NDLI: Dev Gupta Vs. Pec University of Technology and Ors.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Education Institution – Sports quota – Imposition of a minimum 75% aggregate marks as an eligibility condition (in the qualifying examination) for enabling a candidate to claim admission in engineering courses under the 2% sports quota
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Issue for consideration : Order of the High Court rejectingthe appellant’s Writ Petition which had questioned the imposition of aminimum 75% aggregate marks as an eligibility condition (in the qualifyingexamination) for enabling a candidate to claim admission in engineeringcourses under the 2% sports quota.Education Institution – Sports quota – Imposition of a minimum75% aggregate marks as an eligibility condition (in the qualifyingexamination) for enabling a candidate to claim admission in engineeringcourses under the 2% sports quota – Discriminatory or not:HELD : The objective of introducing the sports quota i.e. 2% ofintake, was to promote and encourage those who excelled and gaineda certain degree of prescribed profi ciency and achievement in defi nedcompetitive sports – The objective of introducing sports quota, however,is not to accommodate academic merit, but something altogether diff erent:promotion of sports in the institution, the university, and ultimately, inthe country – In the instant case, the record indicates that except for theacademic years 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2023-24, for all the previous years,the eligibility prescribed was lower; indeed, for 2020-21, 2021-22 and2022-23, the criterion was “10+2 Pass” – Lastly, the sports policy, itselfunderlines that the quota would be available to students who “pass theirqualifying examination from schools/colleges recognised by the Chandigarhadministration” or had studied in Chandigarh for two preceding years – Theimposition of the minimum 75% eligibility condition, therefore, does notsubserve the object of introducing the sports quota, but is, rather destructive of it; the criterion, in that sense subverted the object and is discriminatory; ittherefore, falls afoul of the equality clause, in Article 14 of the Constitution– Therefore, the exclusion of the petitioner and other like candidates, on theground of their securing less than 75% in the qualifying examination, wasunwarranted and discriminatory. [Paras 17 and 18]Education Institution – Sports quota – Rejection of candidatureon the ground of ineligibility due to their securing less than 75% marksin the qualifying examination – Direction issued:HELD : Seventeen (17) seats were earmarked for the sports category(under the 2% quota) – The university received a total of 34 applications, ofwhich 28 applicants fulfi lled the eligibility criterion -of securing 75% marksand above – Further, 16 out of the total 17 seats in the Sports Category wereallocated to eligible candidates and only 1 seat was vacant – In view of thefi ndings, direction issued to fi ll the remaining seat or seats by applicationof the standards spelt out in the sports policy of the UT of Chandigarh, asapplied by the respondent university to determine inter se sports merit ofthe candidates who had applied, but whose candidature was rejected onthe ground of ineligibility due to their securing less than 75% marks in thequalifying examination – These candidates however should have qualifi edin terms of the immediately preceding academic year’s criterion, applicablefor the balance sports quota seat(s) – At the same time, candidates who wereselected and given admission not to be disturbed. [Paras 4 and 19]Constitutional Law – Constitutional jurisprudence – Doctrine ofequality and classifi cation – Discussed.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat
Neutral Citation	2023 INSC 695
Petitioner	Dev Gupta
Respondent	Pec University Of Technology And Ors.
SCR	[2023] 11 S.C.R. 232
Judgement Date	2023-08-09
Case Number	5013

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Dev Gupta Vs. Pec University of Technology and Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Kusum Lata Vs. State of Haryana and Ors.

Jyothir R Vs. Sunisha N.s. & Ors.

Ashok Chand Singhvi Vs. University of Jodhpur & Ors.

Nilay Gupta Vs. Chairman Neet Pg Medical and Dental Admission/ Counselling Board 2020 and Principal Govt. Dental College & Ors.

Jharkhand Public Service Commission Vs. Manoj Kumar Gupta and Anr.

Sanatan Gauda Vs. Berhampur University and Ors.

Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission & Anr. Vs. Tage Habung & Ors

The KERALA MEDICAL OFFICERS ADMISSION TO POST-GRADUATE COURSES UNDER SERVICE QUOTA ACT, 2008*

Chandigarh Administration & Another Vs. Jasmine Kaur & Others

Dev Gupta Vs. Pec University of Technology and Ors.

Dev Gupta Vs. Pec University of Technology and Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Kusum Lata Vs. State of Haryana and Ors.

Jyothir R Vs. Sunisha N.s. & Ors.

Ashok Chand Singhvi Vs. University of Jodhpur & Ors.

Nilay Gupta Vs. Chairman Neet Pg Medical and Dental Admission/ Counselling Board 2020 and Principal Govt. Dental College & Ors.

Jharkhand Public Service Commission Vs. Manoj Kumar Gupta and Anr.

Sanatan Gauda Vs. Berhampur University and Ors.

Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission & Anr. Vs. Tage Habung & Ors

The KERALA MEDICAL OFFICERS ADMISSION TO POST-GRADUATE COURSES UNDER SERVICE QUOTA ACT, 2008*

Chandigarh Administration & Another Vs. Jasmine Kaur & Others

Dev Gupta Vs. Pec University of Technology and Ors.