the
undergraduate M.B.B.S. course.
7. On 8/9th May, 2019 the verification of candidates was conducted B
by the Kerala Sports Council.
8. On 19th May, 2019 the Kerala Sports Council published the
provisional list of candidates eligible for the Sports Quota, both in the
Individual and the Team Categories, and invited objections/complaints to
the same. The last date for submission of objections was 25th May, 2019. C
It is relevant to note that the Appellant raised no objection to
the provisional list.
9. On 27th May, 2019, the Kerala Sports Council published the
Final List of eligible candidates under both the Individual and Team Quotas. D
The Appellant did not raise any objection/complaint even at this stage.
The Final list was forwarded to the State CEE.
10. On 6th June, 2019 the All India NEET-UG 2019 result was
declared.
11. The State CEE published the category-wise list of candidates E
eligible for M.B.B.S., including the Sports Quota in the Individual and
the Team Category on 28th June, 2019.
12. There were 7 seats available for the Sports Quota for
admission to the M.B.B.S. course, while two seats were reserved for
B.D.S. Out of the 7 seats for M.B.B.S., in the Sports Quota, 4 seats F
were allotted to the Individual event category, and 3 were allotted to the
Team event category.
13. The Appellant secured final marks of 548.4722 in the NEET-
UG examination, after including the marks awarded to him in the Sports
(Individual) category. G
Respondent No.5 – Sujithraj U. Mallan was awarded 669.1667
in the Sports (Individual) category.
Respondent No.1 – Sunisha N.S. was awarded 594.0278 in
the Sports (Team) category.
H
348 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 12 S.C.R.
A 14. The Appellant filed a Representation to the Secretary of the
Sports Council of Kerala alleging that Respondent No. 5 – Mr. Sujithraj
Mallan had wrongly been included in the Individual List, as he had
participated in a Team event.
15. The Appellant then filed W.P.(C) No. 17995/2019 before the
B Kerala High Court praying inter alia for a direction to the Sports Council
of Kerala to re-consider the marks allotted to the Appellant, and consider
shifting Respondent No. 5 to the Sports (Team) List.
The Appellant impleaded two students i.e. Respondent No.5 –
Sujithraj U. Mallan, and one Mr. Vinay Thomas Abraham as party
C Respondents in the Writ Petition.
16. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, on 06.07.2019, the
Kerala State Sports Council informed the Commissioner of Entrance
Examinations that four candidates including Respondent No.5 – Sujithraj
U. Mallanhad, had erroneously been included in the Final Sports
D (Individual) List, even though they ought to have been included in the
Sports (Team) List.
17. The Commissioner of Entrance Examinations declined to
consider the communication of the Kerala State Sports Council dated
06.07.2019 received after the publication of the final list at a belated
E stage of the admission process.
18. The first round of allotment was made by the Entrance
Commissioner on 08.07.2019 with an option to the candidates to join on
or before 12.07.2019.
19. The Single Judge of the High Court vide Judgment dated
F 05.08.2019, allowed the Writ Petition, holding that the Commissioner of
Entrance Examinations was obligated to act on the communication of
the Kerala State Sports Council. Accordingly, Respondent No.5 – Sujithraj
U. Mallanhad was directed to be considered for admission in the Sports
(Team) List.
G 20. Aggrieved by the said Judgment, Respondent No. 1 – Sunisha
N. S. on 07.08.2019, filed Writ Appeal No. 1757 of 2019 to challenge the
Judgment dated 05.08.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge.
21. The Division Bench, after hearing the Counsel for Respondent
No. 5 – Sujithraj U. Mallanhad, on the same day set-aside the Order of
H the Single Judge and directed that the Rank List be re-cast by amending
JYOTHIR R v. SUNISHA N.S. & ORS. 349
the category of Respondent No.5 – Sujithraj U. Mallan had in the Sports A
(Individual) category. The consequence of implementing the direction of
the Single Judge at this belated stage would mean that the entire admission
process would require to be re-done, which was undesirable.
