2026 INSC 26 1

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No. of 2026

(@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 23112 of 2024)

DIVJOT SEKHON … Appellant

versus

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS … Respondents

with

Civil Appeal No. of 2026

(@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 28046 of 2024)

&

Civil Appeal No. of 2026

(@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 20137 of 2025)

J U D G M E N T

SANJAY KUMAR, J

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals arise out of separate orders passed by the High

Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dismissing the writ petitions

filed by the appellants. The first of the appeals pertains to Divjot Sekhon.

Her writ petition in CWP-21051-2024 was dismissed by a Division Bench

of the High Court on 11.09.2024. Her prayer therein was to quash the

email dated 16.08.2024 sent by Baba Farid University of Health Sciences,

2

Faridkot

1

, whereby candidates applying for admission to MBBS/BDS

courses under sports quota in session-2024 were asked to submit their

certificates/achievements of any class/year instead of just Classes XI and

XII. She also challenged the merit list dated 23.08.2024 of candidates

admitted to MBBS/BDS courses under sports quota, that placed Kudrat

Kashyap and Mansirat Kaur, respondent Nos. 4 and 5, at high positions

therein on the strength of their sports achievements in Classes IX and X.

3. The next appeal is of Shubhkarman Singh, another MBBS aspirant

under sports quota during session-2024. On 12.09.2024, the same

Division Bench dismissed his writ petition in CWP-23083-2024, following

its decision in Divjot Sekhon’s case, a day earlier. His prayer was on the

same lines as Divjot Sekhon’s. In addition thereto, he assailed the

Addendum dated 03.09.2024, whereby the University informed all

National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (Undergraduate) [NEET UG-2024]

aspirants who applied under sports quota that sports achievements during

Classes XI and XII was misprinted in the Prospectus and that they were

told via email dated 16.08.2024 to submit all their sports achievements

during any class/year/session in person on 19.08.2024 (upto 3 PM).

4. The email dated 16.08.2024, issued by the Admission Branch of the

University, was addressed to all the candidates who had applied under

1

For short, ‘the University’

3

sports quota and they were informed that, as per Punjab Government’s

Notification for admission to MBBS/BDS courses under NEET UG-2024,

the clause pertaining to sports category read: ‘Credit and admission shall

be made on the basis of inter-se merit determined on the basis of

gradation (Category A/B/C) as per sports policy notified by Department of

Sports & Youth Services, Government of Punjab’. The candidates were

told that, as per the above clause, it was not compulsory to submit only

sports achievements of 10+1 & 10+2 Classes and they were supposed to

submit all their sports achievements made during any class/year. They

were told that if they wanted to submit any more documents in support of

their claim under sports category, which they had not submitted earlier,

they could submit the same in person on 19.08.2024 upto 3 PM. Thus, the

addendum dated 03.09.2024, issued post facto, was only an affirmation

of the email dated 16.08.2024.

5. The last appeal pertains to Agrima Mann, Gauranshi Dhingra and

Navreet Singh, aspirants for admission to MBBS/BDS courses under

sports quota for the next year, i.e., during session-2025. They filed

CWP-19735-2025 assailing Clauses 15(v) and 16(v) of the Notification

dated 09.08.2024, published on 17.06.2025, for admission to MBBS/BDS

courses through NEET UG-2025. The impugned clauses related to 1%

reservation of seats under sports quota, whereby credit was sought to be

given to sports achievements during any academic year without

4

restriction. Their prayer was that the benefit should be restricted to the

achievements in Classes XI and XII only and that there was no justification

in perpetuating the criteria that was adopted during Covid-19 pandemic.

They sought a direction to the authorities to restore the policy decision/

criteria which existed prior to session-2023 in respect of admissions to

MBBS/BDS courses for session-2025. In the alternative, they sought a

direction to the authorities to implement the changed policy decision/

criteria in a staggered manner so as to not take the existing aspirants by

surprise. This writ petition was dismissed by a Division Bench of the High

Court on 16.07.2025, but there was no independent application of mind

as the Bench merely followed the decision rendered in Divjot Sekhon’s

case by the coordinate Bench, presided over by the same learned Judge.

6. We will first deal with the cases of Divjot Sekhon and Shubhkarman

Singh as they relate to MBBS/BDS admissions during session-2024. The

Prospectus for admission to the colleges in Punjab in undergraduate

medical courses, including MBBS/BDS courses, during session-2024 was

released by the University on 09.08.2024. It specifically provided that

credit would be given only for sports achievements during Classes XI and

XII. Admissions were to be made on the basis of inter-se merit of

candidates determined on the basis of gradation (Category A/B/C). While

so, the Government of Punjab issued Notification dated 09.08.2024,

outlining the admission criteria to MBBS/BDS courses for session-2024.

