Telangana High Court
Ms. Adluri Harshini vs Telangana Public Service Commission ... on 14 October, 2025
*THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
+ WRIT PETITION Nos.34446, 14675, 16684, 16715, 24113,
25028, 26477, 26909, 27175, 28035, 28046, 28969, 28978,
30741, 32196, 32519, 32687, 34147, 34408, 35677 and
36422 of 2024
AND
WRIT PETITION Nos. 4995, 9198, 9202, AND 9704 of 2025
% 14-10-2025
# G. Sammaiah and others ....petitioners
Vs.
$ State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of
General Administration, Hyderabad, and others
.... Respondents
!Counsel for the petitioners : Sri E. Madhan Mohan Rao, learned Senior
Counsel, representing Sri M. Srinivas, Sri
J. Sudheer, Sri Ramesh Challa, Sri P.V.
Krishnaiah, Sri Kongara Raj Kumar, Sri
Chikkudu Prabhakar, Sri Allika Suresh,
Smt. Uma Devi Nama, Sri V. Ravi
Chandran.
Counsel for the Official Respondents : Sri P.S. Rajasekhar, learned Standing
Counsel for TGPSC, learned Additional
Advocate General, Learned Government
Pleader for Services-I, Sri G. Satish Reddy,
learned Standing Counsel for Sports
Authority of Telangana.
Counsel for the Unofficial Respondents : Sri B.S. Prasad, learned Senior Counsel,
representing Sri S. Goutham and Smt.
Rachana Reddy, learned Senior Counsel,
representing Sri Mohammed Baseer Riyaz.
<Gist :
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1. 2009 SCC Online Cal 619
2. (2011) 2 SCC 1
3. (1986) 1 SCC 264
4. 2024 Law Suit (SC) 1181
5. Civil Appeal No.3123 of 2020
6. W.P.No.11057 of 2021, dt.29.07.2021
7. (1991) 3 SCC 47
8. (1986) 4 SCC 566
9. W.P.Nos.26038 of 2024 and batch, dt. 26.12.2024 DB
10. 2012 SCC Online Raj 2824
11. 2023 INSC 695
2
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
HYDERABAD
****
+ WRIT PETITION Nos.34446, 14675, 16684, 16715, 24113,
25028, 26477, 26909, 27175, 28035, 28046, 28969, 28978,
30741, 32196, 32519, 32687, 34147, 34408, 35677 and
36422 of 2024
AND
WRIT PETITION Nos. 4995, 9198, 9202, AND 9704 of 2025
Between:
G. Sammaiah and others ....petitioners
Vs.
$ State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of
General Administration, Hyderabad, and others
... Respondents
COMMON ORDER PRONOUNCED ON: 14.10.2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments? : Yes
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes
3. Whether His Lordship wishes to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes
______________________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
3
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
WRIT PETITION Nos.34446, 14675, 16684, 16715,
24113, 25028, 26477, 26909, 27175, 28035, 28046,
28969, 28978, 30741, 32196, 32519, 32687, 34147,
34408, 35677 and 36422 of 2024
AND
WRIT PETITION Nos. 4995, 9198, 9202, AND 9704 of
2025
COMMON ORDER:
All these Writ Petitions are hereby disposed of by this Common Order, as the issue involved in these Writ petitions is identical. These Writ Petitions are filed questioning the Sports Policy of the State of Telangana with regard to interpretation and implementation of 2% Sports quota in all the recruitments to various posts.
2. Heard learned counsel for respective parties:
Sri E. Madhan Mohan Rao, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri M. Srinivas, Sri J. Sudheer, Sri Ramesh Challa, Sri P.V. Krishnaiah, Sri Kongara Raj Kumar, Sri Chikkudu Prabhakar, Sri Allika Suresh, Smt. Uma Devi Nama, Sri V. Ravi Chandran, learned counsel for the respective petitioners.4
Sri P.S. Rajasekhar, learned Standing Counsel for TGPSC, learned Additional Advocate General, Learned Government Pleader for Services-I, Sri G. Satish Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Sports Authority of Telangana, learned counsel appearing for the respective official respondents.
Sri B.S. Prasad, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri S. Goutham, in W.P.No.28035 of 2024 and Smt. Rachana Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri Mohammed Baseer Riyaz in W.P.No.34408 of 2024, appearing for the respective unofficial respondents, and perused the material available on record.
3. For convenience, the facts stated in W.P.No.25028 of 2024 are discussed here under:
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits as follows:
That the petitioners are sportspersons who participated in Senior Nationals, Junior Nationals and All India University Competitions. The third respondent invited Online applications from the qualified candidates for various posts in Group-I services in the State of Telangana vide Notification No.2/2024, dated 19.02.2024 in respect of 563 posts to be filled as per 5 Rules 22 and 22A of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 and Special Rules relating to the posts.
4. Petitioners applied for Group-I Services under 2% sports quota, where four vacancies were notified out of 563 posts, in the Notification itself in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 107, General Administration (Ser.D) Department, dated 27.07.2018(hereinafter referred to as G.O.Ms.No.107) and G.O.Ms.No.5, Youth Advancement, Tourism Culture (Sports) Department, dated 14.05.2018 (hereinafter referred to as G.O.Ms.No.5). Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in excluding them on the misconception with reference to Form-I in Annexure-III of G.O.Ms.No.74, Youth Advancement, Tourism and Culture (Sports) Department, dated 09.08.2012 (hereinafter referred to as G.O.Ms.No.74) and not considering them in terms of the said G.O.Ms.No.74, read with G.O.Ms.No.5, and G.O.Ms.No.107. Hence, this Writ Petition.
5. Paragraph No.4 of the Notification, dated 19.02.2024 deals with 'Reservations.' Clause 4.7 of the said paragraph stipulates that the reservation to "Meritorious Sportsperson" is applicable as per the amendments made to the State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as Rules). As per G.O.Ms.No.107, that is in Rule-2, for sub-Rule 6 (20) and in Rule-22(i) in sub-Rule (2), for Class-D. In implementing the reservation to Meritorious Sports Person, G.O.Ms.No.05 will be followed. In the event of non-availability of eligible "Meritorious Sportspersons", two percent (2%) reservation of posts for them stand lapsed.
6. Vide Notification, in G.O.Ms.No.107, sub-rule (20) of Rule 2 of the Rules, was amended with regard to "meritorious sportspersons." In fact, prior to that, as per the Government policy of the then Andhra Pradesh Government, followed by the Telangana Government, G.O.Ms.No.74 was issued providing reservation of 2% for meritorious sportspersons in direct recruitment in Government Departments / Undertakings / grant-in-aid Institutions at all levels.
7. In paragraph No.2, clause (ii) of the Notification provides that the performance of the individual in having obtained Medals/participation in disciplines for deciding a meritorious sportsperson, against two percent (2%) sports quota as mentioned in Annexure-II to the G.O.Ms.No.74, shall be the criterion, keeping in view the participation in recognized sports disciplines as per Annexure-l to the said G.O.Ms.No.74, or as may be revised by the Government from time to time. Clause
(ix) of the Notification issued there under in paragraph No.2, 7 provides that in the quota of two percent (2%) set apart for sports reservation for meritorious sportspersons; individual events have to be given performance over team events within a priority.
8. After petitioners successfully qualified the preliminary examination, a Web Note was issued on 22.07.2024 for certificate verification by the 3rd respondent in respect of sports quota, in which it is stated that as per G.O.Ms.No.74, only the candidates who have represented India in an International Competition/Multinational Competition in one of the recognized Games/Sports (Form-I), are eligible for claiming sports reservation for Group-I posts. The Commission decided to call 36 candidates only as per the Original Form-I submitted by them, for verification. Out of the 36 candidates, three candidates were already picked up for mains as per their merit /community reservation irrespective of their sports certificates. The remaining 33 candidates were exclusively picked up under sports quota, who secured qualifying marks and claimed International / Multinational Certificates while submitting Group-I application forms.
9. The said Web Note calling candidates, who have represented India in an International Competition / 8 Multinational competitions in one of the recognized games / sports only, is contrary to G.O.Ms.No.74 and G.O.Ms.No.107. The 3rd respondent issued another Web Note, dated 20.08.2024 calling for only two candidates, out of which one candidate had already qualified for Mains exam as per his merit/category published on 07.07.2024 and another candidate only was picked up under sports quota and provisionally permitted to appear for Group-I mains exam.
10. The respondents misconstrued G.O.Ms.No.74, G.O.Ms.No.107 and the Notification No.2 of 2024, dated 19.02.2024. As referred above, clause 4.7 of the Notification, dated 19.02.2024 provided 2% reservation to Meritorious Sportsperson of the notified vacancies of 563 posts, and 4 posts have to be filled as per the clause 4.7 of the Notification dated 19.02.2024, as provided in the reservations to meritorious sportspersons in terms of the amendments made to the State and Subordinate Service Rules as per G.O.Ms.No.107 and G.O.Ms.No.74. Paragraph 12 of the Notification dated 19.02.2024 issued by the 3rd respondent deals with procedure for selection. According to paragraph No.12 (1) (B) of the said Notification, the number of candidates to be admitted to the Written (Main) Examination (Conventional 9 Type) would be Fifty (50) times to the total number of vacancies available in each Multi-Zone. The proviso to that paragraph makes it clear that in case of any shortfall in respect of the candidates in reserved categories as laid down in Rules 22 and 22A of the Rules, action shall be taken to include such number of candidates from the merit list beyond 1:50 ratio as required to meet the shortfall in the respective categories.
11. Therefore, according to the aforesaid clauses of the Notification, 200 candidates have to be permitted to appear for Written (Mains) Examination in sports quota. But, as submitted above, only one candidate who is having Form-I has been provisionally permitted to appear for Written (Mains) Examination in sports quota vide Web Note dated 20.08.2024. Nowhere in the Notification, which governs the selection of candidates, it is stated that the Notification of Group-I posts under the sports quota is reserved for the participants in International competitions / Multinational competitions only. If that is the purport, the petitioners' applications ought not to have been entertained at all.
12. In paragraph No.2, clauses (ii) and (ix) of the Notification in G.O.Ms.No.74 clearly stipulate that 2% set apart for sports reservation for meritorious sportspersons, individual events 10 have to be given performance over team events within a priority. The priority list is enclosed as Annexure-II to the G.O.Ms.No.74 itself of 90 sports and games. Annexure-III is only Forms I to IV and is a mere certificate to be enclosed of the participation in the sports/games, issued by recognized/authorized sports association(s).
13. In the Notification/Web note, Form-I is being misconstrued by the respondent-authorities. Vide Web Note dated 22.07.2024 and 20.08.2024, the Certificate verifications were called from the candidates who represented India in International competition / Multinational competitions in one of the recognized games/sports, clauses (ii), (ix), (x) and (xii) of the Notification issued under G.O.Ms.No.74.
14. The G.O.Ms.No.107 was issued in exercise of the powers conferred under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, which prevails over the Notification. The Notification No.2 of 2024, dated 19.02.2024 does not exclude other sportspersons. Annexure-II of G.O.Ms.No.74 specifies priorities for recruitment to the posts reserved under sports quota and it starts with a Gold Medal in Olympics games at item No.1 and ends up with participation in the State / Inter-district Championship for School games at item No.90. Thus, Form-I 11 cannot control the substantive portion of the Notification and the G.O. and the amendments made to the Rules, 1996 under G.O.Ms.No.107.
15. It is settled proposition that the Form cannot control the Rules. The substantive provisions under the Notifications in G.O.Ms.No.74 and G.O.Ms.No.107, Sports quota is a separate quota, created with 2% reservation for meritorious sportspersons and shall be applicable as per the Annexure-I and II of the priority provided under G.O.Ms.No.74. The very same G.O.Ms.No.74 has been considered by the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amavarati in W.P.No.11057 of 2021, dated 29.07.2021; W.P.No.16062 of 2020, dated 09.08.2024 and W.P.No.13979 of 2020, dated 24.01.2022 and categorically held that sportspersons candidates shall be selected as per Annexures-I and II of G.O.Ms.No.74. In similar circumstances, by interpreting the very same G.Os., these anomalies have been brought to the notice of the 2nd respondent, but the same are not being corrected. The verification process only in respect of the candidates who have represented India in an International Competition / Multinational Competitions in one of the recognized 12 Games/Sports (Form-I), under sportspersons quota, is being taken up.
16. The authorities are calling for only the candidates who have represented India in an International Competition/Multinational Competitions in one of the recognized Games/Sports (Form-1), under the sports quota, vide Web Notes were issued on 22.07.2024 and 20.08.2024 respectively, is arbitrary, contrary to G.O.Ms. No.74, G.O.Ms.No.107 and the Notification No.2/2024, dated 19.02.2024 issued by the 3rd respondent, and are violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, they filed the present Writ Petitions.
17. When the matter was taken up for hearing, at the admission stage, after hearing both sides, this Court passed the following interim direction.
"Therefore, to balance the equities, as an interim measure, pending the Writ Petition, the respondents are directed to allow the petitioners to participate in main examination/further selection process. However, the results of the petitioners shall not be declared pending further orders of this Court."
In other cases, also, interim orders were granted by this Court.
13
18. Sri J. Sudheer, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no clarity in the policy and also proviso cannot eat away by way of Forms. He further submits that reservation is meant to encourage the sportspersons, and that we are concerned with G.O.Ms.No.74 and not 84. Executive order is G.O.Ms.No.74. The said Subordinate Rules say "all sports, all posts", it means each and every sport person has to be encouraged by maintaining reservation. He submitted that Annexures cannot go contrary to the policy. While giving response to the learned counsel for respondents, he submits that the G.O.Ms.No.74 has not been challenged as it is petitioners' favour.
19. He further submits that the policy makers are different from executives. The very purpose of giving 2% reservation for sportspersons is defeated. There is no clarity in G.O.Ms.No.74 as to, if Form-I candidates are not available, Form-II candidates can be considered or not. Though G.O.Ms.No.5 and G.O.Ms.No.107 were issued clarifying certain issues, in so far as the above issue is concerned, there is no clarity. That due to misinterpretation in this regard, the vacancies meant for sportspersons are being wasted and the policy is frustrated. 14
20. He further submits that when the policy is to give 2% reservation for sportspersons and confirming the same at particular level, it would mean giving reservations with one hand and taking it away with another hand. When the higher- level performers are not available, denying the next category candidates, would amount to underplaying their achievements and amounts to discouraging sportspersons. Annexures are contrary to the policy. Annexures cannot control the policy.
21. Sri P.V. Krishnaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the recruitment agency strictly follows the Rule 2, Sub-rule 20 of the Rules. The "Meritorious Sportsman", but the recruitment agency has not followed the same, means the individuals who have participated in the disciplines or obtained medals mentioned in the Annexures I & II respectively. In the Rules, there is no reference with regard to Forms. Once the Rule does not disclose any Forms, if any Notification discloses any Forms, the same are not valid.
22. Sri Chikkudu Prabhakar, learned counsel for petitioner submits that the Writ Petitions pertain to Junior Lecturers Multi Zonal-I. Zonal posts are reserved for Sports Quota. Zonal verification of certificates also over, due to non- availability of the sportspersons, the said authority should not 15 carry forward the vacancies to the next Notification and in his case, there is no sportsperson except the petitioner. Even then, the petitioner's case was rejected.
23. Sri Chilla Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the priority structure is not correct. The priority list mentioned under Annexure-II has not been structured in alignment with the Form categories outlined in Annexure-III. Instead, the prioritization appears to have been based on the level of effort and complexity of the games or events in which the participants competed, rather than the following the proper categorization.
24. Learned counsel for respondent No.3/Telangana Public Service Commission, filed counter and vacate stay petition vide I.A. No.2 of 2024.
25. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that in the Online application form, pertaining to Group-I Services Notification No.02/2024, the candidates who are claiming sports reservation, were required to give details about the sports/games in which they had participated and also the level of participation/tournaments in which they had participated/won medals. As per G.O.Ms.No.107 and 16 G.O.Ms.No.74, the candidates who are claiming sports reservation for Group-I Services, must possess Form-I i.e. they should have represented India in an International or Multinational tournament. The contention of respondents No.1 to 6 that nowhere in the Notification, it is mentioned that only the candidates who have represented India in International/Multinational Tournaments, are eligible for Sports Reservation in Group-I Services, is false and denied. Para 4.7 of the Group-I Services Recruitment Notification No.02/2024 reads as follows:
"The reservation to Meritorious Sportsperson is applicable as per the amendments made to the State and Subordinate Service Rules, as per G.O.Ms.No.107, General Administration (Ser.D) Dept., Dt.27-07-2018 that is in Rule- 2, for sub-Rule (20) and in Rule-22(i) in sub-Rule (2), for Class-D. In implementing the reservation to Meritorious Sports Person, G.O.Ms.No.05 YAT&C (Sports) Department, Dt.14/05/2018 will be followed.
In the event of non-availability of eligible Meritorious Sports persons, two percent (2%) reservation of posts for them stand lapsed."
26. He further submits that the G.O.Ms.No.05 is a continuation of Government Order for G.O.Ms.No.74, through which, the G.O.Ms.No.74 has been amended making the sports reservation horizontal. In the same way, G.O.Ms.No.107 was 17 issued by the General Administration Department (GAD), making amendment to the said Rules incorporating reservation for meritorious sportspersons as per the guidelines stipulated in the G.O.Ms.No.74.
27. He further submits that from the above, it is clear that the Government orders issued by General Administration Department making amendments in the said Rules incorporating reservation for meritorious sportspersons as per the guidelines stipulated in the G.O.Ms.No.74, has been incorporated in the Group-I Services Notification No.02/2024, dated 19.02.2024.
28. He further submits that the results of Preliminary Test and Final Key of Group-I Services Prelims was hosted by the Commission on 07.07.2024. Regarding the Meritorious Sports Persons who are claiming Sports Reservation, the following was informed in the Web Note/Press Note:
"The shortfall in respect of Meritorious Sports Persons shall be notified separately after verification of FORM - I (Candidates who have represented India in an International competition / Multinational competition in the recognized Games/Sports) of the candidates who have claimed Sports Reservation if found eligible as per the G.O.Ms No.74 Youth Advancement, Tourism & Culture (Sports) Department Dt.09/08/2012 & G.O.Ms.No.5. Youth Advancement, Tourism & Culture (Sports) Department Dated: 14- 05-2018 & G.O.Ms.No.107 General Administration (Ser.D) Department Dated: 27-07-2018"18
29. He further submits that the Online applications of all the candidates who have claimed sports reservation by declaring that they have represented India in Multi-
National/International Sports/Games, were verified by the officials of Sports Authority of Telangana (SAT) and the officials of Sports Authority of Telangana have submitted a report stating that 36 candidates have claimed in their Online application Form of Group-I that they have Form-I and have represented India in an International Competition/ Multinational Competitions in one of the recognized Games/Sports. Accordingly, 36 candidates were shortlisted for verification of sports certificates and were called to attend the certificate verification of Form-I. Respondent No.5 has claimed that she has represented India in an International and Multi National Competition and was also shortlisted for Sports certificate verification.
30. He further submits that the Government had issued clear instructions in G.O.Ms.No.107 that for implementing the reservations to Meritorious Sportspersons, the guidelines issued in the G.O.Ms.No. 74, read with G.O.Ms.No.5 shall be followed. In this regard, in Para XII in G.O.Ms.No.74. 19
31. He further submits that the above para mentioned in G.O.Ms.No. 74, clearly establishes the fact that all these three annexures are to be considered as part and parcel of the G.O.Ms. No.74. All the three Annexures have to be seen as a modality to take forward the policy of reservation in Government jobs for meritorious sportspersons. From the above para, it is clear that the Sports Certificates shall submit in Form-I, Form-II, Form-III and Form-IV as the case may be and the said Forms shall be forwarded to the Committee at Government Level and the said Committee shall issue Eligibility Certificate.
32. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 brought to the notice of this Court clause (xiv) and clause (xv) of Para 2 of G.O.Ms.No.74, which reads as follows:
(xiv) The eligibility certificate issued by the Committee shall be forwarded to the Recruiting/Agency Appointing Authority for appointment under sports quota in various categories of posts in different Departments on the basis of Merit-Cum-
Sports Eligibility Certificate against the notifications issued by them.
(xv) Eligibility Certificates issued by the Committee shall be valid for the notification issued by Recruiting Agency/Appointing Authority, which shall be mentioned in the certificate.
20
33. He further submits that the Writ Petitioners No.1 to 6 have not participated in the required International / Multinational events / tournaments. Except, respondent No.5, all other respondents have claimed in their Online application that they have participated only in the Senior Nationals/Junior National/All India Inter University Participation etc. However, respondent No.5 has claimed to have represented India in Multinational/International Tournaments in the Online application form.
34. He further submits that since respondents No.1 to 4 and 6 have not represented India in International/Multi-National Sports & Games & does not have Form-I, they were not shortlisted for Sports Certificate verification. Further it is submitted that except Respondent No. 6 all other Respondent have qualified for Mains examinations in Merit / Category without reference to their sports achievement as per the results hosted by the Commission on 07/07/2024.
35. He further submits that the respondent No.5 was also admitted to Mains Examinations as per merit/category and was also shortlisted under Sports category along with 36 candidates who were called for Sports Certificate verification. As per the report received from the Sports Authority of 21 Telangana, her application under Sports category was rejected by the Committee of Secretaries at the Govt. level. As per the certificate submitted by her, she had participated in South Asian Amateur Chess Championship 2016 held at Gurjar Desh Charitable Trust, Jammu, J&K which is not available/mentioned in the G.O Ms. No. 74. Petitioner No. 05 is also qualified for Group-1 Mains as per merit/category without reference to her sports achievements as per the results hosted by the Commission on 07.07.2024.
36. He further submits that the sports certificates of all the candidates who have come for certificate verification, were verified by the officers of the Sports Authority of Telangana and all the details of candidates who have attended sports certificates verification, were sent to the Committee of Secretaries at Govt. level for taking further necessary action. Out of 36 candidates, only 2 candidates were found eligible (possessing Form-I) by the Committee constituted in term of clause (xiii). As per the above report, two candidates' claim on sports quota, has been provisionally accepted by TGPSC.
37. He further submits that vide GO.Ms.No.74, the Government has notified the instructions and detailed guidelines for extending the benefit of 2% reservation in 22 Government Jobs for meritorious sports persons. In the same G.O. there are three Annexures which are as follows:
Annexure-1 (List of Recognized Sports) Annexure-II (Priorities of Sports and Games) Annexure-III (Form I to IV) All these three annexures are to be considered as part and parcel of G.O.Ms.No.74 and all the three Annexures have to be seen as a modality to take forward the policy of reservation in Government jobs for meritorious sportspersons. Basing on the level of performance of an individual in the recognized Sports/Games, eligibility for reservation in Government Job has been decided in the said G.O.Ms.No.74.