It was ordered that the Rank of Respondent Nos. 1 and 5 be
retained as per the list prepared on 28.06.2019. B
22. The Appellant was not issued Notice in the Writ Appeal, and
hence was not heard by the Division Bench.
23. Aggrieved, by the judgment dated 07.08.2019 passed by the
Division Bench, the Appellant has filed the present Appeals.
C
24. We have heard the learned Counsels for all the parties, and
perused the material on record. We affirm the judgment passed by the
Division Bench for the reasons set out hereunder :
24.1. The Writ Petition filed by the Appellant before the High
Court was wholly speculative in nature. The entire case of D
the Appellant was based upon shifting Respondent No.5
from the Individual Quota to the Team Quota, which would
result in the Appellant getting selected in the Sports
(Individual) category, and having the marks added to his
NEET score.
E
Such a plea was wholly unfounded, particularly since
out of the candidates in the Sports (Individual) category,
the Appellant has admittedly scored the lowest marks.
Respondent No. 1 had secured 57 marks, while
Respondent No. 5 had secured 53 marks.
F
24.2. The 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
viz. Antony P. Alappat, who had scored 60 marks in the
final result.
G
The Appellant did not even join Mr. Alappat as a party
to the proceedings. Hence, the prayer made by the Appellant
herein was liable to be rejected on this ground also.
24.3. The Appellant had admittedly not raised any objection to
the provisional list which was published on 19th May, 2019 H
350 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 12 S.C.R.
A even though an opportunity was given to all candidates to
raise objections.
The final list came was on 27.05.2019, which was also
not objected to by the Appellant.
The Appellant raised a challenge only after the category
B wise list of reserved candidates was published on
28.06.2019, when the Appellant chose to file his Writ Petition
on 01.07.2019 after the seats were allotted in the Sports
quota.
The entire case of the Appellant is an afterthought, and
C has been made at a belated stage of the admission process,
and cannot be entertained.
24.4. If the plea of the Appellant was to be accepted, it would
impact the criteria adopted for admission not only to the
M.B.B.S. course, but also other professional degree courses,
D for which the same norms for selection of candidates in the
Sports category are applicable.
24.5. The Appellant did not reveal in the Special Leave Petition
that the counselling had been completed on 08.08.2019, and
all the students, including the Appellant, Respondent No. 1
E and Respondent No. 5 had secured admission in various
medical colleges, and were undergoing the course.
This fact was not disclosed to the Court even at the
time of admission hearing on 19th August, 2019 when this
Court issue notice and granted an interim order in favour of
F the Appellant. These facts came on record in the Counter
Affidavit filed by Respondent No. 1 on 27th August, 2019.
The Appellant ought to have approached this Court with
candour, and disclosed the correct facts.
24.6. The Kerala State Sports Council was wholly unjustified in
G making a recommendation for shifting Respondent No. 5
after the Final List had been released. The consequence of
implementing such a direction at such a belated stage, would
be that the entire admission process under the Sports Quota
would require to be re-done. The letter dated 06.07.2019
H
JYOTHIR R v. SUNISHA N.S. & ORS. 351
was wholly unjustified, and the Division Bench has rightly A
disregarded the same.
25. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the prayer of the Appellant
to consider Respondent No. 5 in the Sports (Team) Quota is unsustainable
on merits. It is made clear that for the purposes of admission to the
M.B.B.S course in the Sports Quota, the position awarded to the B
candidates in the final Rank List published by the Commissioner of
Entrance Examinations on 28.06.2019, shall be the basis for granting
admission by the authorities.
26. Accordingly, the Civil Appeals are dismissed.
The interim Order passed 19.08.2019 is vacated. C
Pending applications, if any, are dismissed.
IN S.L.P. (C) NO. 20529 OF 2019
Leave granted.
D
The Appeal is disposed of in terms of the order passed in the Civil
appeal Nos. 7025-7026 of 2019.
Devika Gujral Appeals disposed of.
E
F
G
H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Admission"Sign in to search