“Horizontal Reservation Must Apply”: AP High Court Dismisses MBBS Aspirant’s Plea for Sports Quota Seat in Open Category
Sanchayita Lahkar
In a significant judgement addressing the allocation of medical seats under the sports quota, the Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, comprising Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice R Raghunandan Rao, dismissed a writ petition challenging the validity of compartmentalized horizontal reservation within the sports quota.
The court declined to interfere with the existing admission system that allocates sports quota seats based on social community classification, stating "the reservation granted under sports quota, would be a horizontal reservation under which, the seats available under sports quota would have to be distributed among all the social communities."
The petitioner, Shanmukha Kanaka Priya Chinta, appeared for the NEET 2021 examination and secured Rank No. 654334. Relying on her credentials in Handball, she applied for admission to the MBBS course under the sports quota. Upon not securing admission under this category, she opted to join a medical college under the management seat category.
The petition was filed after the petitioner noticed that candidates with lower priority ranks in the sports merit list, specifically respondent No.18, were allotted seats under the sports quota in the same medical college she had applied to. The petitioner argued that she had a higher priority (No. 92) in the final sports merit list compared to respondent No.18 (priority No. 146). Therefore, she claimed that the allotment to respondent No.18 was arbitrary and not in line with the merit list.
The respondent university submitted a counter affidavit explaining that G.O.Ms.No.231 dated 11.07.2007 mandates compartmentalized horizontal reservation, requiring that seats under the sports category be allocated based on the social groupings of candidates. It was pointed out that while the petitioner belonged to the Open Category (OC), respondent No.18 belonged to the BC-A category. Accordingly, the seat under dispute at respondent No.21-college (NRI Medical College, Chinakakani) was reserved for BC-A candidates under the sports quota.
In support of her arguments, the petitioner’s counsel referenced G.O.Ms.No.136 dated 30.04.2007 and G.O.Ms.No.231 dated 11.07.2007, asserting that reservation within reservation is impermissible. Additionally, a Division Bench judgment in P. Srividya vs. State of Andhra Pradesh was cited to argue against sub-categorization.
However, counsel for the respondent-university and respondent No.21 argued that the mentioned government orders indeed stipulate horizontal reservation and that the sports quota does not exist in isolation from community-based distribution. It was further submitted that such categorization has been validated in judicial precedent.
The rules governing admissions—A.P. Un-aided Non-Minority Professional Institutions (Regulations of Admissions into Under Graduate Medical and Dental Professional Courses) Rules 2007—include a 0.5% reservation for Games and Sports under special categories. The amendment through G.O.Ms.No.231 clarified that "The reservations for special categories... shall be provided on the basis of compartmentalized horizontal reservation for each category of OC, BC, SC, and STs."
The court was informed that for the academic year 2021-2022, sports category seats were distributed as follows in the Andhra University area:
- Open Category: 4 seats (various colleges)
- SC Category: 1 seat
- ST Category: 1 seat
- BC-A: 1 seat (NRI Medical College, Chinakakani)
- BC-B: 1 seat
- BC-D: 1 seat
It was contended by the university that since the sports quota seat in respondent No.21-college was earmarked for BC-A candidates, there was no available seat for OC candidates like the petitioner.
Justice R Raghunandan Rao, delivering the judgment, recorded that the petitioner could not have been granted a seat in respondent No.21-college, stating "the petitioner, even if she was eligible otherwise, would not have been granted a seat in respondent No.21-college."
Addressing the challenge to the compartmentalized horizontal reservation, the Bench observed that the amendment brought by G.O.Ms.No.231 was previously upheld by a Division Bench in P. Srividya vs. State of Andhra Pradesh. That judgment, relying on Indira Sawhney vs. Union of India, recognized the need for horizontal reservations across social communities.
The court held the legal position as: "There was a necessity to treat the special reservations... as horizontal reservations." Therefore, the claim that community status cannot be factored into sports quota seat allotment was rejected.
Further, the court remarked: "The petitioner would have a case if she could point to any other sports person in the open category, who was allotted a seat even though he/she was less meritorious than the petitioner... The petitioner does not make out any such case."
The Division Bench concluded the matter with a clear dismissal, stating: "In the circumstances, there is no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed."
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: T Lakshmi Narayana, Advocate
For the Respondents: S.V.S.S. Siva Ram, Advocate; Ravi Kiran Kumar Kolusu, Standing Counsel for SAAP; J Janakirami Reddy, Advocate; Government Pleader for Medical Health and Family Welfare; G V Ramakrishna Prasad, Advocate; Tata Venkata Sridevi, Standing Counsel for Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences; Venkata Rama Rao Kota, Advocate
Case Title: Shanmukha Kanaka Priya Chinta vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others
Case Number: W.P. No. 10783 of 2022
Neutral Citation: APHC010181432022
Bench: Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur, Justice R Raghunandan Rao
[Read/Download order]
