The Supreme Court of India.
Credit: iStock Photo
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has said, 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.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe emphasised that the transparency of such a process is paramount to ensure fairness and prevent arbitrariness.
The court held, the principle rules of the game cannot be altered once the game has begun' is applicable to admission processes to educational courses as it would be to recruitment processes.
"This principle would apply with equal vigour to an admission process relating to sought-after courses like MBBS/BDS,'' the bench held.
The court castigated the Punjab government for effecting change in sports quota policy midstream for admission to MBBS/BDS courses under NEET UG-2024.
Quashing the policy decision taken to allow candidates to furnish certificates of their sports achievements for any class and year instead of Classes XI and XII, the bench said, lack of transparency at the outset invariably enabled and made room for arbitrariness and nepotism to walk in through the backdoor, a situation to be eschewed and avoided by an egalitarian State
"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, a coach, 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 bench said in its judgment on January 6, 2025.
The court found the very foundation for such modification stood vitiated as Kashyap failed to disclose that his recommendation benefitted his own daughter, Kudrat Kashyap, who secured first rank after the change in policy.
The bench said, 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,'' the court said.
It emphasised 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.
Allowing appeals against High Court's refusal to intervene in the matter, the court directed appellants Divjot Sekhon and Shubhkarman Singh would be accommodated in the seats in the government medical college which were allotted to Kudrat Kashyap and Mansirat Kaur.
In turn, Kashyap and Kaur would be given the seats vacated by Sekhon and Singh in Gian Sagar Medical College, Banur.
The court told the Punjab government 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," the bench said.