5

The notification was, however, silent about the classes/years which would

be considered under sports quota for assessing sports achievements of

the candidates. A revised Prospectus was issued by the University on

10.08.2024, wherein the stipulation about considering sport s

achievements during Classes XI and XII was retained. Applications for

admission under sports quota along with relevant documents were to be

submitted by 16.08.2024. The checklist provided to aid the process of

submission of documents stated as follows: -

‘4. Gradation Certificate of Category (A/B/C) issued by the Director

Sports Punjab for Sports Achievements made during 10+1 (passing

year______) & 10+2 (passing year ______)

5. Sports Certificate played during 10+1 (passing year ______) & 10+2

(passing year_____)’

7. While so, on 16.08.2024 at 6:07 pm, the impugned email was issued

to all the candidates who had applied under sports quota for admission to

MBBS/BDS courses. Thereby, the University asked them to submit their

sports certificates in relation to their achievements during any class/year.

Divjot Sekhon is a Roller Skater/Inline Hockey player. Shubhkarman

Singh plays Baseball. They appeared for NEET UG-2024 on 05.05.2024.

The results of NEET UG-2024 were declared on 26.07.2024. Thereafter,

the merit list of eligible candidates under sports quota was released by the

Director of Sports, Punjab, on 23.08.2024. This merit list was drawn up by

considering candidates’ sports achievements during Classes IX and X

6

also. On the strength of their achievements during Classes IX and X,

Kudrat Kashyap, respondent No. 4, a Roller Skater/Inline Hockey player,

stood at rank No. 1, while Mansirat Kaur, respondent No. 5, another Roller

Skater, stood at rank No. 5. Divjot Sekhon was shown at rank No. 8 while

Shubhkarman Singh was at rank No.9 therein. Basing on these ranks,

Divjot Sekhon and Shubhkarman Singh were admitted to MBBS course in

Gian Sagar Medical College, Banur, a private medical college.

8. According to the appellants, only for session-2023, the sports merit

list was prepared on the basis of the sports achievements not only during

Classes XI and XII but also Classes IX and X, owing to the Covid-19

pandemic that held sway from 2020 to 2022. Earlier, only the sports

achievements of candidates during Classes XI and XII were being taken

into consideration. They pointed out that even for session-2024, the

Prospectus initially released by the University stated that only the sports

achievements during Classes XI and XII would be considered. But,

thereafter, the State and the University did a volte-face and took into

account the sports achievements of candidates during Classes IX and X

also. They challenged this action on their part alleging that the admission

process had been changed after its commencement.

9. In its reply filed before the High Court, the University stated that it

had specifically mentioned in the prospectus issued on 09.08.2024 that

the notification for admission to MBBS/BDS courses during session-2024

7

was still awaited but, keeping in view the schedule issued by the Medical

Counselling Committee/Government of India, applications had been

invited on urgent basis, but eligibility for admission to MBBS/BDS courses

under NEET UG-2024 would be subject to issuance of the notification by

the Department of Medical Education and Research, Government of

Punjab. The University published advertisements in the newspapers

indicating the last date for depositing registration fee through the online

payment gateway as 16.08.2024. As per the University, the

advertisements also indicated that any notification/update issued by the

Medical Counselling Committee/Government of India/Government of

Punjab regarding NEET UG-2024 would be applicable.

10. Thereafter, the Department of Medical Education and Research,

Government of Punjab, issued Notification dated 09.08.2024 and,

accordingly, the revised prospectus, including the notification, was

published on 10.08.2024. This prospectus superseded the instructions

issued earlier. Clause 15 of this prospectus pertained to reservation in

government medical/dental colleges while Clause 16 pertained to private

institutes/universities. Sports reservation was indicated as 1% in both

categories. Clauses 15 and 16 stipulated that credit and admission shall

be on the basis of inter-se merit of the candidates determined on the basis

of gradation (Category A/B/C), as per the sports policy notified by the

Department of Sports and Youth Services, Government of Punjab.

8

11. The University stated that, in all, 5721 candidates applied for

admission through NEET UG-2024, of whom 58 candidates had applied

under sports quota and submitted their Sports Gradation Certificates,

along with other credentials/documents, on 16.08.2024. According to the

University, page 18 of the NEET UG-2024 Prospectus issued by it

regarding sports persons wrongly indicated that sports achievements

during Classes XI and XII only would be considered and it, therefore, sent

an email to all the aspirants on 16.08.2024 at 6.07 pm, clarifying that all

candidates should submit their sports achievements during any class/year

by 3 pm on 19.08.2024. All such documents submitted by aspirants till 3

pm on 19.08.2024 were forwarded by the University to the Director of

Sports, Punjab, under letter dated 20.08.2024. Pursuant thereto, the

Director of Sports, Punjab, issued the sports merit list dated 23.08.2024

and the same was published by the University on its website on the very

same day. The University claimed that it was only a nodal agency which

was bound to follow the instructions issued by the Department of Medical

Education and Research, Government of Punjab, as sports policy was

within the exclusive domain of the Director of Sports, Punjab.

The University filed a reply before this Court on the same lines.

12. The State of Punjab also filed a reply before us. Therein, while

reiterating what it had stated in its reply before the High Court, the State

sought to place reliance on the decision of the High Court of Punjab and

9

Haryana in Ibadat Sekhon vs. State of Punjab and others

2

in relation

to the sports quota during session-2023. Notably, the said decision turned

upon the Corrigendum dated 01.08.2023 issued by the State of Punjab.

Clauses 15(v) and 16(v) in the earlier Notification dated 10.03.2023,

pertaining to government medical/dental colleges and private institutes/

universities, provided that credit would be given only for sports

achievements during Classes XI and XII. This was modified by the

Corrigendum dated 01.08.2023 whereby the zone of consideration was

expanded to include Classes IX and X also. The Corrigendum dated

01.08.2023 read thus: -

“In partial modification of the Notification No. 5/5/2021-5HB3/446 dated

10.03.2023, para 15(v) and 16(v) are amended as under only for the

session 2023:

“Credit shall be given for the sport achievements made during session

2019-20 to 2022-23. The admission shall be made on the basis of inter-

se merit of the candidates determined on the basis of gradation (Category

A/B/C) issued by the Director of Sports, Punjab. However, for exempted

categories under para 11 of the Notification, the competent authority will

be Director, Sport of that state or U.T., from where the candidate has

passed his class XI and XII examinations.”

Note: This corrigendum is for this session only, in the light of the special

circumstances prevailed during the COVID-19 pandemic.”

The corrigendum, therefore, made it clear that the modification was

only for that session, i.e., session-2023, and it was owing to the special

circumstances brought about by the Covid-19 pandemic. It is in this

backdrop that the High Court dismissed Ibadat Sekhon’s writ petition.

2

CWP No. 18657 of 2023 (O&M), decided on 20.02.2025

10

However, adoption and perpetuation of the same modified policy, which

was categorically stated to be an exception, during the later session-2024

and thereafter did not flow from the Corrigendum dated 01.08.2023.

13. Pertinently, the prospectus issued earlier by the University for

session-2024 contained a list of categories and category codes and

insofar as sports persons under Category Code No. 17 were concerned,

it stated that credit would be given only for sports achievements during

Classes XI and XII. However, in the general instructions in Part A, under

Clause 14, it was stated that in case of any discrepancy or contradiction

between the Government’s notifications and the University’s instructions

contained in the said prospectus, the letter and spirit of the notifications

shall prevail but in academic matters, the University shall be the final

authority. Further, in the Schedule for admission through NEET UG-2024,

it was specifically stated in Note#1 that any subsequent

notification/notice/amendments/corrigenda issued by the Government of

Punjab/University would be followed in letter and spirit and the candidates

were required to visit the University website regularly for any updates.

14. We may note that even in the Notification dated 09.08.2024 issued

by the Department of Medical Education and Research, Government of

Punjab, except for quantifying the reservation for sports persons at 1%,

the issue as to how such reservation was to be implemented was not spelt

out and it was merely stated that admission under this quota would be

11

made on the basis of inter se merit of candidates determined on the basis

of gradation (Category A/B/C) as per the sports policy notified by the

Department of Sports and Youth Services, Government of Punjab. This

was in relation to both government medical/dental colleges as well as

private institutes/universities.

