The Supreme Court ruled that “rules of the game cannot be altered once the game has begun,” applying this principle to admissions. It quashed Punjab’s medical admission change to ensure a fair and transparent sports quota process.
The Supreme Court ruled that the principle that “rules of the game cannot be altered once the game has begun” is applicable not only to recruitment processes but also to admission procedures for educational courses.
A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe stated that just as it is illegal to modify recruitment criteria after a process has started, it is equally unacceptable for admission processes to remain ambiguous from the outset.
Such ambiguity can lead to authorities setting rules later that serve their interests or allow nepotism. The court emphasized that transparency in these processes is critical to avoid arbitrary actions.
The case involved civil appeals contesting midstream alterations to Punjab’s sports quota policy for admissions to MBBS and BDS programs under NEET UG-2024.
The bench cancelled a policy change that allowed candidates to submit sports achievement certificates from any class and year rather than restricting eligibility to achievements from Classes XI and XII.
The court noted that Ramesh Kumar Kashyap, a roller-skating coach and father of respondent Kudrat Kashyap, had submitted a request for the inclusion of sports achievements from Classes IX and X in the admission criteria.
Consequently, his daughter secured the top position in the sports quota merit list dated August 23, 2024.
The bench found that Kashyap’s lack of integrity in seeking policy modifications to benefit his daughter, without disclosing his personal interest, was sufficient to invalidate the changes made during the 2024 session.
The court highlighted that this change adversely affected other sports quota candidates, including appellants Divjot Sekhon and Shubhkarman Singh.
The court observed that undue haste in decision-making could imply mala fides, as such actions are often arbitrary and legally indefensible. This principle, the bench asserted, is equally applicable to admission processes for highly competitive courses like MBBS and BDS.
The court criticized the Punjab government for being vague with its norms and failing to clearly communicate the governing policies. Allowing flexibility to modify policies during an ongoing process was deemed contrary to the principles of fair play.
The bench warned that a lack of transparency can lead to arbitrariness and nepotism, which an equitable state must avoid.
Reiterating that a policy racked with arbitrariness is subject to judicial review, the court allowed some discretion for policymakers but clarified that it should not lead to arbitrary actions or favoritism.
Under Article 14 of the Constitution, the State and its authorities are required to act fairly, reasonably, and without arbitrariness. The bench deemed the modified admission process unsustainable, as the very basis of the change was tainted due to Kashyap’s undisclosed conflict of interest. This remains true even if the State acted in good faith and was unaware of his concealed interest.
The court instructed the Punjab government to establish its admission policy in full before commencing the annual admission process, should it aim to make periodic modifications. It reiterated that changing rules midway through an ongoing admission process is neither appropriate nor permissible.
Though Kashyap was not a party to the proceedings, the court noted his presence and awareness of its remarks against him, observing that he did not take any steps to seek inclusion in the case or present any defense.
The court ruled in favor of the appellants, ordering that Divjot Sekhon and Shubhkarman Singh should be granted the government medical college seats that had been allocated to Kudrat Kashyap and Mansirat Kaur (respondents).
In turn, Kudrat Kashyap and Mansirat Kaur were directed to take the seats vacated by the appellants at Gian Sagar Medical College, Banur.
ALSO READ: ‘Mumbai At Standstill’: Bombay High Court Slams Manoj Jarange Over Maratha Quota Protest
In appeals from Gauranshi Dhingra, Agrima Mann, and Navreet Singh, who contested the continuation of the same policy modification for the 2025 session, the court acknowledged that they were denied relief by the High Court based on its earlier ruling in Divjot Sekhon’s case.
The bench allowed them the opportunity to approach the High Court again through properly constituted proceedings, involving all necessary parties, to seek appropriate remedies.
Case Title: Divjot Sekhon Vs State of Punjab And Others
Read Attachment
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
