Team Goemkarponn
PANAJI: The Bombay High Court at Goa has invalidated the State Government’s attempt to introduce a sports quota in MBBS and BDS admissions after the admission process had already begun, terming the move impermissible and in violation of the prospectus rules. The judgment was delivered on August 25, 2025, by a Division Bench of Justices Bharati H. Dangre and Nivedita P. Mehta in response to a petition by NEET candidate Akshay Srivastava. Srivastava had challenged a notice issued on August 1, 2025, by the Directorate of Technical Education (DTE) inviting applications from meritorious sportspersons under the Children of Freedom Fighters (CFF) category.
The Court emphasized that the common admission prospectus for 2025–26 carries the force of law and binds both authorities and candidates. It held that “the admission process shall be governed by the prospectus,” noting that the rules cannot be altered once admissions have commenced. The Bench referred to a 2008 Full Bench ruling in Mahatma Gandhi Mission Institute v. State of Maharashtra, underscoring that mid-process changes are impermissible.
The petitioner argued that the prospectus requires unfilled reserved seats, including those under the Freedom Fighters category, to be de-reserved and transferred to the General Category under Clause 3.31. By introducing a new sports quota after the first round of counselling on August 5, 2025, he claimed the State violated the established rules and his legitimate expectation of securing a seat based on merit. He cited precedents where courts struck down mid-process admission changes, including Dr. Jagdish Saran v. Union of India (1980) and Punjab & Haryana High Court decisions in Devbir Singh v. State of Punjab and Samarveer Singh v. State of Punjab.
The State, through Advocate General Devidas Pangam, defended the policy citing its powers under Article 162 and the Goa Sports Policy, 2009, claiming the sports quota had been under consideration for some time. It also invoked Clauses 3.54 and 3.56 of the prospectus, which allow modifications to admission procedures. Intervenors, including the Goa Fencing Association and athletes, supported the quota, citing national practices and Supreme Court rulings such as Tej Prakash Patak v. Rajasthan High Court (2025).
Rejecting these arguments, the Bench clarified that Clauses 3.54–3.56 cannot justify introducing a new reservation mid-process. The Court stated, “Without amending the prospectus or notifying modifications therein, inviting applications under a new category after commencement of counselling amounts to changing the rules of the game after it has begun.” While recognizing the State’s policy goals to encourage sports, the Court ruled that such reservations must be included in the prospectus prior to the start of admissions.
The judgment also noted that introducing the sports quota after publication of merit lists disrupts fairness and transparency, and that timelines are crucial to the integrity of the counselling process. Consequently, the Bench declared the notice invalid and directed that unfilled CFF seats be reverted to the General Category as per Clause 3.31.