15. The Department of Sports and Youth Services, Government of

Punjab, brought out the Sports Policy, 2023, vide Notification dated

31.07.2023. This was in supersession of the Sports Policy, 2018.

Though the Sports Policy, 2023, envisioned encouraging all citizens to

adopt an active life style; motivate children to come to play/run; and to

restore Punjab’s glory in sports at national and international levels, and

promised eight actionable points, including putting sports on a high

pedestal through rewards and job opportunities for outstanding sports

persons, it left certain issues unanswered. More specifically, it did not

elaborate on the zone of consideration for assessment of sports

achievements for conferment of benefits. Rule 4.2 of the said policy,

however, specifically stated that a sub-junior tournament would be

ineligible while grading sporting achievements. When the policy

specifically excluded sub-junior tournaments, the University’s email dated

16.08.2024 requiring the candidates to submit their sports achievements

during any class/year defies comprehension. Significantly, the University

did not limit its expansion thereby to only Classes IX and X but required

12

candidates to submit even their sub-junior achievements, if any, which

was contrary to the State’s sports policy. Needless to state, there had to

be clarity in that regard as leaving the issue open to be decided at a later

point of time on a case-to-case or course-to-course basis would invariably

introduce arbitrariness and let in the scope for favouritism.

16. The Sports Policy, 2023, did not indicate the classes/years that

would be taken into consideration for assessing the competing merit of

candidates under sports quota, i.e., the classes or years that would be

treated as relevant for assessing their sports achievements during that

period. Rule 5.1 of the Sports Policy, 2023, merely specified how inter se

merit under sports quota was to be decided amongst winners, runners up

and third position holders. Therefore, when there was no change in the

basic sports policy and the prospectus for session-2024, in accordance

therewith, mentioned that only Classes XI and XII would be considered for

assessment of sports achievements, the State of Punjab cannot fall back

on the procedure followed for session-2023 to justify the change that it

brought about by again including Classes IX and X within the zone of

consideration, contrary to its own Corrigendum dated 01.08.2023.

17. That said, the case law relied upon by the appellants about the

binding nature and legal status of a prospectus is not relevant to this

adjudication as the prospectus issued by the University contained the

caveat that the notifications issued thereafter by the Government of

13

Punjab would be binding. The larger question, however, is whether this

procedure of keeping the admission process elastic after issuance of the

prospectus and submission of applications by the candidates would be

valid in the eye of law. This question arises in the backdrop of the

necessity to maintain complete transparency in the admission process so

as to obviate any possibility of arbitrariness or nepotism creeping in at a

later stage, i.e., after submission of applications and sports achievements

by candidates for admission to MBBS/BDS courses under sports quota.

18. It is well-settled that the rules of the game cannot be altered once

the game has begun. In Maharashtra State Road Transport

Corporation and others vs. Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve and others

3

,

this Court observed that “the rules of the game, meaning thereby, that the

criteria for selection cannot be altered by the authorities concerned in the

middle or after the process of selection has commenced”. The same

principle was followed subsequently by a 3-Judge Bench in K. Manjusree

vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another

4

and by a Constitution Bench

in Tej Prakash Pathak and others vs. Rajasthan High Court and

others

5

. This principle is just as applicable to admission processes to

educational courses as it would be to recruitment processes. Just as

modification of recruitment norms is forbidden in law after the recruitment

3

(2001) 10 SCC 51

4

(2008) 3 SCC 512

5

(2025) 2 SCC 1

14

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. The transparency of such a process

is paramount to ensure fairness and prevent arbitrariness.

19. Significantly, for Bachelor of Physiotherapy course, Bachelor of

Medical Laboratory Technology course and BSc course in Anatomy,

Physiology & Biochemistry offered by the University during the very same

session-2024, the Director of Sports, Punjab, instructed the University,

vide letter dated 08.07.2024, that as per Rule 5.1 of the revised Sports

Policy, 2023, only the sports achievements of Classes XI and XII were to

be considered while preparing the sports merit list for those courses.

There is no explanation forthcoming from the authorities as to why these

double standards had been adopted.

20. It was in this context that this Court directed the State of Punjab to

produce all the relevant material to examine how the matter progressed

from stage to stage. Thereupon, the original files pertaining to this issue

were placed before us. Perusal thereof reflected that one Ramesh Kumar

Kashyap, a Roller-Skating Coach, who is none other than the father of

Kudrat Kashyap, respondent No.4, had submitted a representation

requesting that, in the admission process for MBBS/BDS courses in

educational institutions in the State of Punjab, the sports achievements

15

during Classes IX and X should also be included. Significantly, while

making this recommendation, citing various reasons, Ramesh Kumar

Kashyap failed to mention that his daughter, Kudrat Kashyap, would

herself be benefited by this change.

21. According to the undated representation made by Ramesh Kumar

Kashyap, if a student wins a medal or participates in international

competitions in Classes IX and X, he/she might not get another

opportunity in Classes XI and XII, since such events are conducted once

in every four years and by the time the next event occurs, the student

would have already passed Class XII. He further stated that if a student,

who achieved medals at the national/international level in Class IX or X is

injured during Class XI or XII and cannot participate further, his/her earlier

achievements would be ignored during MBBS/BDS admissions.

