The Supreme Court has set aside the modification of admission criteria for the MBBS/BDS sports quota in Punjab for the academic session 2024, ruling that the “rules of the game cannot be altered once the game has begun.” The Court found that the decision to expand the zone of consideration for sports achievements to include Classes IX and X, in addition to Classes XI and XII, was vitiated by arbitrariness and influenced by a representation from a private individual whose daughter directly benefited from the change.
A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe allowed the appeals filed by aspirants Divjot Sekhon and Shubhkarman Singh, directing that they be accommodated in government medical college seats currently held by the private respondents who had benefited from the altered policy.
Background of the Case
The appeals challenged orders passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing writ petitions filed by the appellants. The primary grievance concerned the admission process for MBBS/BDS courses for the session 2024 under the sports quota.
Initially, the Prospectus issued by the Baba Farid University of Health Sciences (“the University”) on August 9, 2024, and the revised Prospectus issued on August 10, 2024, specifically stipulated that credit for sports quota admissions would be given only for sports achievements during Classes XI and XII. However, on August 16, 2024, the University issued an email to candidates applying under the sports quota, instructing them to submit certificates of achievements from “any class/year” instead of just Classes XI and XII.
Subsequently, a merit list was released on August 23, 2024, which considered sports achievements during Classes IX and X as well. As a result, respondent Kudrat Kashyap and respondent Mansirat Kaur secured high ranks (Rank 1 and Rank 5, respectively) based on their performance in Classes IX and X. The appellants, Divjot Sekhon and Shubhkarman Singh, whose achievements were primarily in Classes XI and XII, were pushed down to Rank 8 and Rank 9, respectively, and were consequently admitted to a private medical college instead of a government institution.
Arguments of the Parties
The appellants contended that the admission criteria were changed after the commencement of the admission process, which is legally impermissible. They argued that for previous sessions (2019, 2021, and 2022), only achievements during Classes XI and XII were considered. They pointed out that while the criteria were relaxed for the session 2023 to include Classes IX and X, it was a one-time measure due to the Covid-19 pandemic, as explicitly stated in a Corrigendum dated August 1, 2023.
The University and the State of Punjab defended the action, arguing that the University was merely a nodal agency bound by the State’s instructions. The State relied on the University’s email dated August 16, 2024, and an Addendum dated September 3, 2024, asserting that the policy allowed for such consideration. The respondents also argued that the initial restriction to Classes XI and XII in the Prospectus was a misprint.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Supreme Court scrutinized the original files produced by the State of Punjab, which revealed that the change in policy was prompted by a representation from one Ramesh Kumar Kashyap, a Roller-Skating Coach. The Court noted that Ramesh Kumar Kashyap is the father of respondent Kudrat Kashyap, the candidate who secured Rank 1 due to the policy change.
The Court observed that while recommending the inclusion of Class IX and X achievements, Ramesh Kumar Kashyap “failed to mention that his daughter, Kudrat Kashyap, would herself be benefited by this change.” The Bench termed this a “lack of probity” and stated that his “influencing of the authorities without disclosing this fact… is sufficient in itself to vitiate the modification.”
On ‘Rules of the Game’: The Court reiterated the settled legal principle that admission norms cannot be changed mid-stream. Citing the precedent in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and others vs. Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve and others (2001) and Tej Prakash Pathak and others vs. Rajasthan High Court and others (2025), the Bench observed:
“It is well-settled that the rules of the game cannot be altered once the game has begun… Just as modification of recruitment norms is forbidden in law after the recruitment process has begun, it is equally illegal for an admission process to not be fully defined in all its contours before its commencement, so as to leave room for the authorities concerned to stipulate norms later on to suit their own interests or to permit nepotism.”
On Arbitrariness: The Court highlighted the arbitrariness of the State’s action by noting that for other courses during the same session—such as Bachelor of Physiotherapy, BAMS, BHMS, and BUMS—only sports achievements from Classes XI and XII were considered. The Bench remarked:
“The fact that these modified parameters were not extended to other medical and allied courses offered by the University during session-2024 clearly underlines the arbitrariness that crept in only in relation to admissions to MBBS/BDS courses.”
On the Role of Internal Notings: Referring to the file notings, the Court rejected the State’s reliance on the 2023 policy, noting that the Corrigendum dated August 1, 2023, was explicitly for “that session only” due to “special circumstances prevailed during the COVID-19 pandemic.” The Court held that the internal notings were “utmost relevant” as they disclosed the role played by Ramesh Kumar Kashyap.
Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and quashed the modification in the policy for the session 2024. However, considering that a full redraw of the merit list would unsettle other candidates not before the Court, the Bench limited the relief to the appellants.
The Court directed:
- Divjot Sekhon and Shubhkarman Singh shall be accommodated in the seats in the government medical college(s) which were allotted to respondents Kudrat Kashyap and Mansirat Kaur.
- Kudrat Kashyap and Mansirat Kaur shall be given the seats vacated by the appellants in the private college (Gian Sagar Medical College, Banur).
- The course of study and fees paid by all parties shall remain unaffected, and they will continue their studies in the new colleges from the current stage.
Regarding the appeal filed by Agrima Mann, Gauranshi Dhingra, and Navreet Singh concerning the 2025 session, the Court noted that admissions had already been made and affected parties were not impleaded. Consequently, the Court granted them liberty to approach the High Court again with a “properly constituted proceeding, impleading all the proper and necessary parties.”
The Court concluded with a strong advisory to the State of Punjab:
“The State of Punjab would be well advised to formulate the admission policy in its entirety before initiation of the admission process for each year, if it seeks to modify the same time and again. It is not proper and correct to do so mid-stream during the admission process.”
Case Details:
- Case Title: Divjot Sekhon v. State of Punjab and Others (and connected appeals)
- Case No.: Civil Appeal No. of 2026 (@ SLP (Civil) No. 23112 of 2024)
- Coram: Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe
