“15. That the contents of para 15 are misconceived, wrong and hence denied, except to the extent the same are matter of record. The calculations, in the absence of the concerned documents are denied. Having played at the National level, the petitioner is entitled 30 marks. If the maximum marks of trial are added to that, sports quota marks in respect of the respondent comes to 55. If the same are added to her graduation marks, she becomes eligible for admission to MA Economics. Otherwise, also her claim cannot be restricted only in the category of the admission through entrance examination. The moot question is that she has been illegally denied the benefit of sports quota and the respondent cannot take advantage of its own wrongs. It is important to mention that the admission in the M.Com is also under the Delhi School of Economics and the list for admission in the said course, contains separate categories for merit and entrance examination for admission in sports quota. It is therefore, not understood why the benefit of sports quota is restricted to only entrance examination in MA(Economics). A list as published for admission in M.Com. is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure A- 1 to this rejoinder. Similar procedure has been followed by the respondent University for other postgraduate courses and the final lists published by the respondent are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure A- 2(Colly). Thus the stand of the respondent in respect of admissions in sports quota in MA Economics is arbitrary, unreasonable and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. To this effect, even clause 10 of Procedure in Annexure V to the University Bulletin is
