THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO W.A.Nos.976 and 1115 of 2008 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao) Since these appeals involve common question, hence they are being taken up together for disposal. The appellants in these appeals are the petitioners in the writ petitions, who seeks to assail the orders dated 20- 8-2008 of the learned Single Judge dismissing the interim applications WPMP.23121 of 2008 in W.P.No.17785 of 2008 and WPMP.No.23039 of 2008 in WP.No.177734 of 2008, pending the writ petitions. Heard Sri B.Adinarayana Rao, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned Government Pleader for Education, appearing on behalf of the respondents, Sri K.Rathangapani Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for JNTU, Sri Sudesh Anand, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for A.P. State Council of Higher Education and Sri V.C.H.Naidu, the learned counsel appearing for Sports Authority of A.P. The facts, which gave rise to the present proceedings, are that the petitioners are the candidates, who having appeared for the EAMCET-2008 and secured certain definite ranks, claim that they are seeking admission for the professional courses under sports quota, since in the normal course as per the ranks obtained by them individually, they would not be getting seats on merit. It is contended that the State Government had reserved 0.5% seats under the Games and Sports category as per G.O.Ms.No.195, Education (E.C.2) Department, dated 26-8-1993, which included 29 disciplines including the Ball Badminton. Later, in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.103, Higher Education (E.C.2) Department, dated 15-7-2000 the number of disciplines was reduced to 28 thus excluding the said Ball Badminton. Having realized the mistake another G.O.Ms.No.131, Higher Education (EC.2) Department, dated 6-9-2000 was issued by the Government including the said sport of Ball Badminton. Therefore, it is the case of the appellants in WA.976 of 2008 that the sport of Ball Badminton continued to be one of the eligible criteria from amongst various disciplines under the said quota. It is also pointed out that as per G.O.Ms.No.27, Youth Advancement, Tourism & Culture (Sports) Department, dated 4-6-2005, the disciplines were increased to 55 including the sport of Ball Badminton and Base Ball. Similarly, as per G.O.Ms.No.20, Youth Advancement, Tourism & Culture (Sports) Department, dated 3-5-2006 amongst the various disciplines the Ball Badminton and Base Ball continues to remain and thus the Ball Badminton and Base Ball have been the eligible disciplines under such quota and in vogue for quite some time. However, now the Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.10, Youth Advancement, Tourism & Culture (Sports) Department, dated 15-7-2008 deleting the said quota of Ball Badminton and Base Ball on the ground that the spate of litigations is hampering the opportunity of the genuine sportspersons from getting admissions under the said quota and further many of the games earlier included are not popular. It is this G.O which is assailed by the appellants/petitioners herein in the writ petitions ﬁled by them separately and sought for Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not including the discipline of Ball Badminton and Base Ball in the list of games and sports eligible for considering candidates for admission into professional courses, and thus declare the said G.O.Ms.No.10, Youth Advancement, Tourism & Culture (Sports) Department, dated 15-7-2008 as not applicable for consideration for admission into professional courses under sports quota for the academic year 2008-2009. Pending the writ petitions, the appellants/petitioners sought a direction to consider their case for admission into Engineering Course under Games and Sports Quota treating the Ball Badminton and Base Ball as one of the eligible disciplines and for such other orders. The case of the respondents was that the appellants/petitioners have no right and especially when no speciﬁc notiﬁcation is issued for the sports quota and since G.O.Ms.No.10, Youth Advancement, Tourism & Culture (Sports) Department, dated 15-7-2008 was issued subsequent to the notification dated 8-7-2008 for admission for other general quota. The learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the contention urged on behalf of both sides, dismissed the WPMPs on the ground that as on that day, the notiﬁcation calling for applications for EAMCET, 2008 rank holders for admission under sports quota is not yet issued and consequently the decision of a learned Single Judge cited across the Bar in Paramveer Singh v. Government of A.P [1] has no application and the main question as to the exclusion of Ball Badminton and Base Ball from the list of selected games is proper or not is required to be examined in the main writ petitions. Having heard the counsel on either side and also on perusal of the material the point, which arise for consideration in these appeals is as to whether the writ petitioners