- (1.)This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 9248/1993, 9235/1993, 9438/1993, 9698/1993, 9784/1993, 10248/1993 and 10308/1993 as basic point involved in all the matters is the same. The facts have, however, been extracted from Civil Writ Petition No. 9248 of 1993, Vipin Kapoor v. Union Territory, Chandigarh & others, 1994 1 SCT 129.
(2.)Petitioner, Vipin Kapoor, after successful passing his 10+2 examination from D.A.V. School, Chandigarh with 65% marks, appeared in Combined Entrance Test popularly known as C.E.T. under Roll No. 36844. In the test aforesaid he stood at merit No. 2783. He applied for consideration of his case in sports category as he had represented the S.G.G.S. Club, Chandigarh in Chandigarh Senior State Championships in Khokho in the year 1992-93. The team, in which admittedly petitioner was a member, secured 2nd position being runner up. On the basis of the policy then in existence for giving various grades to the sports persons, the Chandigarh Administration, Directorate of Sports, adjudged him in category 'C' (i) vide certificate issued on that behalf, copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure P-1. This gradation done by the Chandigarh Administration was accepted by the Goverment of Punjab as also the Director Sports, Government of Punjab, vide his endorsement dated July 1, 1993 placing the petitioner in grade 'C' for the purpose of admission in any college of the State of Punjab. The case of petitioner is that in view of his gradation in Sports, he was eligible to seek admission in the Engineering Colleges of State of Punjab against a seat reserved for Sports category. Petitioner applied for seeking admission in Thapar Institute of Engineering & Technology, Patiala as also Government College of Engineering & Technology, Bhatinda, Guru Nanak Dev Engineering College, Ludhiana as also at Longowal. However, in the column meant for giving preference of the institution, he mentioned Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh to be his first preference. The candidates, who were issued gradation certificates by the Director, Sports U.T. Chandigarh, were called for trials in respective Sports that they had representated on different dates. Petitioner, however, was called for the trial that was to be held on July 15, 1993 at 9 A.M. The case of petitioner is that he performed well and his Khokho gradation was up-held. Thereafter, the District Sports Officer on behalf of Director Sports, addressed a letter to the petitioner on July 19, 1993 asking him to deposit the original certificate as the same was required to be counter-signed. It was mentioned in the letter aforesaid that without countersigning the said certificate it would not be valid for any purpose. On receipt of the letter, petitioner deposited the original gradation certificate but the same was not returned to him after counter-signing the same. When he made enquiries, he was told that one official from the Sports Department, Chandigarh would always remain as a member of the Joint Admission Committee constituted for giving admissions to various Colleges in the State of Punjab and Chandigarh and that the said official would take the original gradation certificates at the time of interview. The petitioner was called for interview which was to be held on 27.7.1993 at Panjab University Campus, Chandigarh for all the Engineering Colleges in the State of Punjab. Delivering the information that was received by petitioner that original certificate would be produced at the time of interview at the Panjab University Campus, Chandigarh, petitioner, inconsequence of the call for interview given to him, attended the same but to his complete dismay he found that no official of the Chandigarh Administration had come there alongwith gradation certificates. Non-availability of the original gradation certificate, thus, resulted into refusal of admission to petitioner. The case of petitioner is that before holding the interview, a member of the Joint Admission Committee was verifying the inter-se merit of the candidates who appeared for interview on that date. On verification of the merit of petitioner in C.E.T. as also his gradation in sports, he was placed at Serial No. 40 whereas 107 candidates were called for interview in the category of Sports at Panjab University Campus. It is stated that there are 29 seats reserved for sports persons in the B.E. course in all the concerned colleges and number of seats in Thapar Institute of Engineering & Technology are four. Petitioner, on the aforesaid facts is of firm belief that he could secure admission as per his merit in the C.E.T. test read with his sports gradation particularly in the reserved quota of sports. After the petitioner was refused to be interviewed, he prayed for provisional admission in view of the fact that attested copy of the gradation certificate had already been supplied. He pleaded in his representation that the original gradation certificate was to be brought on by the officials of the Sports Department, Chandigarh Administration but no body had turned up to produce the original certificate, it should not work injustice to him. His plea, however, was rejected and the positive case of petitioner is that other persons lower in merit were granted admission on July 27, 1993. In view of the facts that have been detailed above, it is so pleaded and argued by learned counsel appearing for petitioner that respondent No. 2 - Director Sports, Chandigarh as also the District Sports Officer, Chandigarh, in a pre-plained manner, played a fraud with many candidates like the petitioner and ensured their ouster from admission which could be with a view to accommodate others. Predicament of petitioner and many others equally situate was highlighted by the local News paper 'The Tribune' on July 27, 1993 with the caption "UT SPORTS DEPARTMENT DELAYING PAPERS". The whole news item has been placed on the records of the case as Annexure P-5. The action of the respondents is styled to be arbitrary and it is also pleaded that the original certificates of petitioner and others were demanded on a false pretext of counter-signing them with a view not to produce them at the relevant stage so that the candidates are denied admission.
(3.)This writ has been contested and in the short affidavit filed by the Director Sports, Chandigarh, whereas it has been admitted that petitioner had participated in Chandigarh Senior State Championship in Khokho in the year 1992-93 and the team in which he participated, had secured 2nd position being runner up, it has been further stated that on account of a bonafide error, petitioner was adjudged in category 'C' (i) and the Sports Gradation Certificate was issued to him under a bonafide mistake in interpretation of Grade-C by the Screening Committee and Grade-C1 was inadvertently given to him. He had participated in Chandigarh Senior State Championship in Khokho in the year 1992-93 and by virtue of this, petitioner had not represented in All India National Championship for being entitled to the grant of grade 'C'(i). The proviso for the grant of Grade 'C'(i) from the guidelines for admission to the reserved categories of sports, reads as under :-
"A sports person getting any of the first three positions in the State/U.T. Championship/Inter District Championships in the Senior Section and by virtue of this representing in the All India National Championships."

From the proviso quoted above, it is clear that in addition to the petitioner's participation of Khokho Championship, he should also by virtue thereof have represented in the All India National Championships for being considered for the grant of Grade 'C'(i) and nothing was produced before the respondents showing petitioner's participation in the All India National Championship and therefore he was given incorrect gradation. It is further stated that the sports gradation certificate, Annexure P-1, was issued to petitioner under bonafide error and he was not entitled to the same. The guidelines for admission to reserve category of sports have been placed on record as Annexure R.1 but it is no where made out from the aforesaid document or from the written statement as to on what date the same were enforced. Mr. Aggarwal, learned senior counsel appearing for respondents has, however, brought to my notice and it is not disputed by the other side that the guidelines, Annexure R.1, came into existence on May 7, 1993.