Ashok Bhushan, Ag.CJ Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and the learned Government Pleader. 2. This writ appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 19.11.2014 passed in Writ Petition No.29129 of 2014 by which judgment, the writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed. The appellant is an aspirant for admission to LL.B. Course-2014-15 through sports quota. The petitioner claims the benefit of sports quota on the basis that he has taken part in the intra-district competition of power lifting. Ext.P2 would show that the petitioner has secured third price in the intra-district power lifting championship, which was held in the year 2014-15. The Sports Council is the competent authority to scrutinise and allocate marks under sports quota. The Sports council sent communication that the petitioner's certificate being not of the relevant period, it cannot be considered. The said communication dated 17.10.2014 is produced as Ext.P4 in the writ petition. The petitioner had not been given admission under the sports quota and has filed the writ petition.
3. Learned Single Judge took the view that the Sports Council is guided based on the guidelines for awarding marks to the candidates for admission to sports quota. Note to Annexure- A1 would clearly indicate that this would apply to LL.B. Course as well. With that observation the writ petition was dismissed.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant, in support of the submissions submitted that the prospectus for admission to professional degree courses does not mention LL.B. Course. He has referred to the first page of the prospectus, where only medical, engineering, architecture, agricultural, veterinary and fisheries courses has been mentioned. Secondly, he has submitted that every requirement for allocation of marks under sports quota should be contained in the prospectus for admission to three-year LL.B. Course, Kerala 2014-15, Ext.P7.
5. We have considered the above submission. In so far as first submission that LL.B. Course is not mentioned, it has been pointed out by learned counsel appearing for the respondent that LL.B. Course is mentioned in the Note, which was part of Annexure-A1. The said note clearly mentioned that the admission to professional courses which also include LL.B. Course. Thus we do not find any substance in the first submission. As far as second submission is concerned, in the prospectus, Ext.P7, with regard to marks under sports quota, in paragraph 11(iii) the following has been mentioned :
"11. Claims for Special Reservation xx xx xx (iii) Sports Quota : Candidates seeking admission under the sports quota must take the Entrance Examination. They should submit the original application to the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations, Thiruvananthapuram and a photocopy of the application should be sent to 'The Secretary, Kerala Sports Council, Thiruvananthapuram-695001' before the last date of submission of application. The Sports Council will allot marks to these candidates according to their proficiency in sports. The maximum marks, under this item will be fixed as 500. The Sports Council will forward the list of marks of the candidates to the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations. The Sports Council will collect the roll numbers from the candidates and furnish them in the list of marks. The Commissioner for Entrance Examination will add these marks to the marks obtained by the respective candidates in the Entrance Examination and publish the rank list under the Sports Quota based on the inter-se-merit of the candidates fixed as above.”
The said clause contemplated that the Sports Council will allot marks to candidate according to their proficiency in sports. The guidelines Annexure-A1 were approved by the Government by order dated 18.12.2013 which mentions inclusion of LL.B. Course and one more condition as item No.5 which is to the following effect:
"5. The achievements in two financial years (1st April to 31st March) previous to the year of selection shall alone be considered. However, in the case of competitions which are not organized annually the immediately previous competitions shall be deemed as the previous two financial years for the purpose of this list.”
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has also relied on Parmender Kumar v. State of Haryana [(2012) 1 SCC 177 and others. The said judgment laid down that after initiation of the process, the criteria cannot be changed. Present is not a case of change during the process.
7. The communication which was sent by the Sports Council clearly mentioned that petitioner's certificate is not of the relevant period, which was required as per the eligibility. We also find the said communication in accordance with the guidelines and there was no error in not allocating any marks on his intra-district Championship. We do not find any error in dismissing the writ petition.
The writ appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
ASHOK BHUSHAN, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE.
sou.