According to him, students who pursue sports seriously until Class X often

lag behind in academics and if they continue sports at the same intensity

during Classes XI and XII, they might fail to qualify for the NEET

examination. He further stated that many students who secure sports

medals in Classes XI and XII, usually participate in obscure or lower level

competitions, and often such students have never been active in sports

prior to Class XI and manage achievements in later years using influence,

thereby disadvantaging genuine athletes. He asserted that a true athlete’s

capability should be judged based on their performance over the past four

16

years and doing so would cause no disadvantage to anyone. He pointed

out that even during the previous year, sports achievements from Classes

IX, X, XI and XII were considered. He, accordingly, recommended that it

would be appropriate that sports achievements of Classes IX and X also

be considered along with Classes XI and XII from the academic year

2024-2025 onwards.

22. Having stated so much about the rationale behind his

recommendation, it was incumbent upon Ramesh Kumar Kashyap, had

he been acting bonafide on behalf of all sportspersons and if his only aim

was to secure their interest, to have also mentioned the fact that his

daughter, Kudrat Kashyap, had participated in international events earlier

and by inclusion of Classes IX and X within the zone of consideration, she

would be hugely benefited as she was appearing for NEET UG-2024. The

facts manifest that she was, in fact, so benefited as she was ranked at No.

1 in the merit list dated 23.08.2024. This lack of probity on the part of

Ramesh Kumar Kashyap, so as to benefit his own daughter, and his

influencing of the authorities without disclosing this fact, so as to bring

about a change in the policy contrary to what was stated in the

Corrigendum dated 01.08.2023, is sufficient in itself to vitiate the

modification that was brought about during session-2024 to the detriment

of other candidates under sports quota, including Divjot Sekhon and

Shubhkarman Singh.

17

23. 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. Be it noted that, during session-2024,

only Classes XI and XII were taken into consideration for assessment of

sports achievements for admission to Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and

Surgery course (BAMS), Bachelor of Homeopathic Medicine and Surgery

course (BHMS) and Bachelor of Unani Medicine and Surgery course

(BUMS). Even thereafter, during session-2025, only Classes XI and XII

were taken into consideration for assessment of sports achievements for

admission to BSc (Nursing) and Bachelor of Veterinary Science and

Animal Husbandry, in addition to the aforestated courses.

24. In this regard, we may also note that the prospectus issued by the

University for session-2024 in respect of post-graduate medical/dental

courses, wherein sports persons were provided 2% reservation,

specifically stated that credit would be given only for the sports

achievements during MBBS/BDS courses only. The logic behind such a

prescription is not far to gather, as achievements during the period

immediately preceding admission to the course in question would be of

relevance and not some achievements in the distant past. This is more so

in the case of admission to MBBS/BDS courses, as a student aspiring for

admission to such courses has to obtain not only adequate academic

18

ranking but also secure sports achievements during that period. He/she

would be entitled to the benefit of such reservation, having balanced both

effectively, so as to stand in a sufficiently high position in the merit list.

25. According to Divjot Sekhon, she would have ranked at No. 6 in the

merit list if the authorities had considered only the sports achievements

during Classes XI and XII and she would have secured a seat in a

government medical college at much lesser financial cost. She pointed

out that the fees to be paid by her in the private medical college was over

₹22 lakh for the entire 5-year course whereas she would have only

incurred expenditure of ₹9.5 lakh in a government medical college.

Reference was made to the procedure followed for admission to MBBS/

BDS courses during session-2019; session-2021; and session-2022,

wherein only Classes XI and XII were the zone of consideration for

assessment of sports achievements. As already noted hereinbefore,

insofar as session-2023 was concerned, the norm was modified only for

that particular session in the light of Covid-19 pandemic, by expanding the

zone of consideration to include Classes IX and X also. However, it

appears that Ramesh Kumar Kashyap, who is stated to have trained

Divjot Sekhon also, seems to have struck upon the idea that perpetuating

the same would benefit his daughter and he, accordingly, made a

recommendation to the authorities without disclosing his own private

interest. This is clear and manifest from the files placed before us, which

19

set out in detail the recommendation made by him and how it finally

weighed with the authorities concerned.

