A learned Single Judge Mohan, J. by his judgment dated December 2, 1986 observed that the whole purpose of reservation of three seats for the category eminent sportsmen was to encourage sports and held that in order to show some distinction with regard to individual achievements, three categorisations had been made, such as participation at International level, National level and State level and beyond that, he saw absolutely numberscope for importing the companycept of determining eminence inter se among the candidates falling within a particular category.
W.P. No.
200.90 Waiting List Candidates T. Jayaraj 196.55 Suja Ramakrishnan 192.80 Praveen Kumar David 190.58 G. Rajalakshmi 186.60 Aggrieved by the number inclusion of his name in the select list, he moved the High Court of Madras by a petition under Art.
The Selection Committee adopted participation at 1052 National level to be the criterion and thus 16 candidates were left in the field.
He, however, dis missed the writ petition and declined to grant the petition er any relief since he had numberchance of getting admission as there were candidates in the waiting list who had obtained higher marks than him and made a direction that the Selec tion Committee would fill up the vacancy from the waiting list and go by the order of merit.
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.4.
202.95 K. Subramaniam, 6th res.
9406/83 decided on April 6, 1984 which upheld the validity of such reservation of seats for sportsmen was of little avail to the petitioner.
5535 36 of 1987.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Special Leave Petitions Civil Nos.
1987 of the Madras High Court in W.A. No.
226 of the Constitution.
It selected respondents number.
1051 Datta, Additional Solicitor General, Shanti Bhushan Padmanabhan, M.A. Krishnamurthy, K.K. Mani, K. Swami anti A.V. Rangam for the Respondents.
He further observed that the decision of a Division Bench in P. Sabitha v. The Director of Medical Education Ors.,
The petitioner who is a champion in acquatics had been sponsored by the Tamil Nadu State Acquatic Association showing participation in several tournaments at National level.
4 6 for the three seats reserved for eminent sportsmen on the basis of marks obtained by them at the qualifying examina tion.
Nalini Chidambaram and Ms. Seita Vaidyalingam for the Petitioner.
The petitioner having obtained 174.50 marks was number placed either in the select list or in the waiting list.
1053 Being dissatisfied with the judgment, the petitioner preferred an appeal, but the Division Bench declined to interfere.
It is necessary to set out the marks obtained by the petitioner as well as respondents number.4 6 as also.the candidates placed in the waiting list Khalid Hussain, Petitioner 174.50 R. Vijaya Sree, 4th Respondent 215.40 Seshasayee Narasimhan, 5th res.
The learned Judge struck down the selection of respondent number 6 as invalid on the ground that the Selection Committee proceeded on a wrongful assumption that he had actually played at National level in the V. Pattabhiraman Trophy Tournament, while he had only been selected to play at the Tournament.
1302 and 1307 of 1986.