38. In the Government Sectors broadly the jobs are to be categorized into 5 Groups:
Group-I Services (Dy. Collector, DSP, Asst. Director Cadre Post etc.) Group-II Services (Dy. Tahsildar, EO PR&RD etc.) Group-III Services (Clerical Posts in the HoD offices) Group-IV Services (Clerical Posts in the Dist. / Sub Ordinate Offices) Last Grade Service (Class - IV posts like Office subordinate etc.) As per the above grading, provision has been made in the G.O.Ms. No.74 through Annexure-III, clearly specifying the level of achievement in Sports which can be considered for the above categories of jobs.23
39. He further submits that this arrangement has been made to ensure that less meritorious sportspersons do not occupy higher scale posts and also to ensure that higher scale posts are occupied by more meritorious sportspersons. Evident from the above that depending on the merit achieved in the Sports/Games, precedence has been given in the type of employment. The above policy has been devised to protect the merit amongst the sportspersons. The above policy would ensure that the most meritorious sportspersons get the highest scale post in the State. By introducing Annexure-II, priorities have been assigned to all the sports events in which sportspersons would participate and basing on this Annexure- II, the inter-se merit amongst the sportspersons can be easily quantified. By the above policy, the sportspersons would be eligible for the reservation in Government Jobs based on their performance in the sports field. The above policy also ensures that there is a match between the level of participation in the Sports/Games and the job for which the sportsperson can claim sports reservation.
40. He further submits that the policy of providing reservation to Meritorious Sportspersons has been incorporated in the said Rules through the above 24 G.O.Ms.No.107. Vide G.O.Ms.No.05, it has been notified that reservations to Meritorious Sportspersons is a horizontal reservation and it has also been clearly notified that in the event of non-availability of eligible sportspersons, the posts reserved for them, should be deemed to be ceased and allotted to open competition in the same recruitment. The sequence mentioned in the Annexure-II of the G.O.Ms.No.74 "Priorities of Sports & Games for recruitment of two percent (2%) reservation under Sports Quota" determines the inter-se sports merit of the candidates claiming sports reservation.
41. He further submits that the respondent No.1, Sri Gollapalli Raju, has earlier filed W.P.No.22643 of 2024 with similar grounds and the same was disposed of by this Court vide orders, dated 20.08.2024 directing the respondent No.2- TGSPSC to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 25.07.2024 for appointment in terms of G.O.Ms. No.74 dated 09.08.2012 and in terms of the conditions mentioned in the notification and also subject to the petitioner passing the Group-I main examination.
42. He further submits that, regarding the contention of the Writ Petitioners No.1 to 6 that their applications ought not to have been entertained if they had no Form-I. It is submitted 25 that even if they do not have Form-I, they were eligible to write Group-I Prelims and compete against OC Posts/relevant Community Posts. Group-I Services Notification No. 02/2024, dated 19.02.2024 was issued for all the 563 vacancies in one Notification and the candidates who applied for the recruitment, may compete not only for four vacancies notified under Sports category but also for all the posts in their Community/Category.
43. He further submits that the Telangana Public Service Commission is a formal party in this matter as this matter pertains to Sports Reservation Policy and the same is not in the purview of TGPSC. TGPSC follows the Rules / Acts / Government Orders relating to the direct recruitments as on the date of issuance of Notifications. Permitting the candidates who don't have FORM-I and who have FORM-II, III and IV to write the Group-I Mains, would be contrary to G.O.Ms.No.74, dated 09.08.2012 and all the candidates who have Form II, III and IV would put forth their claim to consider them also for writing the Group-I Mains, which would totally eliminate the relative merit amongst the sportspersons, which has been prescribed in the Annexure II in GO.Ms.No. 74. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.
26
44. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of Learned Additional Advocate General filed counter in W.P.No.32196 of 2024 and submitted that the same counter is adopted in all the cases.
45. He further submits that G.O.Ms.No.74, had notified instructions and detailed guidelines for extending the benefit of 2% reservation in Government jobs for meritorious sportspersons at all levels in all posts of State Government Departments, Educational Institutions, Local bodies, Corporations and other establishments referred thereunder, which are funded or aided by the State Government, where direct recruitment is one of the methods of appointment. The said G.O. includes Annexure-I and Annexure-II referred to in Clause (ii), Annexure-III and Forms referred thereunder in Clause (xii) of the notification. The annexures in the said G.O. are as follows:-
Annexure-I (list of recognized posts) Annexure-II (priorities of sports and games) Annexure-III (Form I to Form IV)
46. He further submits that the above three Annexures forms part and parcel of the G.O.Ms.No.74, and they are to be scrupulously followed to ensure that meritorious sportspersons, based on their level of performance, will have 27 eligibility to the respective Government jobs as specified in Clause (xii) to (xv) of the Notification, read with the posts specified in the respective Form-I to Form-IV under Annexure- III. The procedure for calling of applications from the meritorious sportspersons along with certificates applicable to the post referable in the respective forms and the said certificates in Form-I to Form-IV, as the case may be, shall be scrutinized by the Sports Authority of the State. After verification of the same by the Sports Authority, the applications along with the Forms as scrutinized by the Sports Authority of the State, will be forwarded to a Committee constituted at Government level in Youth Advancement, Tourism and Culture (Sports) Department who shall finalize the proposals.
47. He further submits that the Committee shall be constituted with the members as specified in Clause (xiii) of the notification under G.O.Ms.No.74. The said Committee shall issue eligibility certificate for appointment under sports quota. The said eligibility certificate issued by the Committee shall be forwarded to the recruiting agency / appointing authority for consideration of appointment of such persons eligible to be appointed against such posts notified by them on the basis of 28 merit cum sports eligibility certificate. The Committee's decision as to whether a particular person with a particular sports certificate fulfils the criteria of eligibility for the post applied, shall be final and the same shall be valid for that Notification only issued by the recruiting agency.
48. He further submits that as per the provisions in G.O.Ms.No 74, the Forms under Annexure-III clearly specify the level of participation in competitions and eligibility of such meritorious sportspersons for employment to the post mentioned in the respective Forms as shown below:.
Group-I Services (Form-I Representing India in an International or multinational event) Group-II Services (Form-I Representing India in an International or multinational event) Group-III Services (Form-II Representing State in a National Competition) Group-IV Services (Form-III Representing a University in recognized Last Grade Service (Form-IV Representing a State School Team in the National Games for School Children) The said procedure is being followed since 2012.
49. He further submits that the said G.O. also refers to two roster points i.e. 48 and 98 may be earmarked for reservation under sports quota and till such time, amendment is carried out to the State and Sub-ordinate Service Rules. The 29 authorities were requested to follow the guidelines issued under G.O.Ms.No.74 in all future direct recruitments for appointing meritorious sportspersons under 2% quota.
50. He further submits that further, amending the sports reservation in G.O.Ms. No.74, the State of Telangana has issued G.O.Ms.No.5 dated 14.05.2018, causing amendment to Clause No.(xviii) under para 2 of the Notification that the said reservation shall be horizontal and in the event of non- availability of sportspersons, the point reserved for them should be deemed to be seized and allotted to open competition in the same recruitment.
51. He further submits that the State of Telangana in exercise of powers under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, has amended the said Rules vide G.O.Ms.No.107 substituting Rule 2(20) and amending Rule 22(ii)(d) earmarking the roster points 48 and 98 in favour of meritorious sportspersons under horizontal reservation. In the event of non-availability of eligible sportspersons, such roster point reserved for meritorious sportsperson, shall be allotted to open competition in the same recruitment. It is also further made clear in the said amendment to the Rule that while implementing the reservation of meritorious sportspersons, the 30 guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.74 read with G.O.Ms.No.5 dated 14.05.2018 shall be followed. In effect, G.O.Ms.No.74 and G.O.Ms.No.5 is made part of the Rules. The Clauses (ii, xii, xiii, xiv & xv) of the Notification under G.O.Ms.No.74, are extracted as under:-
(ii) The performance of the individual in having obtained Medals/participation in disciplines for deciding a meritorious sportsperson, against two percent (2%) sports quota as mentioned in Annexure-II to this order, shall be the criterion, keeping in view the participation in recognized sports disciplines as per Annexure-I to this order, or as may be revised by the Government from time to time.
