Siddhant Gupta vs University Of Delhi
2017 Latest Caselaw 4633 Del

$~
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                    Judgment reserved on : 28.08.2017
                    Judgment delivered on : 31.08.2017

+       W.P.(C) 5823/2017 and CM No. 24281/2017

        SIDDHANT GUPTA

                                                           ..... Petitioner

                           Through     Mr.Jinendra Jain       and        Mr.Brijesh
                                       Yadav, Advocates.

                           versus

        UNIVERSITY OF DELHI

                                                           ..... Respondent

                           Through     Mr.Mohinder J.S.Rupal, Advocate.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

INDERMEET KAUR, J.

1. Petitioner had qualified his 12th class from the Delhi Public School,

Rohini. He had secured 87 % marks. He was a national level Archer. He

has been winning medals at the State level as also at the National level.

2. Respondent No. 1 / University of Delhi had issued a notification for

admission in the various colleges for the academic session 2017-18 which

included a sports quota.

3. On 12.06.2017 petitioner had filled up his form; he had been issued a

receipt acknowledging his successful Under Graduate Admission for the year

2017-18.

4. Petitioner also checked on the online website of the respondent as to

whether his form had been considered under the sport quota (which he had

filled). As per the details checked as on 27.06.2017 the petitioner had been

given 32 marks for his sports certificate. Copy of the print out of the

aforenoted information was received by the petitioner.

5. Respondent No. 1 issued a list of eligible candidates for giving trials

under the various sports quota. Petitioner's name figured as an eligible

candidate under the sport "Archery". Trials were held on 04.07.2017 at the

Hansraj College and six officials of respondent No. 1 took these trials.

Petitioner secured a 3rd position. Petitioner also cleared the fitness trial. He

was intimated by the officials present there that he had successfully passed

the trials and his name would figure in the list of successful candidates.

Even as on 04.07.2017 name of the petitioner showing 32 marks was being

reflected in the record of respondent.

5. On 07.07.2017 when the petitioner checked the website of respondent

No. 2 he found that he had been given zero marks for his sports certificate.

He was shocked to know this when all along he had been assured that he

would be granted 32 marks for his sports certificate. He immediately made a

representation (08.07.2017) to the Chairman, Council of Sports, Univeristy

of Delhi and a copy was forwarded to the Grievance Committee, Sports

Council, University of Delhi. This was all to no avail. The present writ

petitioner was accordingly filed on 12.07.2017.

6. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent. The foremost

contention of the respondent is that there is clear distinction between the

sport of Archery and the sport of Field Archery; they are two distinct sports.

What is recognized by the Olympic Association is the Sport of Archery and

not Field Archery. The certificate submitted by the petitioner relates to Field

Archery. It is pointed that four other similarly placed candidates had also

applied in the category of Field Archery; the candidature of the aforenoted

persons had been rejected. To point out the distinction between the two

sports, learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance upon certain

material downloaded from the concerned website; submission being that in

the case of sport of Archery there is a fixed target whereas in the sport of

Field Archery there are variable distances in the target; submission again

being reiterated that Archery involves shooting of one target at various

distances whereas Field Archery involves moving around the court and

shooting at sized targets from unknown distances where the bow used in

Field Archery looks like a traditional bow.

7. Rejoinder has been filed. The petitioner has denied the averments

made by the respondent. Counsel for the petitioner reiterates that Field

Archery is only one more facet of the sport of Archery. The two sports are

one and the same; Field Archery being another facet of Archery is played

under the sport Archery which also has additional formats such as Outdoor,

Indoor, Youth, Para. The petitioner has been wrongly awarded zero marks

for his certificate of Field Archery. It has additionally been pointed out that

even presuming that this certificate is rejected the other certificate which had

been placed on record by the petitioner may be examined and the certificate

appearing at page 29 of the paper book has been highlighted by the learned

counsel for the petitioner to support his stand that this certificate which has

been issued by Delhi Archery Association would entitle him to 22 marks.

8. This is the alternate submission of the petitioner; submission being

that in case this court is not inclined to accept the certificate of the petitioner

(page 57 of the paper book) which is a certificate on Field Archery and

which would entitle the petitioner to 32 marks yet even if the certificate at

page 29 is accepted it would entitle the petitioner to 22 marks and thus

qualify him for an admission to the Hansraj College/course of his choice.

