Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. - (1.) THE Petitioners in these 11 writ petitions are candidates for admission to the various 'medical courses' viz. MBBS, BDS, BAMS (Ayurvedacharya). They are seeking admission against the 2 per cent seats reserved for Sportsmen/Sportswomen. The primary challenge is to the stipulation in the criterion that inter -se merit of Sportsmen/Sportswomen shall be judged on the basis of their "performance in the +2 course only." A few facts relevant for the decision of the cases may be briefly noticed.
(2.) THE admission to the courses in Government colleges in Punjab is made on the basis of a competitive entrance examination. A Prospectus in this behalf was issued by the State of Punjab. The Punjabi University, Patiala was to conduct the examination. It was provided that the age of candidates for admission to these courses should not be less than "17 years on December 31, 1993." It was also provided that all "Punjab Domicile candidates who have secured at least 50 per cent (45 per cent in the case of candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes/Tribes) of the aggregate marks in the four compulsory subjects i.e. Chemistry, Physics, Biology and English taken together of 10+2 pattern or equivalent examination shall be eligible to sit for the competitive Entrance Examination". The examination was to be held on July 10, 1993. It was further provided that 2 per cent seats shall be reserved for Sportsmen/Sportswomen. The primary controversy raised in these petitions relates to para 4.2(a)(i) contained in Chapter 4 of the Prospectus. It reads as under: 4.2.(a)(i) : Admission shall be made strictly on the basis of relative merit of candidates determined on the result of the Competitive Entrance Examination (P.M.T.). In the case of reserved seats, relative merit of the candidates shall be determined within each category of reservation. In the case of category of Sports, relative merit of the candidate shall be determined on the basis of each subcategory within the main categories A, B, C & D, and for this purpose only performance in the +2 course would be considered. All certificates on the basis of which reservation is being sought will have to be appended with the application form in the first instance. No claim can be made/entertained at a later stage. This would apply to any additional certificate that may be needed from the Director Sports to categorise performance as per instructions issued by them from time to time. In the reserved category of children/widows of defence personnel candidates of Sub -category (vi)(2) mentioned in para -III(c) infra shall be admitted only if eligible candidates of Sub -category viii(i) are not available. (Emphasis supplied). A perusal of the above would show that the relative merit of the candidates belonging to the category of Sports has to be determined on the basis of their gradation as Sportsmen for which purpose "only performance in the +2 course" has to be considered. Furthermore, no minimum qualifying marks making a person eligible for admission to the Course, have been laid down. As a result, the two questions which have been primarily raised by the counsel for the Petitioners are: (i) Whether the action of the Respondents in grading Sportsmen for admission to the medical courses only on the basis of the performance in the +2 course is arbitrary, discriminatory and thus violative of Article 14 of the Constitution? (ii) Whether the admission to the seats reserved for the category of Sportsmen/Sportswomen should be made purely on the basis of the achievements in Sports or a minimum standard of qualifying marks in the entrance examination should be laid down?
(3.) THESE are the two basic issues which have been raised in Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 9889, 10044, 10361, 10520, 10529, 10779 and 11927 of 1993. In Civil Writ Petition No. 10523 of 1993, the Petitioner claims that he has not been graded in accordance with the instructions issued by the State Government and that the various distinctions achieved by him have not been taken into consideration. In Civil. Writ Petition No. 10559 of 1993, the Petitioners claim that in spite of being in the merit list, admission has not been granted. In C.W.P. No. 11213 of 1993, the grievance is that the -Respondents have acted arbitrarily in not laying down minimum academic standards, and that the Petitioner has not been graded in accordance with the prescribed criterion. In Civil Writ Petition No. 12007 of 1993, a slightly different issue has been raised. It has been claimed that the criterion which was prevalent hitherto fore regarding determination of inter se merit of persons who had participated in events for Junior and Senior Persons had been arbitrarily altered, - -vide letter dated May 14, 1993. A detailed reference to the factual and other aspects of these cases shall be made at the appropriate stage. In respect of the main controversy, a brief reference to the factual position brought out by the counsel for the Petitioners in Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 9889 and 10044 of 1993 may be noticed.;