(xii) The appointing authorities shall call for applications by publishing in leading news papers in English/Telugu/Urdu languages from meritorious sportspersons along with the certificates in Form-I, Form-II, Form-III and Form-IV as the case may be, vide Annexure III enclosed to this notification and shall submit the same to the Sports Authority of Andhra Pradesh. After scrutiny by the Sports Authority of Andhra Pradesh, like genuineness of the certificates, verifying medals/ranks etc., the applications will be forwarded to a Committee at Government level in Youth Advancement, Tourism and Culture (Sports) Department and the said Committee shall finalise the proposals. The said Committee shall issue eligibility certificate for appointment under Sports quota.
(xiii) The recommendation of the Committee for issuing eligibility certificate shall be final. The Committee shall consist of the following members:-
(1) Prl. Secy.,/Secy., Youth Services & Sports - Chairman / Chairperson 31 (2) Prl. Secy.,/ Secy, Home Department - Member (1) Prl. Secy.,/Secy General Administration (Services) Department - Member (2) Vice Chairman & Managing Director, Sports Authority of Andhra Pradesh - Convenor NOTE: A representative from the Telangana Olympic Association and an eminent sportsperson of the concerned sports discipline may be invited as special invitees for their advice as and when required by the Committee.
(xiv) The eligibility certificate issued by the Committee shall be forwarded to the Recruiting/Agency Appointing Authority for appointment under sports quota in various categories of posts in different Departments on the basis of Merit-Cum-
Sports Eligibility Certificate against the notifications issued by them.
(xv) Eligibility Certificates issued by the Committee shall be valid for the notification issued by Recruiting Agency/Appointing Authority, which shall be mentioned in the certificate. From the above clauses, it is noticed that clause-ii refers to Annexure-I and Annexure-II whereunder the performance of the individuals in having obtained Medals / participation in disciplines, shall be criteria for deciding meritorious sportsperson.
52. He further submits that in respect of clauses (xii to xv), it is made clear that the recruiting agencies shall call applications from the meritorious sportsperson along with the certificates in the prescribed Form-I, Form-II, Form-III and 32 Form-IV, as the case may be, i.e. in the prescribed Form against the posts referred to in the respective Forms. The said certificates along with the respective Forms shall be forwarded to the Sports Authority to scrutinize the genuineness and the medals/ranks of the applicants. Thereafter, the said applications shall be forwarded to Committee at Government level referable to Clause (xiii), which shall finalize the proposals and issue eligibility certificate for appointment under sports quota and the same shall be forwarded to the recruiting agencies for appointments under sports quota in various categories of posts against the Notification issued by them. It is made clear in Clause (xv) that the recommendation of the Committee in the eligibility certificates shall be valid for the Notification which shall be mentioned in the certificate.
53. He further submits that in W.P. No.32196 of 2024 the petitioner has submitted certificate along with Form-III and he is eligible for appointment to a meritorious sportsperson for employment to Group-IV post/service under State Government/similar posts in Government Institution. The Committee constituted under Clause (xiii) after duly considering the certificate, forms submitted by the petitioner, has forwarded the eligibility certificate to the Public Service 33 Commission that he was not eligible to be appointed against Group-I & Group-II posts under meritorious sportsperson quota. On the basis of the said eligibility certificate issued by the Committee, the petitioner's case could not have been considered under meritorious sportsperson against Group-1 & Group-II posts.
54. He further submits that the argument being advanced by the petitioner that annexures and forms there under cannot take away the objective of the G.O.Ms.No.74 and that once petitioner is deemed to be a meritorious sportsperson, he would be entitled for all the posts under meritorious sportsperson quota, is untenable and specifically denied.
55. He further submits that Clause (xii) categorically refers to Annexure-III and forms there under and the meritorious sportsperson shall submit their certificate along with appropriate form which refers to the posts. Clause (xv) makes it clear that it is the eligibility certificate issued by the Committee that determines whether the candidate is eligible to be appointed for the post notified and such eligibility certificate shall be valid only for the Notification which shall be mentioned in the certificate as forwarded to the recruiting agency only. 34
56. He further submits that though the petitioner is aware and as has been the procedure for more than a decade, persons applying for posts under meritorious sportsperson quota, submit their certificates along with the form prescribed under Annexure-III. The Annexure which is part and parcel of the G.O., is clear and unambiguous to its application referred to in Clause (xii) i.e., "Application with certificates in Form-I, Form-II, Form-III and Form-IV, as the case may be, which would mean respective forms to the respective posts referred to in the form.
57. He further submits that the meritorious sportsperson quota is a horizontal reservation and the Rule also clearly states that in the event of non-availability of eligible meritorious sportsperson for the post notified, the said post shall be filled up from the open category. In the instance case, only candidates with Form-I were eligible to participate against the Group-1 post and allowing candidates with Form-III would not only bring an illegality of allowing ineligible persons but also taking away rights of open category persons, who would otherwise become eligible against such posts of such meritorious sportsperson post-left unfilled due to non- availability of eligible meritorious sportsperson with Form-I. 35
58. He further submits that the petitioner is not eligible to Group-I & Group-Il posts under meritorious sportsperson quota as he does not possess certificates of International representing India in as International Competition/Multi- National Competition as specified in Form-I & Form-II of Annexure-III referred under Clause (xii) under Notification issued vide G.O.Ms.No.74, dated 09.08.2012. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.
59. He further submits that the Andhra Pradesh High Court passed the orders in favour of the petitioners in W.P.No.2528 of 2023. But the Andhra Pradesh High Court passed the said order before the amendment of G.O.Ms.No.74. There is no amendment in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Government Order is not correct. There are amendments 13 and 14. He also submitted that Government Order is not challenged and also from day one, the same process is going on in the policy of the State and interference in the selection process is unwarranted. He specifically contended that all the Writ Petitions are filed with abnormal delay. In the said circumstances, Writ Petitions cannot be entertained. He also submitted that, as per the contentions of the petitioners, every person is eligible for every post, is not tenable. 36
60. Sri B.S. Prasad, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri S. Goutham, in W.P.No.28035 of 2024, submitted that this Court passed an interim order on 04.10.2024 as under:
"The respondents are directed to keep one post of Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector under Sports Quota in Multi Zone-II vacant, if not already filled."
He further submitted that though the petitioner was issued Form-I certificate and also was provisionally selected to the post of Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector in the Transport Department under sports quota in Multi Zone-II, but the petitioner was not called for final selection due to interim order passed by this Court.
He further submitted that the official respondents committed error in keeping the filled post vacant. Once a provisional selection notification is issued notifying petitioner's name for the post vacant under the sports quota, it is deemed that the said post is filled. The Writ Petitioner being well aware of this petitioner's details, intentionally not made him as a party to the Writ Petition and in view of the interim order, the unofficial respondents are going to lose their posts. Accordingly, prayed to vacate the interim order. 37
61. Smt. Rachana Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, argued on behalf of Sri Mohammed Baseer Riyaz in W.P.No.34408 of 2024 that the unofficial respondents are going to lose their post because of Interim Orders. Due to Interim Orders of this Court, the post was not allotted to the respondents. She further submitted that no rules were challenged in the Writ Petition.
62. Learned Standing Counsel for Telangana Public Service Commission submits that policy was evolved prior to G.O.Ms.No.74, and 25 years old policy is G.O.Ms.No.84. He also submitted with regard to A.P. judgment clause (xvii) that there is no amendment in Andhra Pradesh.
