Delhi High Court
Balraj Sharma And Mr. Rohtash Mehta vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 22 November, 2002
Author: A.K. Sikri
Bench: A.K. Sikri
JUDGMENT A.K. Sikri, J.
1. C.W.P. No. 4912/2002 is in the nature of 'Public Interest Litigation'. In this writ petition the petitioner has mainly challenged the inaction on the part of Shaheed Bhagat Singh College (Respondent No. 5) and Shaheed Bhagat Singh College (Evening) (Respondent No. 6) in not admitting students on the basis of sports quota. It is the case of the petitioner that though University of Delhi has, in the Bulletin of Information, provided 5% reservation in admissions to various colleges in sports quota this mandate of the University of Delhi has been flouted by the respondents 5 and 6.
2. C.W.P. No. 4090/2002 is filed by an individual who has raised the same issue. He states that he is an outstanding sports person who has practiced and participated in JUDO competitions and has won many prizes. In the XIIth Class Examination conducted by CBSE he obtained 71% marks in four subjects required for admission. He applied for admission in B.Com.(Hons.) in Shaheed Bhagat Singh College. Admittedly, on merit he could not be selected for admission. His case is that since respondent No. 5 has not adhered to sports quota, he is denied admission which he would have otherwise got.
3. The issue, therefore, in both the petitions is whether there is any obligation on the part of respondents 5 and 6 to reserve the seats for admission in these Colleges against sports quota.
4. It may be stated at the outset that the stand of respondents 5 and 6 is that there is no such reservation for sports quota prescribed by the University of Delhi. The provision which is made in Information of Bulletin is only an enabling provision and it is left to the discretion of the particular College to provide for admission under sports quota. The University of Delhi in its counter-affidavit has echoed this stand. Thus the entire issue on which the controversy centres around is as to whether there is any mandatory provision providing for reservation in admission in sports category.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, relying upon the following provision relating to sports submitted that the aforesaid provision provides for reservation of 5% seats on the basis of sports and co-curricular distinction:
"3.7 Admission on the basis of sports:
Procedure Not more than 5% of the total number of seats separately both in Hons. and Pass Courses (for 1st year of the Under-Graduate courses) except in Engineering and those other courses where there is an Admission Test or where there are centralised admission, be offered for admission on the basis of sports and co-curricular distinctions".
6. Sub-paras 2 to 12 state the procedure as to how admissions on the basis of sports are to be finalised. It was the submission of learned counsel fro the petitioner that 5% of the total seats to be "offered for admission" in the aforesaid para would clearly mean that admissions have to be offered on the basis of sports and co-curricular distinctions meaning thereby that 5% seats are reserved under sports quota. He attempted to make good his submissions by pointing out that another Bulletin of Information specifically issued for "Under Graduate Science Courses" containing the same provision uses the expression "are offered"
and thus amply clarifies that the provision in effect is for reservation of 5% of the total number of seats for admission on the basis of sports. This is to the following effect:
"Not more than 5% of the total number of seats separately both in B.Sc. (Hons.) and B.Sc. (Genl.) courses (for 1st year of the Under-Graduate courses), except in Engineering and those other courses where there is an Admission Test or where there are Centralised Admissions are offered for admission on the basis of sports and Co-curricular distinctions. The Admission on the basis of Sports is made by the Colleges as per procedure and rules laid down by the University".
7. The aforesaid contention appears to be attractive in first blush. However, close scrutiny of the matter and reading of the aforesaid clause along with other clauses in the Information of Bulletin would clarify the position that it is not so. A reading of the Information of Bulletin would reveal that para-3 which has various sub-paras 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4 and 3.6 of para-3 provide for reservation of seats under different categories, namely, (1) reservations of seats in Colleges for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, (2) for Children/Windows/Wives of the Officers and men of the Armed Forces including Para-Military Personnel, killed/disabled in action or those who died or disabled on duty, (3) physically challenged candidates, (4) foreign students and (5) Sikkimese students. The language while providing this reservation in these paras is unequivocal. It is very clearly stated in each sub para as to what percentage or number of seats are reserved for students belonging to the aforesaid categories. For example, it is stipulated that "22-1/2% of seats "are reserved" for candidates belonging to SC/ST (15% for SC and 7-1/2% for ST, interchangeable, if necessary)". Likewise in second category, it is stipulated:
"5% of the total number of seats in each of the courses have been reserved for the Children/Widows/Wives of Officers and Men of the Armed Forces including Para-Military Personnel (i) Killed or disabled in action. The Cases of the Wives/Widow/Children of Officers and Men of the Armed Forces including Para-Military Personnel who (ii) died/were disabled while on duty, will be considered for admission against the 5% seats in all the courses reserved for the Wives/Widows/Children of the Officers and men of the Armed Forces including Para-Military Personnel killed or disabled in action, if any seat remains vacant after admission of persons of the
(i) category".
