The Bombay High Court has struck down the Goa government’s decision to introduce a sports quota midway through the medical and dental admission process, holding that such a move was contrary to the binding rules set out in the admission prospectus.
A division bench of Justices Bharati H Dangre and Nivedita P Mehta delivered the ruling on a petition filed by an NEET candidate who challenged a notice issued on August 1 by the Directorate of Technical Education (DTE). The notice had invited sportspersons to apply for unfilled seats under the Children of Freedom Fighters (CFF) category. The order, dated August 25, was made public on Tuesday.
The bench observed that the common admission prospectus for 2025-26, which governs 180 MBBS seats at Goa Medical College, Bambolim, and 50 BDS seats at Goa Dental College, carried the force of law and was binding on both authorities and candidates.
“Without amending the prospectus or notifying modifications therein, inviting applications under a new category after commencement of counselling amounts to changing the rules of the game after it has begun,” the court said, underscoring that strict timelines are the essence of the admission procedure.
Senior advocate S S Kantak, representing the petitioner, argued that the DTE had already fixed a counselling schedule on July 28, with the first round originally set for August 1 and later rescheduled to August 5. By then, the merit list had been published on July 30.
The petitioner participated in the first round of counselling, where the last MBBS seat went to the candidate with rank 78 and the first BDS seat to rank 108. With only two higher-ranked candidates left without admission, the petitioner had a realistic chance of securing a seat. However, the sudden creation of the sports quota, with applications accepted until August 14, dashed those hopes.
Advocate General Devidas Pangam defended the move, citing the state’s executive powers and the Goa Sports Policy, 2009. Several sports associations, including the Goa Football Association and Fencing Association, intervened in support, noting that many states had already adopted such quotas.
The court, however, emphasised that while the state is free to encourage sports through policy measures, such reservations must be clearly incorporated before the admission process begins.
“Introducing the quota after publication of the merit list and during ongoing counselling adversely impacts the fairness and transparency of the admission process,” the order said.
The bench clarified that had the sports quota been part of the prospectus from the start, the court would not have interfered. “It is for the state authority to determine in whose favour the reservation would lie. But changing rules mid-process is impermissible,” it added.