9. Arguments have been heard. Record has been perused.

10. Record shows that the petitioner has various certificates in the sport of

Archery and Field Archery. He has been awarded separate and different

certificates for Field Archery and for Archery. The petitioner has all along

supported his stand by submitting that Field Archery is only one more facet

of the sport of Archery which position has been disputed by the respondent.

The information downloaded from the internet and as has been highlighted

by the respective parties reveals that Field Archery appears to be a part of

Archery but what has been recognized by the Olympic Association is

Archery. The distinction as pointed out by the learned counsel for the

respondent on the fixed target and measurements of distance qua Archery vis

a vis Field Archery may make out a distinction between the two sports.

However, without having any further information on this count, this court is

not inclined to return any finding that as to whether the sport of Field

Archery is a part of the sport of Archery or whether it is a distinct sport.

This court is also not inclined to return a finding as to whether the sport of

Archery alone is recognized as an Olympic sport or whether Field Archery is

also covered as an Olympic sport. This is in the peculiar facts of the instant

case.

11. This court notes that even if the certificate at page 57 of the paper

book (which is a certificate qua the petitioner for Field Archery) is discarded

and ignored, the certificate relied upon by the petitioner at page 29 of the

paper book helps the case of the petitioner. This certificate is a certificate

granted to the petitioner by the Delhi Archery Association which is a

registered Association affiliated to the Delhi Council of Sports, Delhi

Olympic Association and the Archery Association of India. The petitioner

has secured 3rd position in this sport; he had represented the Delhi Public

School, Rohini. This was in the Olympic round (50) meters event. This

certificate was issued to him on 02.03.2017.

12. Learned counsel for the respondent points out that the certificate relied

upon by the petitioner (page 29 of the paper book) has to fit into category C-

1 of annexure 5 which is the "Criteria for marking sport Certificate".

Category C-1 reads herein as under:-

Annexure V Criteria for marking sports Certificate

DELHI UNIVERSITY SPORTS COUNCIL

UNIVERSITY OF DELHI

Admission on the basis of Sports in Undergraduate Programmes 2017

CRITERIA FOR MARKING OF SPORTS CERTIFICATE OUT OF MAXIMUM 40 MARKS

Category Level of Competition Certificate Maximum Marks out Issuing of 40 Authority

C-1 Position and/or State Sports 24 23 22 21 participation in State Association, Competition State State/ Sports Festival for District Women/Inter-Zonal/ Directorate Inter-District/ CBSE of National/ KVS Education/ National Competition concerned School Boards

13. A certificate which fulfils the parameters of C-1 that is reflecting the

position or participation of the candidate in a State Competition/State Sport

Festival Inter District / CBSE National and the certificate having been issued

by States Sport Association / State District / Directorate of Education of the

concerned School Board would be granted marks in terms thereof.

14. The issuing authority of the certificate at page 29 is the Delhi Archery

Association which falls in the category of a State Sport Association; the

position of the candidate in this sport of Archery is the 3 rd position in

Olympic round which was a competition at the Junior level wherein the

petitioner/candidate had secured a 3rd position meaning thereby the petitioner

would be entitled to 22 marks qua this certificate. There is no quarrel on this

position. Counsel for the respondent also cannot really dispute this

submission of the petitioner.

15. Admittedly this certificate has been filed only before this court and

was not given by the petitioner at the time when he applied online; this was

for the reason that the petitioner had uploaded certificate at page 57 of the

paper book which as per him would have entitled him to 32 marks. It is also

an admitted position that only one certificate could have been uploaded by

the petitioner as the web portal of the respondent would not accepted more

than one certificate. This being the position and there being no dispute to the

admitted fact that the certificate at page 29 of the paper book qualifies in the

"criteria for marking a sport certificate" and petitioner having ranked 3rd in

that Junior level competition, he is entitled to 22 marks on that score. He is

accordingly granted the aforenoted 22 marks which be taken into account by

the respondent for the purposes of admission of the petitioner.

16. This court notes that as an interim measure on 14.07.2017 one seat had

been reserved by the respondent for the petitioner under the sport quota. On

31.07.2017 i.e., on a subsequent date on the petitioner's apprehension that in

case he is not granted any further interim order his seat at the college of his

choice i.e. the Hansraj College or Ramjas College will get filled; on that date

noting the facts of the petitioner's case a direction had been given to the

University that if the petitioner is successful in this petition, he may be

considered for admission either in the Hansraj College or the Ramjas

College. Those interim orders are confirmed.

17. Writ petition disposed of in the above terms.

INDERMEET KAUR, J

AUGUST 31, 2017 SU