26. Kudrat Kashyap, respondent No.4, filed replies in both the appeals.

Therein, she adverted to her sports achievements, including her

participation in an event at the international level. However, no mention

was made of how her father, Ramesh Kumar Kashyap, went about

securing a change in the policy which had prevailed till session-2023 and

was modified only for that session, in the context of the Covid-19

pandemic, so as to benefit her.

27. Mansirat Kaur, respondent No.5, also filed her replies stating that

no relief had been claimed against her and that she was impleaded

unnecessarily. However, if we set aside the modification to the zone of

consideration, i.e., its enlargement from Classes XI and XII to include

Classes IX and X also, she would be adversely affected. She cannot,

therefore, state that she is not a proper and necessary party to this

litigation and that her name should be deleted from the memo of parties.

28. Acting upon Ramesh Kumar Kashyap’s representation, the Director

of Sports, Punjab, vide letter dated 18.10.2023, made these comments: -

“With reference to the comments sought in the subject matter, it is stated

that the Department always takes initiative for the welfare of sports

persons. Therefore, in view of the representation submitted by the

applicant, consideration may be given to providing 3% reservation for

sports persons in admissions to medical education, so that maximum

players can avail the benefit. Further, for example, if a sports person wins

a medal at the national/international level at an early age, i.e., in Class

20

9

th

or 10

th

, such a player brings laurels to the state and the country at a

young age. However, due to the existing rules, he/she is unable to avail

the benefit of the sports quota at the time of admission. Along with sports,

maintaining education is also essential. As per the existing practice, Baba

Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot, considers sports

achievements of Classes 11

th

and 12

th

for MBBS/BDS admissions. The

Department of Medical Education and Research, while issuing the

notifications for the year 2023-24, had directed that sports achievements

of Classes 9

th

, 10

th

, 11

th

and 12

th

be considered for that year. Therefore,

it is recommended that, in the future as well, on a permanent basis, sports

achievements obtained during Classes 9

th

, 10

th

, 11

th

and 12

th

be

considered for admission to MBBS/BDS courses.”

29. In that context, the view of the Sports Department, vide Note #15

dated 02.11.2023, warrants extraction in its entirety. It reads as follows:

“Further, for example, if a sports person wins a medal at the

national/international level at an early age, i.e., in Class 9

th

or 10

th

, such

a player brings laurels to the state and country at a young age. However,

due to the existing rules, he/she is unable to avail the benefit of the sports

quota at the time of admission. Along with sports, maintaining education

is also essential. As per the existing practice, Baba Farid University of

Health Sciences, Faridkot, considers sports achievements of Classes

11

th

and 12

th

for MBBS/BDS admissions. The Department of Medical

Education and Research, while issuing the notification for the year 2023-

24, had directed that sports achievements of Classes 9

th

, 10

th

, 11

th

and

12

th

be considered for that year. Therefore, it is recommended that, in the

future as well, on a permanent basis, sports achievements obtained

during Classes 9

th

, 10

th

, 11

th

and 12

th

be considered for admission to

MBBS/BDS courses.”

The above Note failed to take into account the fact that the

modification during session-2023 was limited to that academic session

only, in terms of the Corrigendum dated 01.08.2023, and the reason

therefor was stated to be the Covid-19 pandemic. Those crucial aspects

were completely overlooked by the Sports Department while endorsing

the recommendation made by Ramesh Kumar Kashyap. The contrary

21

endorsement at Note #50 dated 13.04.2024 by the Nodal Officer (Legal)

also warrants reproduction. It reads as under:

“Medical Education is providing 1% reservation for sports persons

instead of govt policy of 3%, that too for the achievements in 10+1 and

10+2 only, because this is crucial time which a student is giving to sports

instead of studies. Achievements made in 9

th

and 10

th

will not hold that

student to any disadvantage. It’s clear that we don’t need such

reservation to be extended beyond 11

th

and 12

th

.”

30. Surprisingly, the State of Punjab thereafter produced another set of

documents before us. This set of documents merely referred to a

representation having been received regarding the rules for sports quota

but no reference was made therein to Ramesh Kumar Kashyap. The file

moved forward from stage to stage thereafter but there is neither mention

nor awareness at any stage of Kudrat Kashyap, the daughter of Ramesh

Kumar Kashyap, being benefited by the proposed change that he wanted.

Ultimately, the State accepted and acted upon his recommendation.