ANALYSIS OF G.Os., NOTIFICATIONS, RULES, CASE LAWS AND FINDINGS OF THE COURT:
To support the cases of learned counsel for respective parties, they relied upon the following judgments:
63. Learned Senior counsel Sri Madhan Mohan Rao argued on behalf of the petitioners and he has relied upon the following judgments:
38
1. In Nirendra Kumar Saha & others Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd., and others 1;
"37. .Before parting with this case I am, however, of the considered opinion that a few words may be said regarding the doctrine of comity of Court which demands that Courts take a consistent and uniform approach towards administration of justice by taking adequate care to ensure elimination of conflicting orders. The issue raised in these writ petitions has been substantially answered by no less than three High Courts and I have found no reasons to differ with them. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of India Household and Healthcare Ltd. v. LG Household and Healthcare Ltd., reported in 2007 (5) SCC 510, has, inter alia, held that the doctrine of comity or amity requires a Court not to pass an order which would be in conflict with another order passed by a competent Court of Law. Thus, additionally, I am also of the view that the present case is an instance where the doctrine of comity or amity of Court is applicable, since Courts of coordinate benches as well as a Division Bench of another High Court have substantially addressed the issue raised in the present writ petitions and have come to uniform and consistent findings and therefore there is no scope of passing any conflicting order herein..".
In the above mentioned case, it is observed that once one Court decides an issue, the other court cannot pass conflicting orders against the same issue.
The above case referred to by the petitioner shows that the neighbouring State has already passed an Order regarding sports quota, interpreting G.O.Ms.No.74 (which was adopted by the Government of Telangana), which is contrary to the 1 2009 SCC Online Cal 619 39 respondent's contention herein. The respondent authorities did not agree with the petitioners' contentions. In the said circumstances, petitioner relied upon the above said case and the case law supports petitioners' contention.
2. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai Vs. Tulsyan NEC Limited;2 "20. Lastly, it is immaterial that the relevant form prescribed under the Income Tax Rules, at the relevant time (i.e. before 1.4.2007), provided for set-off of MAT credit balance against the amount of tax plus interest i.e. after the computation of interest under Section 234-B. This was directly contrary to a plain reading of Section 115-JAA(4). Further, a form prescribed under the Rules can never have any effect on the interpretation or operation of the parent statute."
In the above case, the Income Tax Department filed civil appeals by way of Special Leave Petitions before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The main question in the case mentioned above is, whether MAT credit is admissible in terms of Section 115-JAA against the tax payable (assessed tax) before calculating interest u/s 234 (a, b & c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In this case, the relevant Form 115/JAA prescribed what is contrary to section 115-JAA (4) itself. 2 (2011) 2 SCC 1 40 Although it is a case of Income Tax, the learned counsel for the petitioner has emphasized the importance of the Forms and Statues regarding the Act.
The above case law is taken into consideration for the validity of Forms and Statutes. In the present case, the TGPSC prescribed Form-I, Form-II etc., in the sports quota, which is not mentioned in the Statutes. The said Statutes are discussed only in relation to Annexure-I (Recognized Sports by the authorities), Annexure-II (Recognized priority list, numbered from 1 to 90). There is no discussion in the G.Os., with regard to Forms. The Rules only said "meritorious sportspersons", in accordance with Annexure-I and II.
3. Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. ESCORTS Ltd., and others; 3 ".. It is meant to indicate the ordinary procedure which may be followed. Shri Nariman argued that none of the prescribed forms provided for the application and grant of subsequent permission. That may be so for the obvious reason that ordinarily one would expect permission to be sought and given before the act. Surely, the Form cannot control the Act, the Rules or the directions. As one learned judge of the Madras High Court was fond of saying "it is the dog that wags the tail and not the tail that wags the dog." 3 (1986) 1 SCC 264 41 In the above case, Escorts Ltd., objected to the purchase of its shares by Foreign Companies of the CAPARO group without prior permission RBI under FERA. Escorts refused to register those share transfers. Further, Escorts Ltd., argued that under Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA) prior permission of the RBI was mandatory before a non- resident could purchase the share, pointing out that the prescribed application forms and the exchange control manual required "prior permission." The Hon'ble Apex Court held that Section 29(1)(b) of FERA uses the word "permission" without the qualifier "prior" Parliament in other sections of FERA had expressly used "previous permission" where it intended so. Since it was omitted Section 29(1)(b), it was deliberate. Therefore, the RBI had discretion to grant permission before or after the purchase (ex post facto).
The above case is also similar to the previous case. However, the issue is addressed in relation to the Forms and Act, where TGPSC initially did not request any information regarding the Forms. Subsequently, Web Note was issued on 22.07.2024 and 20.08.2024 seeking Form-I for Group-I & II candidates, Form-II for Group-III candidates. In the said circumstances, a Larger Bench of the Supreme Court observed 42 that "it is the dog that wags the tail and not the tail that wags the dog." It means the Forms cannot control the Act, the Rules of the directions.
64. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners Sri J. Sudheer, has relied upon the following judgments:
1. Allahabad University ETC;, Allahabad Degree College & another Vs. Geetanjali Tiwari (Pandy) & others ETC ETC 4, "ON INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES Hon'ble O Chinnappa Reddy, J.. (as His Lordship then was) in Girdhari Lal & sons v. Balbir Nath Mathur (1986) 2 SCC 237, in His Lordship's inimitable style had the occasion to emphasize:
"6. It may be worthwhile to restate and explain at this stage certain well-known principles of interpretation of statutes: Words are but mere vehicles thoughts. They are meant to express or convey one's thoughts. Generally, a person's words and thoughts are coincidental. No problem arises then, but, not infrequently, they are not. It is common experience with most men, that occasionally there are no adequate words to express some of their thoughts. Words which very nearly express the thoughts may be found but not words which will express precisely. There is then a great fumbling for words. Long-winded explanations and, in conversation even gestures are resorted to. Ambiguous words and words which unwittingly convey more that one meaning are used. Where different interpretations are likely to be put on words and a question arises what an individual meant when he used certain words, he may be asked to explain himself and he may do so and say that he meant one thing and not the other. But if it is the legislature that has expressed itself by making the laws and difficulties arise in interpreting 4 2024 Law Suit(SC) 1181 43 what the legislature has said, a legislature cannot be asked to sit to resolve those difficulties. The legislatures, unlike individuals, cannot come forward to explain themselves as often as difficulties of interpretation arise. So the task of interpreting the laws by finding out what the legislature meant is allotted to the courts. Now, if one person puts into words the thoughts of another (as the draftsman puts into words the thoughts of the legislature) and a third person (the court) is to find out what they meant, more difficulties are bound to crop up. The draftsman may not have caught the spirit of the legislation at all; the words used by him may not adequately convey what is meant to be conveyed; the words may be ambiguous: they may be words capable of being differently understood by different persons. How are the courts to set about the task of resolving difficulties of interpretation of the laws? The foremost task of a court, as we conceive it, in the interpretation of statutes, is to find out the intention of the legislature. Of course, where words are clear and unambiguous no question of construction may arise. Such words ordinarily speak for themselves. Since the words must have spoken as clearly to legislators as to judges, it may be safely presumed that the legislature intended what the words plainly say. This is the real basis of the so-called golden rule of construction that where the words of statutes are plain and unambiguous effect must be given to them. A court should give effect to plain words, not because there is any charm or magic in the plainness of such words but because plain words may be expected to convey plainly the intention of the legislature to others as well as judges. Intention of the legislature and not the words is paramount. Even where the words of statutes appear to be prima facie clear and unambiguous it may sometimes be possible that the plain meaning of the words does not convey and may even defeat the intention of the legislature; in such cases there is no reason why the true intention of the legislature, if it can be determined, clearly by other means, should not be given effect. Words are meant to serve and not to govern and we are not to add the tyranny of words to the other tyrannies of the world."44
[13] Another crisp and enlightening passage is found in Reserve Bank of India (supra) where His Lordship observed as follows:
"33. Interpretation must depend on the text and the context. They are the bases of interpretation. One may well say if the text is the texture, context is what gives the colour. Neither can be ignored. Both are important. That interpretation is best which makes the textual interpretation match the contextual. A statute is best interpreted when we know why it was enacted. With this knowledge, the statute must be read, first as a whole and then section by section, clause by clause, phrase by phrase and word by word. If a statute is looked at in the context of its enactment, with the glasses of the statute-maker, provided by such context, its scheme, the sections, clauses, phrases and words may take colour and appear different than when the statute is looked at without the glasses provided by the context...."
