New Delhi: In a landmark judgment reinforcing transparency and fairness in educational admissions, the Supreme Court of India has ruled that admission norms cannot be altered once the process has begun. The Court held that the famous legal principle—"the rules of the game cannot be changed midway"—applies to student admissions just as strictly as it does to government job recruitments.
A Bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe quashed a midstream policy change by the Punjab government regarding the sports quota for MBBS and BDS courses. The Court found the change to be arbitrary, hasty, and tainted by a clear conflict of interest.
The controversy centered on the admission process for the 2024 academic session under the NEET UG sports quota.
Initially, the official prospectus issued by the Baba Farid University of Health Sciences (BFUHS) stated that only sports achievements from Classes XI and XII would be considered for preparing the merit list. However, on August 16, 2024—the very last date for submitting applications—the University sent out an email to all candidates.
This email changed the criteria entirely, allowing candidates to submit sports certificates from any class or year. This "elasticity" allowed achievements from Classes IX and X to be counted, which significantly shifted the rankings in the sports merit list.
While examining the case, the Supreme Court uncovered a startling fact. The policy change was triggered by a representation (a formal request) made by one Ramesh Kumar Kashyap, a roller-skating coach.
Crucially, Mr. Kashyap failed to disclose to the authorities that his own daughter, Kudrat Kashyap, was an aspirant for the same medical admission. Following the change he suggested, his daughter secured the Rank No. 1 in the sports quota merit list.
The Court came down heavily on this "lack of probity," stating:
"The fact that a coach sought a policy change to benefit his own daughter without disclosing his personal interest is sufficient in itself to vitiate (spoil) the modification."
The judgment emphasized that an egalitarian state must avoid situations where "nepotism and arbitrariness walk in through the backdoor."
1. Rules of the Game Must Be Fixed The Bench reiterated that just as the law forbids changing rules after a recruitment process has started, it is equally illegal for an admission process to be left undefined or "elastic" at the start. Such lack of clarity, the court observed, leaves room for authorities to tailor norms to suit their own interests later.
2. Presumption of Mala Fides in Haste The Court noted that the change was pushed through in "undue haste." Under the law, when decisions are taken post-haste without proper justification, a "mala fide" (bad faith) intent can be presumed.
3. Article 14 and Fair Play The Court reminded the Punjab government that under Article 14 of the Constitution, the State is duty-bound to act fairly and reasonably. Keeping norms "elastic" is contrary to the principles of fair play.