Bombay HC Quashes Goa’s Sports Quota in MBBS, BDS Admissions Introduced Midway

The Bombay High Court at Goa has struck down the State Government’s move to introduce a sports quota in MBBS and BDS admissions after the admission process had already commenced, terming it as impermissible and contrary to the binding rules in the prospectus.

A Division Bench of Justices Bharati H. Dangre and Nivedita P. Mehta delivered the judgment on August 25, 2025, in a petition filed by Akshay Srivastava, a NEET candidate who challenged a notice dated August 1, 2025, issued by the Directorate of Technical Education (DTE) inviting applications from meritorious sportspersons to fill seats under the Children of Freedom Fighters (CFF) category.

The Court held that the common admission prospectus for 2025–26 “has the force of law and is binding on both the authorities and the candidates,” emphasizing that “the admission process shall be governed by the prospectus” and timelines therein.

It reiterated that “the brochure cannot be altered at a subsequent stage, particularly once the process of admission has begun” relying on the Full Bench ruling in Mahatma Gandhi Mission Institute v. State of Maharashtra, 2008 (5) Mh.L.J. 913.

The petitioner contended that the prospectus stipulated that unfilled reserved seats, including those for Freedom Fighters, must be de-reserved and transferred to the General Category under Clause 3.31.

He argued that introducing a new quota after the first round of counselling on August 5, 2025, violated this rule and his legitimate expectation of securing a BDS seat based on merit.

The petitioner relied on precedents including Dr. Jagdish Saran v. Union of India (1980) 2 SCC 768, and Punjab & Haryana High Court decisions in Devbir Singh v. State of Punjab (CWP No. 20041 of 2024) and Samarveer Singh v. State of Punjab (CWP No. 34334 of 2024), which struck down changes in admission rules mid-process.

The State, represented by Advocate General Devidas Pangam, defended the policy citing executive power under Article 162 and the Goa Sports Policy, 2009, arguing that the sports quota had long been under consideration.

The State invoked Clause 3.54 and 3.56 of the prospectus permitting modification of admission procedures to ensure smooth conduct.

Intervenors, including the Goa Fencing Association and athletes, supported the quota, citing national practices and Supreme Court decisions such as Tej Prakash Patak v. Rajasthan High Court (2025) 2 SCC 1, contending that changes are permissible where eligibility criteria remain unaffected.

Rejecting these submissions, the Bench held that Clauses 3.54–3.56 cannot be read in isolation to justify introduction of a new reservation midway. It observed;

“Without amending the prospectus or notifying modifications therein, inviting applications under a new category after commencement of counselling amounts to changing the rules of the game after it has begun.”

The Court clarified that while the State may frame policies to encourage sports, such reservations must be incorporated in the prospectus prior to commencement of admissions. The judgment noted that introducing the quota after publication of the merit list and during ongoing counselling “adversely impacts the fairness and transparency of the admission process.”

The Bench further underscored that timelines are the essence of the admission procedure and that the cascading rounds of counselling cannot be disturbed by ad hoc measures. It concluded that the impugned notice is unsustainable and directed that unfilled CFF seats be reverted to the General Category as mandated by Clause 3.31.

Case Title: Akshay Srivastava v. State of Goa & Ors., Writ Petition No. 2161 of 2025

Judgment date: 25 August 2025

Bench: Justices Bharati H. Dangre & Nivedita P. Mehta