In the above case, the petitioner's main grievance is that, despite fulfilling the eligibility criteria, she was not shortlisted for the interview. As per her score, she did not reach the cut- off marks. It happened because she was not awarded any marks under clause-7 in table (3)(A) for teaching / post doctoral experience. Her past teaching experience on contractual basis and as a guest faculty, were not counted as teaching experience by Allahabad University under the regulations 10(e) and 10(f)(iii) of the University Grants Commission. (Minimum qualification for appointment of teachers and other academic staff, in Universities and Colleges 45 and other measures for the maintenance of standards in higher education) Regulations, 2018.
Aggrieved by this, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition and the learned Single Judge rejected it. Aggrieved by the same, a Writ Appeal was filed, and the High Court passed the impugned Order observing that Regulation No.10 has no application to Assistant Professors. Aggrieved by the same, the University has filed a Civil Appeal (arising out of SLP) before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that such an interpretation is unsustainable in law, and the dismissal order of the Single Judge was affirmed.
The above case was referred by the petitioners' counsel by contending that the TGPSC had wrongly interpreted G.O.Ms.No.74 and the Forms. The said G.O. reveals that "Meritorious sportspersons" will be decided in accordance with Annexure-I and Annexure-II, but did not mention anything regarding Forms. In these circumstances, Rule 20 must be read in its proper context. The question of Forms will not arise, and Forms have nothing to do with the Rules.
2. Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil Vs. The Chief Minister & another 5;
5 Civil Appeal No.3123 of 2020 46 The Hon'ble Apex Court at para No.10 held as follows:
"10. In the 183rd Report of the Law Commission of India, Justice M. Jagannadha Rao observed that a statute is a will of legislature conveyed in the form of text. It is well settled principle of law that as a statute is an edict of the legislature, the conventional way of interpreting or construing the statute is to see the intent of the legislature. The intention of legislature assimilates two aspects. One aspect carries the concept of 'meaning' i.e. what the word means and another aspect conveys the concept of 'purpose' and 'object' or 'reason' or 'approach' pervading through the statute. The process of construction, therefore, combines both liberal and purposive approaches. However, necessity of interpretation would arise only where a language of the statutory provision is ambiguous, not clear or where two views are possible or where the provision gives a different meaning defeating the object of the statute. He supported his view by referring to two judgments of this Court in R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay; (1984) 2 SCC 183 and Grasim Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay, (2002) 4 SCC 297. It was held in R.S. Nayak (supra) that the plainest duty of the Court is to give effect to the natural meaning of the words used in the provision if the words of the statute are clear and unambiguous.
12. It is a recognised rule of interpretation of statutes that the expressions used therein should ordinarily be understood in a sense in which they best harmonise with the object of the statute, and which effectuate the object of the legislature. However, the object-oriented approach cannot be carried to the extent of doing violence to the plain language used by re-writing the section or structure words 47 in place of the actual words used by the legislature. The logical corollary that flows from the judicial pronouncements and opinion of reputed authors is that the primary rule of construction is literal construction. If there is no ambiguity in the provision which is being construed there is no need to look beyond. Legislative intent which is crucial for understanding the object and purpose of a provision should be gathered from the language. The purpose can be gathered from external sources but any meaning inconsistent with the explicit or implicit language cannot be given."
In the above case, question involved pertains to the interpretation of the Article 342-A of the Constitution. The Hon'ble Apex Court, while interpreting Article 342-A found, an ambiguity in Article 342-A(1) about "CENTRAL LIST."
As a statute is an edict of the legislature, the conventional way of interpreting or construing the statute is to see the intent of the legislature. The intention of legislature assimilates two aspects. One aspect carries the concept of 'meaning' i.e. what the word means and another aspect conveys the concept of 'purpose' and 'object' or 'reason' or 'approach pervading through the statute. Moreover, upon plain reading of the G.Os and the Rules, there is no ambiguity. However, clause (ii) of the G.O.Ms.No.74, which deals with 48 deciding meritorious sportspersons for 2% reservation, refers only Annexure-I and II, but not Annexure-III.
In the case at hand, the authorities also misconstrued the provision / Rules. This observation supports the petitioners' case.
3. J. Venkat Balaji Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Chief Secretary, and another 6.
"Whether the dog can wag the tail or the tail will wag the dog" is the question in this case.
Factual Matrix in Brief:
The petitioner is a candidate seeking employment in Group-I of the State services. He has cleared the preliminary and the main written examination. He is a sportsman, who has played Competitive Tennis at a certain level. He seeks employment under the 2% Sports quota. After qualifying in the main examination, the petitioner was asked to submit his eligibility certificates/sports certificates by an email dated 03.06.2021. The same were referred to a committee constituted by respondent No.2. The said committee by its order dated 31.05.2021 rejected the petitioner's case on the ground that he has not represented India in an International Competition, Multinational Competition as prescribed in Form-I of Annexure-III.
(ix) In the quota of two percent (2%) set apart for sports reservation for meritorious sports persons, individual events 6 W.P.No.11057 of 2021, dt.29.07.2021 49 have to be given preference over team events within a priority.
(x) Participation at higher level shall be considered only when it is supported by winning medals at the lower level.
"Meritorious 2(19) Meritorious Sportsman: Sportsman"
means a sportsman who has represented the State or the Country in a national or international competition or Universities in the Inter-University tournaments conducted by the Inter-University Boards or the State School team in the national sports/games/for schools conducted by the All India School Games Federation in any of the games, sports, mentioned below: and any other games/sports as may be a specified by the Government from time to time. (emphasis supplied) Relying upon the leading judgment of the Supreme Court of India in Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Escorts Ltd. and Ors., the learned senior counsel argues that the form cannot control substantive portion and draws this Courts attention to the phrase that 'the dog can wag its tail and not vice versa'. According to him, the form cannot restrict or limit the criteria that is already fixed in the notification and the G.O. The Group-I aspirants filed the above case. While applying for posts, he filed his sports certificate. After verification, the petitioner was asked to submit his eligibility certificate/sports certificate by an email, dated 03.06.2021. The Committee rejected the same on the ground that the petitioner not represented India in an International/ 50 Multinational Competition. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached A.P. High Court and finally, the said Writ Petition was allowed. Subsequently, the Writ Appeal was filed by the APPSC challenging the order of the learned Single Judge, which was later dismissed as withdrawn. Therefore, order became final and no other appeal is filed till now.
A similar case is on hand with similar set of facts. All the petitioners' cases were rejected on the grounds that they did not represent India in an International/Multinational Competition and were rejected accordingly. The petitioners approached this Court. This Court granted interim direction to participate in the examination. The observation of the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. is applicable in the present case also.
65. Sri Chikkudu Prabhakar, Learned counsel for the petitioners, has relied upon the following judgments:
1. Shankarsan Dash Vs. Union of India 7
7. It is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied. Ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for 7 (1991) 3 SCC 47 51 recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to the post. Unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. However, it does not mean that the State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies or any of them are filled up, the State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test, and no discrimination can be permitted.
This correct position has been consistently followed by this Court, and we do not find any discordant note in the decisions in State of Haryana v. Subhash Chander Marwaha, Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana, or Jatendra Kumar v. State of Punjab.
