MBBS, BDS sports quota admission: Supreme Court quashes midstream policy change in Punjab

However, the top court bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe allowed the batch of civil appeals arising from the HC order. It observed, "The grievance of the appellants is that the authorities continued to apply the same modified policy with regard to the enlarged zone of consideration that was followed during session-2024, i.e., by including Classes IX and X along with Classes XI and XII for assessment of the sports achievements of candidates. The High Court nonsuited them straightaway by following its earlier decision in Sekhon's case. However, in the light of what we have stated hereinabove, with regard to how the modification of the policy during session-2024 stands vitiated, continuation of that policy during session-2025 with nothing further would also be open to challenge on the same ground. However, we are informed that admissions have already been made for session-2025 and no candidate who would be adversely affected by interference therewith has been made a party to this litigation. Therefore, we cannot give a quietus to this lis at this stage. The only relief that can be given to these appellants is to grant them the liberty to approach the High Court once again by way of a properly constituted proceeding, impleading all the proper and necessary parties thereto, and seek appropriate relief. The appeals are allowed in the aforestated terms."

Case Background: 

The matter concerned MBBS and BDS admissions under the 1 percent sports quota in Punjab for the 2024 session. Initially, the prospectus issued by Baba Farid University of Health Sciences (BFUHS) on 09.08.2024 clearly stated that the credit would be given only for sports achievements during Classes XI and XII.

However, on the last date for submission of applications, the University issued an email at 6.07 PM on 16.08.2024, asking candidates to submit sports achievements of any class or year. 

Following this, an addendum and sports merit list were issued, and they took into account achievements from Classes IX and X as well. Based on that, two candidates were ranked higher than the appellants, Sekhon and Singh.

Observations by the Supreme Court: 

While considering the matter, the Apex Court bench held that the admission process was vitiated by arbitrariness and lack of transparency. The top court bench reiterated the settled principle that the "rules of the game cannot be changed once the game has begun" and observed that this doctrine applies equally to admission processes as it does to recruitment.

It was observed by the bench that while the State's Corrigendum dated 01.08.2023 expanded the zone of consideration and included Classes IX and X, it was expressly limited to the 2023 session due to COVID-19. Therefore, the court observed that there was no justification to perpetuate that exception in 2024.

Further, the Court found that the policy change was triggered by a representation from a roller skating coach, who failed to disclose that his daughter would directly benefit from the change.

Based on the documents on record, the Court observed that his representation influenced the authorities and ultimately resulted in the expanded zone of consideration. It was held by the Court that this lack of disclosure alone was sufficient to vitiate the modification. It further observed that the foundation of the policy change stood tainted.

"This lack of probity on the part of ***, so as to benefit his own daughter, and his influencing of the authorities without disclosing this fact, so as to bring about a change in the policy contrary to what was stated in the Corrigendum dated 01.08.2023, is sufficient in itself to vitiate the modification that was brought about during session-2024 to the detriment of other candidates under sports quota, including Sekhon and Singh," observed the Apex Court.

The bench also noted that during the 2024 session, for several other medical and allied courses, sports achievements were assessed only based on Classes XI and XII. Even for postgraduate medical and dental courses, the prospectus limited consideration to achievements during the MBBS and BDS courses.

Apart from this, the top court bench noted that the 2023 Sports Policy did not specify the academic years to be considered for sports achievements and it excluded sub-junior tournaments. Despite this, the University's email sought achievements from any class or year, creating scope for arbitrariness and favouritism.

"Significantly, the University did not limit its expansion thereby to only Classes IX and X but required candidates to submit even their sub-junior achievements, if any, which was contrary to the State’s sports policy. Needless to state, there had to be clarity in that regard as leaving the issue open to be decided at a later point of time on a case-to-case or course-to-course basis would invariably introduce arbitrariness and let in the scope for favouritism," observed the Court.

Relying on judicial precedence, the Apex Court bench emphasized that even policy decisions must satisfy the test of reasonableness under Article 14.

"The larger question, however, is whether this procedure of keeping the admission process elastic after issuance of the prospectus and submission of applications by the candidates would be valid in the eye of law. This question arises in the backdrop of the necessity to maintain complete transparency in the admission process so as to obviate any possibility of arbitrariness or nepotism creeping in at a later stage, i.e., after submission of applications and sports achievements by candidates for admission to MBBS/BDS courses under sports quota," it observed.

Accordingly, the bench concluded that the State cannot justify the 2024 change by citing the 2023 COVID-related exception. It also held that any modification to admission criteria must be fully defined before commencing the process.

Holding the policy change illegal, the Court limited the relief granted to the appellants, to avoid unsettling completed admissions. Accordingly, it ordered the appellants to be accommodated in the government medical college seats allotted to who were ranked higher due to the policy change. Those two candidates were shifted to the private college seats earlier occupied by the appellants.

"The course of study undergone by all of them and the fees already paid by all of them shall remain unaffected and they shall all be permitted to continue with their studies in their new colleges from that stage onwards," held the top court bench.

For the admissions during 2025 session, the Supreme Court observed that the same flawed policy was continued in 2025 as well. However, noting that admissions were already completed and affected candidates did not approach the Court, the bench declined to grant them immediate relief. However, such appellants for the 2025 session were given liberty to approach the High Court afresh by impleading all necessary parties.

To view the order, click on the link below:

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/supreme-court-punjab-mbbs-sports-quota-319868.pdf

Also Read: Supreme Court directs Goa Govt to allot MBBS seat to sailor under sports quota