31. In that regard, we may refer to the observations made by this Court

in Mandeep Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others

6

: -

“58. True, the State is entitled to change its policy, yet a sudden change

without valid reasons will always be seen with suspicion. Even in cases

where there is no statutory prescription of any particular way of doing a

thing, the executive must observe the long-standing practice, and a

deviation from such a practice would require passing the muster of

reasonableness, which is a facet of Article 14 of the Constitution. In this

regard, this Court in Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd. v. CTO [(2005) 1 SCC

625] observed that:

“9. While the discretion to change the policy in exercise of the

executive power, when not trammelled by any statute or rule is wide

enough, what is imperative and implicit in terms of Article 14 is that

6

2025 INSC 834 = 2025 SCC Online SC 1420

22

a change in policy must be made fairly and should not give the

impression that it was so done arbitrarily or by any ulterior criteria.

The wide sweep of Article 14 and the requirement of every State

action qualifying for its validity on this touchstone irrespective of the

field of activity of the State is an accepted tenet. The basic

requirement of Article 14 is fairness in action by the State, and

non-arbitrariness in essence and substance is the heartbeat of fair

play. Actions are amenable, in the panorama of judicial review, only

to the extent that the State must act validly for discernible reasons,

not whimsically for any ulterior purpose...”

This Court held that the State and its instrumentalities have a duty

and responsibility to act fairly and reasonably in terms of the mandate of

Article 14 of the Constitution and that any decision taken by the State must

be reasoned and not arbitrary. It was further observed that when a thing

is done in a post-haste manner, malafides would be presumed as anything

done with undue haste can be termed arbitrary and would not be

condonable in law. The aforestated principle would apply with equal vigour

to an admission process relating to sought-after courses like MBBS/BDS.

32. In Sivanandan C.T. and others vs. High Court of Kerala and

others

7

, a Constitution Bench observed as under: -

“45. The underlying basis for the application of the doctrine of legitimate

expectation has expanded and evolved to include the principles of good

administration. Since citizens repose their trust in the State, the actions

and policies of the State give rise to legitimate expectations that the State

will adhere to its assurance or past practice by acting in a consistent,

transparent, and predictable manner. The principles of good

administration require that the decisions of public authorities must

withstand the test of consistency, transparency and predictability to avoid

being regarded as arbitrary and therefore violative of Article 14.”

7

(2024) 3 SCC 799

23

33. We, therefore, have no hesitation in holding that the admission

process to MBBS/BDS courses during session-2024, by altering the zone

of consideration for sports quota at the behest of Ramesh Kumar

Kashyap, whose motives remained undisclosed, cannot be sustained

even if the State of Punjab acted upon his recommendation bonafide and

in ignorance of his subterfuge. The very foundation for such modification

stands vitiated as Ramesh Kumar Kashyap failed to disclose that his

recommendation benefitted his own daughter, Kudrat Kashyap.

34. We may also note that, in Harinagar Sugar Mills Limited (Biscuit

Division) and another vs. State of Maharashtra and others

8

, this Court

observed that internal notings cannot be relied upon to establish

compliance with procedure. Reference was made to the earlier decision

of this Court in Pimpri Chinchwad New Township Development

Authority vs. Vishnudev Cooperative Housing Society and others

9

,

wherein it was observed that mere notings in the official files of the

Government, while dealing with any matter pertaining to any person, is

essentially an internal matter of the Government and will carry with it no

legal sanctity. That was a case relating to withdrawal from acquisition in

relation to a particular person’s property and the aforesaid observation

was made in that context. These decisions have no impact in the present

8

(2025) 10 SCC 286

9

(2018) 8 SCC 215

24

context, where the change in policy formulated by the State is being

examined through the file notings which reflect how the decision-making

process progressed from stage to stage. The notings in the file, which

clearly disclose the role played by Ramesh Kumar Kashyap, are utmost

relevant and cannot be ignored as his intervention in the matter was what

actually prompted the policy change that was brought about thereafter.

35. That apart, when the State specifically noted in its Corrigendum

dated 01.08.2023 that enlargement of the zone of consideration to include

Classes IX and X was only for session-2023, in view of the pandemic, the

departure from the policy of limiting consideration to only sports

achievements during Classes XI and XII, which was the policy obtaining

prior thereto, ought not to have been effected midstream after applications

were submitted by the candidates along with their sports achievements.

36. More significantly and as already noted hereinabove, the practice

and procedure followed by the State of Punjab in leaving the norms

elastic, without disclosing as to what would be the exact policy with regard

to the zone of consideration, and allowing itself sufficient leeway and

elbow room to change such policy midstream during the admission

process is not in accordance with the principles of fair play in action. Lack

of transparency at the outset invariably enables and makes room for

arbitrariness and nepotism to walk in through the backdoor, a situation to

be eschewed and avoided by an egalitarian State.