are entitled for the directions as sought for considering their cases under the said sports quota? There is no dispute in regard to the various orders issued by the Government especially in regard to the sport of Ball Badminton and Base Ball under which these Writ Appeals take shelter. Admittedly, the Ball Badminton sport has been one amongst the disciplines of sports, which has been listed in G.O as long back as on 26-8-1993 in G.O.Ms.No.195, Education (E.C.2) Department under the sports quota. However, it was deleted on 15-7-2000 under G.O.Ms.No.103, Higher Education (E.C.2) Department. However, the same was again included under G.O.Ms.No.131, Higher Education (EC.2) Department, dated 6-9-2000. Similarly, inclusion of Ball Badminton and Base Ball also ﬁnds place in G.O.Ms.No.27, Youth Advancement, Tourism & Culture (Sports) Department, dated 4-6-2005 and G.O.Ms.No.20, Youth Advancement, Tourism & Culture (Sports) Department, dated 3-5-2006. The main reason assigned in support of the deletion under G.O.Ms.No.10, Youth Advancement, Tourism & Culture (Sports) Department, dated 15-7-2008 in respect of certain sports including the Ball Badminton and Base Ball is that such inclusion is leading to various litigations due to the inclusion of new games and secondly they are not popular games. It is to be seen that the very premise under which the G.O.Ms.No.10, Youth Advancement, Tourism & Culture (Sports) Department, dated 15-7-2008 proceed prima facie appears to be totally unsustainable on either of the grounds. It cannot be said that Ball Badminton and Base Ball are not popular sports in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Further, Ball Badminton is not a new game, which has been added subsequently under G.O.Ms.No.131 dated 6-9-2000 and in fact it has been there as included as long back from 26-8-1993 under G.O.Ms.No.195 and reiterated in various GOs in G.O.Ms.No.27 dated 4-6-2005, G.O.Ms.No.20 dated 3-5-2006 and included with a gap of two months on 6-9-2000 under G.O.Ms.no.131 in supersession of the exclusion under G.O.Ms.No.103 dated 15-7-2000. Similar is the case with the game of Base Ball as it ﬁnds place in G.O.Ms.No.27, dated 4-6-2005 and G.O.Ms.No.20, dated 3- 5-2006. Further for the purpose of eligible candidates who succeeded in EAMCET-2008 the notiﬁcation was issued on 8-5-2008 and speciﬁcally for the Engineering course the notiﬁcation was issued on 8-7-2008, though it says speciﬁcally that for sports quota no other notiﬁcation was issued. This itself would not in any way can be said to constitute an initiation of process of admission by such later notiﬁcation. In fact, the process has commenced as long back as on 8-5-2008 followed by 8-7-2008. Any notiﬁcation for any particular quota or category later would only be either a continued act or step in aid of the process of selection and not totally an independent one. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was not right in stating that since there is no notiﬁcation issued as on that day calling for applications from EAMCET rank holders for admission under sports category, the petitioners cannot claim any right. Though we are considering this question on a prima facie basis at an interlocutory stage, however, in view of the above decision in Paramveer Singh v. Government of A.P, which is squarely governing on the question of the learned Single Judge, holding that Rules cannot be altered once admission process has commenced, it cannot be said that such principle would not have any application. Issuance of a notiﬁcation was absent thereof for a particular quota would not interdict or constitute an independent process for a particular quota or category. Leaving open for all these questions to be considered in the main writ petitions, and there being no denial as to the fact that the petitioners too fall well within the category of consideration under the sports quota for the games Ball Badminton and Base Ball, the respondents are directed to consider their cases for admission under the said quota subject to satisfaction of all other conditions. Accordingly, the writ appeals are allowed setting aside the orders dated 20-08-2008 dismissing WPMP.No.23121 of 2008 in W.P.No.17785 of 2008 and WPMP.No.23039 of 2008 in WP.No.17734 of 2008. Consequently, WPMP.No.23121 of 2008 in W.P.No.17785 of 2008 and WPMP.No.23039 of 2008 in WP.No.177734 of 2008 stands allowed. No costs. ____________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J) __________________ (R.KANTHA RAO,J) Date: 15th September, 2008 *grk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO (Judgment of the Bench delivered by His Lordship Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao) W.A.Nos.976 and 1115 of 2008 Dated:15th September, 2008 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO P.D. Judgment In W.A.Nos.976 and 1115 of 2008 To be pronounced on 15-09-2008 Prepared by His Lordship Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao Circulated to His Lordship Hon’ble Sri Justice R.Kantha Rao for His Lordship’s perusal. [1] 2006 (1) ALD 354