- (1.) THE petitioner in the instant cases had knocked at the doors of this Court even in the year 1995 in W.P.No.2141 of 1995 for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Tamil Nadu Cricket Association to include him in the Tamil Nadu Under-13 Cricket Team for 1994-95 season. He had two grievances then. One was that the person who was not in the list of 48 candidates prepared earlier had been selected and (ii) three persons. Who were over-aged and not eligible, had been included in the list of 15 candidates. THE writ petition was closed on the basis of the submission made on behalf of the respondent Association that one candidate by name Sridhar who was studying along with the petitioner in the same school was selected on the basis of merit and his name was included in the list and so far as the three candidates who were said to be over-aged it was stated that they had not been included in the list of 15 persons who constituted the team, but they came o the ground for the purpose of practising and it was also stated that the petitioner himself could join them for the practice. THE statements were placed on record and the writ petition was closed.
(2.) AFTER that, the petitioner filed a writ petition in 1999 in W.P.No.9465 of 1999 praying for a declaration that Clause 4.5 Note (xii)(1), Sub-clauses (a) and (b) contained in the information and instructions to candidates seeking admission in Tamil Nadu Engineering Admissions 1999 for the year 1999-2000 as arbitrary and unconstitutional. The petitioner was an applicant for admission to the Engineering Course under the special category for eminent sportsmen. He had participated in the 43rd National Schools Games in 1997. He had captained the team in the C.K.Naidu tournament held in New Delhi during 1997-98. According to him, he had represented the State of Tamil Nadu in the category meant for persons under the age group of 16 and under the age group of 13 conducted by the Sports Authorities of India. As such he was eligible to be considered in the special Category for the 7 seats allotted by the Anna University for the first year B.E. courses. The relevant clause ran as follows: ?All eminent sports person (International/National/State level participants); No. of seats under D.O.T.E.: ? 30 No of seats for Anna University: ? 7 In the heading ?Preferred Games? it is stated as follows: ?Note:Anna University has certain preference for sports persons depending upon the requirement as given below: (1) Preferred Games: (a) For the purpose of selection during the academic year 1999-2000, sports person proficient in the following games would be preferred: Table Tennis, Tennis, Athletics, Rowing, Swimming, Shuttle, Badminton, Basket Ball-Men and Volley Ball-Man. (b) If suitable sports person proficient in the above games are not available, the sports persons proficient in the following games would be considered: Chess, Football, Hockey, Cricket. Other things being equal, preference would be based on the requirements of the University to be assessed by the Selection Committee.? It was contended on behalf of the petitioner in that writ petition that there was a classification within classification, which was illegal and a discrimination against in particular cricket. It was contended on behalf of the Registrar, Anna University, which was the fifth respondent therein, that the impugned clause was only a source of admission and it was just a question of preference of one game over another. It was further contended that one Vijay Sai Suri, who represented the State in Cricket at the National level for under 19 in the year 1998-99 had been selected as the one amount the seven candidates for Anna University and since he had come under the category of National level participant, he had been preferred. It was also contended that cricket was played only in 11 countries in the whole world as compared to other events and preference might vary from year to year since it was the object of the University to cover as far as possible more number of games and sports within the limited seats available. Shanmugam, J. set aside the classification within classification and quashed Clause 4.5 Note (xii) (1) Sub-clauses (a) and (b) in the information and Instructions to Candidates seeking admission to the Tamil Nadu Engineering Admissions for the year 1999-2000 as arbitrary and unconstitutional. However, the learned Judge held that, ?The petitioner could not have any grievance in so far as his non-selection on merits was concerned, since it had been conceded that an eminent cricket player had been selected under the sports quota. The petitioner was allowed to assail the impugned clause as a person aggrieved and interested in the matter.? As regards the contention of the University that preference would vary from year to year depending upon the requirement, the learned Judge observed that it would lead to an arbitrary decision of selecting and choosing the person for a particular discipline for a particular year. The learned Judge ultimately held that the University should have a uniform preference for all sports and events for selection to the special category of eminent sportsmen. The petitioner filed a petition for review of the order dated 9.11.1999. His prayer for a fresh selection on the basis that the note ?quashed? was illegal, was not granted. It was contended in the review petition by the petitioner's father representing as party in person that there should be a fresh selection. By an elaborate order Shanmugham, J. rejected the application. There were 733 applicants claiming special reservation. The petitioner was ranked 119 in the overall ranking. But, he was not found selected for the 37 seats set apart for the reserved category. It was contended on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner was not considered to be eligible as a person in any of the categories, viz., International/National/State level or District/State National level. The issue whether the petitioner satisfied any of those requirements was not raised by the petitioner. It was contended on behalf of the respondent that none of the certificates produced by the petitioner was of National level or State level for consideration of the petitioner. The learned Judge dismissed the review application holding as follows: ?The writ petition was concerned only with the preferred games and not as to the qualification of the petitioner. Hence, it is not open to the petitioner now to raise the contention that he should have been treated as an International level or National level participant.?
(3.) AFTER this the present writ petition has been filed for a declaration in the absence of separate counselling for candidates under sports quota, the entire admission done by the counselling without any communication to the candidates applied under this quota of selection is arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and the same is to be declared void ab initio for the year 1999-2000 and that a fresh selection should be conducted and the petitioner may be allotted with a seat in Anna University as per eligibility. It is stated in the affidavit in support of the present writ petition that only from the counter filed in the said writ petition for the first time the petitioner learnt that as many as 733 candidates had applied against sports quota and 114 candidates were called for special counselling, that 37 candidates were selected and out of that 7 candidates were allotted to Anna University and that the petitioner had not satisfied the criteria of selection under this category. The petitioner had participated in the national level games in cricket in Vinod Mankad and C.K.Naidu Trophies for Under 16 and Under 19 respectively and these tournaments had been recognised by the Board of Cricket Control of India. the respondent had not seen the petitioner's certificates at all and had failed to scrutinise the same with reference to documents that had been produced in the other writ petition. There is no provision for conducting special counselling for sports quota. There is no provision set out in the instruction and information to the candidates for Engineering Admission for the year 1999-2000. This query was raised by the learned Judge in the other writ petition and the same was not answered as there was no provision in the rules for conducting separate counselling under sports quota as has been done by the respondent. It is further contended that under sports quota of selection it is only the level of participation in the game, number of years of participation and the latest participation which are the basis for the rankings and the marks scored by the candidates would take a secondary place. The petitioner is fully qualified for selection under the sports quota. Ranking has to be done to all the candidates with reference to the level of participation and the number of years of participation and the latest participation together with the marks on the secondary place. Now that the classification of games has also been taken away by the decision in the earlier writ petition, the task in now simple. The petitioner's mark is second highest among the candidates selected for Anna University and he should have been given Computer Science Branch in the normal course since the other candidate with the highest mark has opted for electronics Branch of study the selection had not been done in a fair manner. The petitioner was forced to accept the payment seat in a self-financing college against his wish and his objections were over ruled on the date of counselling on 5.8.1999 under the pretext that he might lose even that opportunity if he did not opt in time. It is in these circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed. The prayer is for the issue of the writ of declaration to decision that in the absence of specific provision to conduct a separate counselling for candidates under sports quota, the entire admission done by the counselling without any communication to the candidates applied under this quota of selection is arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional and the same has to be declared as void ab initio for the Tamil Nadu Engineering 1999-2000 and that a fresh selection should be conducted and the petitioner may be allotted with a seat in Anna University as per eligibility. ;