25

37. Though the State of Punjab would seek to rely upon case law in

support of its argument that the Court would, ordinarily, not interfere in

policy matters, it is equally well settled that when a policy decision is

riddled with arbitrariness or even provides avenues therefor, the Court

would be justified in nullifying it. The fact that a policymaker is to be

allowed some elbow room in formulating policy does not translate to

allowing scope for arbitrariness or nepotism. We, therefore, find no merit

in the contentions of the State of Punjab.

38. The modification in the policy is, therefore, quashed leaving it open

to the State of Punjab to apply its mind independently and uninfluenced

by the so-called recommendation made by Ramesh Kumar Kashyap, so

as to take a reasoned and well-informed policy decision as to what should

be the criteria to be followed in future. 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. However, insofar as session-2024 is concerned,

Kudrat Kashyap, who was the direct beneficiary of the subterfuge of her

father, Ramesh Kumar Kashyap, cannot be permitted to enjoy the

unlawful benefit garnered in her favour through his manipulations and

machinations. Though Mansirat Kaur, respondent No. 5, also stood

benefited thereby, though through no fault of hers, she is also liable to be

26

divested of the illegal benefit that was conferred upon her owing to the

wrongdoings of Ramesh Kumar Kashyap.

39. We are conscious of the fact that Ramesh Kumar Kashyap is not a

party to these proceedings and the observations and remarks that we

have made are adverse to him. However, we may note that he was very

much present in the Court during the proceedings and was well aware of

the sentiments expressed against him by the Court, but he took no steps

to get himself impleaded, if he had anything to say in his own defence.

40. In terms of our findings hereinabove, we would have ordinarily

directed the University to redraw the entire merit list for the sports quota

during session-2024, by excluding from consideration the sports

achievements of candidates secured during Classes IX and X. However,

doing so at this stage would impact the admissions of those who are not

even before us and would unsettle settled matters, as no candidate other

than Divjot Sekhon and Shubhkarman Singh has raised a grievance about

this issue. The relief to be granted pursuant to this judgment is accordingly

limited to them. Divjot Sekhon and Shubhkarman Singh shall, therefore,

be accommodated in the seats in the government medical college(s)

which were allotted to Kudrat Kashyap and Mansirat Kaur, respondent

Nos. 4 and 5. In turn, Kudrat Kashyap and Mansirat Kaur shall be given

the seats vacated by Divjot Sekhon and Shubhkarman Singh in Gian

Sagar Medical College, Banur. The course of study undergone by all of

27

them and the fees already paid by all of them shall remain unaffected and

they shall all be permitted to continue with their studies in their new

colleges from that stage onwards.

41. In so far as the appeal filed by Gauranshi Dhingra, Agrima Mann

and Navreet Singh is concerned, it pertains to the policy of the State of

Punjab while making admissions to MBBS/BDS courses under sports

quota during session-2025. The modification made at the behest of

Ramesh Kumar Kashyap during session-2024 was perpetuated thereafter

and applied during session-2025. Pursuant thereto, the appellants were

shown at Rank Nos. 13 (Navreet Singh), 14 (Gauranshi Dhingra) and 15

(Agrima Mann) in the merit list of 63 candidates prepared by the Director

of Sports, Punjab, after considering the 67 candidates who had applied

under sports quota for admission to MBBS/BDS courses. As per the State

of Punjab, all three appellants were entitled to admission under the sports

quota in private colleges only.

42. The grievance of the appellants is that the authorities continued to

apply the same modified policy with regard to the enlarged zone of

consideration that was followed during session-2024, i.e., by including

Classes IX and X along with Classes XI and XII for assessment of the

sports achievements of candidates. The High Court nonsuited them

straightaway by following its earlier decision in Divjot Sekhon’s case.

However, in the light of what we have stated hereinabove, with regard to

28

how the modification of the policy during session-2024 stands vitiated,

continuation of that policy during session-2025 with nothing further would

also be open to challenge on the same ground. However, we are informed

that admissions have already been made for session-2025 and no

candidate who would be adversely affected by interference therewith has

been made a party to this litigation. Therefore, we cannot give a quietus

to this lis at this stage. The only relief that can be given to these appellants

is to grant them the liberty to approach the High Court once again by way

of a properly constituted proceeding, impleading all the proper and

necessary parties thereto, and seek appropriate relief.

The appeals are allowed in the aforestated terms.

Parties shall bear their own costs.

..............................., J.

SANJAY KUMAR

..............................., J.

ALOK ARADHE

January 6, 2026

New Delhi.