State Cannot Retain Discretion To Change Admission Policy Midway Through Selection Process; Elastic Norms Enable Arbitrariness And Nepotism: Supreme Court

The Court was hearing appeals arising from a judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which had declined to interfere with changes introduced to the admission process after its commencement.

A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe while stating that “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”, further held that “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”.

The petitioners were represented by Advocate Misha Rohatgi, while the respondents were represented by Advocate Siddhant Sharma.

Background

The dispute arose from admissions to professional courses under the sports quota for the relevant academic session. As per the prospectus initially issued by the University, assessment of sports achievements was confined to a specified zone of consideration, on the basis of which candidates, including the appellants, submitted their applications and supporting documents.

After the admission process had commenced and applications were scrutinised on the basis of the notified criteria, the authorities issued subsequent communications expanding the zone of consideration. This expansion altered the basis on which inter se merit was to be determined and resulted in the displacement of the appellants in the merit list.

Aggrieved by the change in criteria introduced midstream and the consequent loss of seats to which they would have otherwise been entitled under the original prospectus, the appellants approached the High Court, contending that the admission norms could not be modified after commencement of the process.

The High Court declined to grant relief, leading to the appeals before the Supreme Court.

Court’s Observation

The Supreme Court examined the admission process under the sports quota for the academic session 2024. It noted that the Prospectus initially issued by the University specifically provided that credit for sports achievements would be given only for performances during Classes XI and XII. The checklist accompanying the Prospectus also reflected the same position.

The Court observed that while the Government of Punjab issued a Notification prescribing a 1% reservation for sports persons, the notification was silent on the classes or years that would be considered for assessing sports achievements. It merely stated that inter se merit would be determined based on gradation as per the sports policy notified by the Department of Sports and Youth Services.

The Bench then examined the Sports Policy, 2023, which superseded the earlier Sports Policy of 2018. The Court noted that it did not define the zone of consideration for assessment of sporting achievements. Rule 4.2 of the policy, however, specifically excluded sub-junior tournaments from consideration.

The Court found that despite this exclusion, the University issued an email directing candidates to submit sports achievements from “any class/year”. This expansion was not confined to Classes IX and X but extended even to sub-junior achievements, which stood expressly excluded under the Sports Policy, 2023.

The Court noted that the State sought to justify this change by relying on the procedure followed during session 2023. However, it found that a Corrigendum had clearly stated that the inclusion of achievements from Classes IX and X was an exception applicable only for that session, owing to the Covid-19 pandemic and that there was no basis to perpetuate that exception for later sessions.

The Bench further observed that during the same academic session, the authorities followed a different standard for other allied courses, where only sports achievements during Classes XI and XII were considered, while noting that no explanation was forthcoming as to why a separate and more expansive standard was adopted only for the impugned admissions.

The Court also examined the decision-making process that led to the change. Upon calling for the original files, the Court found that representations had been made seeking expansion of the zone of consideration to include sports achievements from Classes IX and X. These representations were acted upon during the subsistence of the admission process.

The Bench found that the representation which ultimately weighed with the authorities was made by a person who had a direct personal interest in the outcome, as the proposed change stood to benefit a candidate closely related to him. This fact, the Court noted, was not disclosed while seeking the policy modification.

The Bench held that this lack of disclosure and the manner in which the policy was altered midstream vitiated the decision-making process. It was observed that even if the authorities acted bona fide, the very foundation of the modification stood compromised.

The Court reiterated the settled principle that the rules of the game cannot be changed once the process has begun. Relying on Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve, K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh, and Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court, the Court held that the principle applies with equal force to admission processes.

The Bench emphasised that “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.”

The Bench rejected the State’s contention that the matter fell purely within the domain of policy, holding that “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”, while further emphasising that “when a policy decision is riddled with arbitrariness or even provides avenues therefor, the Court would be justified in nullifying it”.

In view of the above, the Court held that the modification of the admission criteria during session 2024 could not be sustained in law.

Conclusion

Allowing the appeals, the Supreme Court held that the admission process under the sports quota for the session 2024 stood vitiated insofar as sports achievements from Classes IX and X were taken into account after commencement of the process.

However, the Court declined to direct a redrawing of the entire merit list, noting that such a course would unsettle admissions of candidates who were not before it.

Limiting the relief to the appellants alone, the Court directed that they be accommodated in the seats which they were originally entitled to. The Court clarified that the course of study already undergone and the fees paid by all candidates would remain unaffected, and that all of them would be permitted to continue their studies in their newly allotted colleges from the same stage.

Cause Title: Divjot Sekhon v. State of Punjab & Others (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 26)

Appearances

Appellants: Advocates Misha Rohatgi, AOR, Suneet Pal Singh Aulakh, Nakul Mohta, Ayush Kashyap, Amulya Upadhyay

Respondents: Advocates Siddhant Sharma, AOR, Vikram Choudhary, G.K. Bansal, AOR, Nitin Kaushal, Manoj Pandey, Anuj Tyagi, AOR, Shreelekha Vyas, Tanya Swarup, AOR

Click here to read/download Judgment