8. Reservation for physical challenged candidates is provided in the following terms:
"3% seats are reserved for the physically challenged candidates for admission to under graduate courses".
9. In respect of foreign students, it is stipulated:
"At least 5% seats in 1st year of each course in Colleges are reserved for foreign students".
10. Thus wherever reservation is provided, it is specifically stated so. Likewise, wherever relaxation is provided stipulation to that effect is categorically made. In case of the second category i.e. Children/Windows/Wives of Officers and men of Armed Forces etc. relaxation to the extent of 5% in the minimum marks in the aggregate or in the subject is also provided in addition to the reservation of seats. Similarly, in case of Nepalese/Bhutanese Students only relaxation to the extent of 5% in the minimum marks is provided.
11. While in 5 categories reservation is specifically provided, in the category of sports, no such reservation in mandatory form is provided. The provision, which is already reproduced above, is couched in a negative form. The petitioners cannot be permitted to rely on the words "be offered" and "are offered" in isolation. Full sentence, when read, makes the following understanding:
"not more than 5% of the total seats be offered for admission on the basis of sports and co-curricular distinction.".
The provision thus does not provide for reservation. What can be gathered is that it clearly puts cap on the percentage in case a particular College wants to give admission on the basis of sports. It nowhere states that there has to be reservation in admission on the basis of sports quota. On the other hand what it states that admission under this quota should not be more than 5%. Thus the intention behind such a provision is to ensure that in case a particular College wants to give admission on the basis of sports and co-curricular distinction, such admissions should not be more than 5% of the total number seats. However, it does not provide that 5% seats are to be reserved for admission on the basis of sports and co-curricular distinctions. The intention is clear, namely, if a College has to provide for admission on the basis of sports and co-curricular distinction it should not exceed 5% of total number of seats. It is thus clearly an enabling provision and not a provision providing for reservation under this mandatory.
12. The University of Delhi has clarified its stand that reservation in favor of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes is because of constitutional mandate and, therefore, it is done in respect of all courses and no exception is made in this regard. Similarly, the reservation for physically handicapped persons is a statutory requirement under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. On the other hand, Clause 3.7 of the Bulletin relating to Admission on the basis of Sports quota would show that:
(i) it is indicated as a ceiling i.e. admission on the basis of sports and co-curricular distinctions should not exceed 5% of the number of seats.
(ii) it is not fixed as a quota but as a percentage which shall not be exceeded.
(iii) admission is permissible on the basis of not merely sports but also co-curricular distinctions i.e. it could be on the basis of either.
(iv) it would not apply to Engineering courses.
(v) it would not apply to courses where there is an admission test.
(vi) it would not apply to courses where admissions are centralised.
13. The stand of Delhi University also appears to be justifies when it states in the counter-affidavit to the following effect:
"Provisions contained in the Bulletin of Information are broad principles which would govern admission. While making admission, the college is excepted to follow the norms laid down by the University and mandatory provisions are required to be followed and complied with by the Colleges concerned.
In so far as admissions on the basis of sports and co-curricular distinctions, it is stated that the said provision is an enabling provision i.e. if a college wishes to make some admissions on the basis of sports and co-curricular distinctions it can do so. There is however no mandatory requirement that the College shall make admissions under the said category or set apart either 5% or any other percentage of seats to be filled up on the basis of sports and co-curricular distinctions. However, if the College makes admissions on the basis of sports and co-curricular distinctions, it shall do so only as per the norms specified by the University in the Bulletin of Information i.e. only those candidates who fulfill the requirements specified by the University could be considered and admitted under the said category and after following the procedure specified in this behalf. The provisions in this regard cannot be construed as conferring a right on any applicant that he should be admitted to a College on the basis of sports and co-curricular distinction".
14. Respondents 5 and 6 in their separate counter-affidavits have stated in detail as to why they could not admit students under sports quota and thus even otherwise they have justified their action in this respect. However, it is not necessary to spell out this justification in detail having regard to the view taken, namely, there is no such reservation provided for admission of candidates in specified courses under the Sports quota. There is no statutory or constitutional provision either, providing for such reservation. In absence thereof, there is no legal right to seek admission on the basis of sports.
15. The petitions are devoid of any merit and, therefore, are dismissed wit no order as to costs. Rule stands discharged.