8. In State of Haryana v. Subhash Chander Marwaha' 15 vacancies of Subordinate Judges were advertised, and out of the selection list only 7, who had secured more than 55 per cent marks, were appointed, although under the relevant rules the eligibility condition required only 45 per cent marks. Since the High Court had recommended earlier, to the Punjab Government that only the candidates securing 55 per cent marks or more should be appointed as Subordinate Judges, the other candidates included in the select list were not appointed. They filed a writ petition before the High Court claiming a right of being appointed on the ground that vacancies existed and they were qualified and were found suitable. The writ application was allowed. While reversing the decision of the High Court, it was observed by this Court that it was open to the government to decide how many appointments should be made and although the High Court had appreciated the position 52 correctly, it had "somehow persuaded itself to spell out a right in the candidates because in fact there were 15 vacancies". It was expressly ruled that the existence of vacancies does not give a legal right to a selected candidate. Similarly, the claim of some of the candidates selected for appointment, who were petitioners in Jatendra Kumar v. State of Punjab, was turned down holding that it was open to the government to decide how many appointments would be made. The plea of arbitrariness was rejected in view of the facts of the case and it was held that the candidates did not acquire any right merely by applying for selection or even after selection. It is true that the claim of the petitioner in the case of Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana, was allowed by this Court but, not on the ground that she had acquired any right by her selection and existence of vacancies. The fact was that the matter had been referred to the Public Service Commission which sent to the government only the names of 17 candidates belonging to the general category on the assumption that only 17 posts were to be filled up. The government accordingly made only 17 appointments and stated before the court that they were unable to select and appoint more candidates as the Commission had not recommended any other candidate. In this background it was observed that it is, of course, open to the government not to fill up all the vacancies for a valid reason, but the selection cannot be arbitrarily restricted to a few candidates notwithstanding the number of vacancies and the availability of qualified candidates; and, there must be a conscious application of mind by the government and the High Court before the number of persons selected for appointment is restricted. The fact that it was not for the Public Service Commission to 53 take a decision in this regard was emphasised in this judgment. None of these decisions, therefore, supports the appellant.
In the above case, the main grievance of the petitioner (who got appointed to Delhi, Andaman and Nicobar Police Service) is that he was not appointed in the vacancies that arose due to the non-joining of IPS selected candidates. Even though the said fallout vacancies were filled by candidates from the reserved categories, the petitioner, who belongs to the general category, was not appointed in the said vacancy. Hence, this appeal (referred by Division Bench). The petitioner's contention is that non-appointing him to the said vacancies in the IPS cadre and carrying them forward to the next Notification is arbitrary and a violation of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India.
In the case at hand, the respondents, although reserving 2% vacancies for meritorious sportspersons, are filling up the said vacancies based on the classification in Annexure-III (Forms). In the event of meritorious sportspersons are not available, the reserved vacancies shall be allotted to the general category. The petitioners are questioning the non-allotment of reserved vacancies, despite having the requisite sports certificates as per the G.Os and Notifications. However, the 54 petitioners were disqualified by the Forms. After disqualification, the said vacancies are allotted to general category for want of meritorious sportspersons, which is bad in law. Moreover, it is pertinent to mention that throughout the recruitment process, there is no other sportsperson other than the petitioner, even though the authorities rejected the case of the petitioners under the guise of the requisite Forms.
66. Learned Special Government Pleader, on behalf of learned Additional Advocate General, has relied upon the following judgments:
1. State of M.P. and others Vs. Nandlal Jaiswal and others 8 "23. We may first consider the question of laches or delay in filing the writ petitions because that is the question which has been decided by the High Court against the petitioners and the petitioners have challenged the correctness of the finding reached by the High Court on this point. The policy decision impugned in the writ petitions was taken on December 30, 1984. The Letter of Intent was issued in favour of each of respondents 5 to 11 on February 1, 1985 and the Deed of Agreement was executed on February 2, 1985. Each of respondents 5 to 11 thereafter proceeded to purchase land where the new distilleries were to be located and incurred large expenditure in purchase of such land and security deposit in a fairly large amount was also paid 8 (1986) 4 SCC 566 55 by each of respondents 5 to 11. Thereafter civil construction work for putting up the distillery buildings was entrusted to reputed builders and various steps were taken by each of respondents 5 to 11 for obtaining requisite permission/con-
sent from Madhya Pradesh Pradushan Nivaran Mandal. The construction of the distillery buildings was started and in many cases considerable progress was made in the construction. Each of respondents 5 to 11 also placed orders for plant and machinery and this too involved considerable amount of expenditure. All this had to be done with quick dispatch because the distilleries were required to be ready for production by April 1, 1986. Each of respondents 5 to 11 worked indefatigably, ceaselessly and in all earnestness and spent considerable time, energy and resources in setting up the distilleries at the new sites and by the time the writ petitions came to be filed each of respondents 5 to 11 had spent at least Rs.1.5 crores if not more, on acquisition of land, purchase of plant and machinery, construction of distillery buildings and other incidental and ancillary expenses. The first writ petition was filed by Nandlal Jaiswal on November 28, 1985 about 11 months after the date of the impugned policy decision, while the second writ petition came to be filed by Sagar Agarwal even later on January 24, 1986 and the third writ petition of M/s Doongaji & Co. was filed when the bearing of the first two writ petitions was actually going on in the High Court. There can be doubt that the petitioners were guilty of gross delay in filing the writ petitions with the result that by the time the writ petitions came to be filed, respondents 5 to 11 had, pursuant to the policy decision dated December 30, 1984, altered their position by 56 incurring huge expenditure towards setting up the distilleries.
24. Now, it is well settled that the power of the High Court to issue an appropriate writ under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary and the High Court in the exercise of its discretion does not ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent or the acquiescent and the lethargic. If there is inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in filing a writ petition and such delay is not satisfactorily explained, the High Court may decline to intervene and grant relief in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction. The evolution of this rule of laches or delay is premised upon a number of factors. The High Court does not ordinarily permit a belated resort to the extraordinary remedy under the writ jurisdiction because it is likely to cause confusion and public inconvenience and bring in its train new injustices. The rights of third parties may intervene and if the writ jurisdiction is exercised on a writ petition filed after unreasonable delay, it may have the effect of inflicting not only hardship and inconvenience but also injustice on third parties. When the writ jurisdiction of the High Court is invoked, unexplained delay coupled with the creation of third party rights in the meanwhile is an important factor which always weighs with the High Court in deciding whether or not to exercise such jurisdiction. We do not think it necessary to burden this judgment with reference to various decisions of this Court where it has been emphasised time and again that where there is inordinate and unexplained delay and third party rights are created in the intervening period, the High Court would decline to interfere, even if the State action complained of is unconstitutional or illegal. We may only mention in the 57 passing two decisions of this Court one in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India' and the other in Ashok Kumar Misdira v. Collector. We may point out that in R. D. Shetty's case, even though the State action was held to be unconstitutional as being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, this Court refused to grant relief to the petitioner on the ground that the writ petition had been filed by the petitioner more than five months after the acceptance of the tender of the fourth respondent and during that period, the fourth respondent had incurred considerable expenditure, aggregating to about Rs.1.25 lakhs, in making arrangements for putting up the restaurant and the snack bar. Of course, this rule of laches or delay is not a rigid rule which can be cast in a strait- jacket formula, for there may be cases where despite delay and creation of third party rights the High Court may still in the exercise of its discretion interfere and grant relief to the petitioner. But, such cases where the demand of justice is so compelling that the High Court would be inclined to interfere in spite of delay or creation of third party rights would by their very nature be few and far between. Ultimately it would be a matter within the discretion of the court; ex hypothesis every discretion must be exercised fairly and justly so as to promote justice and not to defeat it.
2. M. Srinivas and others Vs. State of Telangana and others 9 "26. A conjoint reading of the above order of the Writ Court and one which is passed in Writ Appeal, which are relating to same Group-I selection, which is subject matter in the 9 W.P.Nos.26038 of 2024 and batch, dt. 26.12.2024 of D.B. 58 instant batch shows that the Court declined to entertain the petition on the ground of delay in approaching the Court. It was poignantly held that the delay on the part of the petitioners may be of only six months, but in matter of this nature, day-to-day delay matters and the petitioners failed to explain even a single reason to explain the delay in approaching this Court. It is noteworthy that Sri J. Sudheer, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.32482 of 2024 urged that G.O.Ms.No.29, dated 08.02.2024, was not uploaded till 16.08.2024. Thus, this fact satisfies the aspect of delay in filing the petitions....
28. The date of filing of petitions in previous round before the Single Bench i.e., W.P.Nos.21239 and 22320 of 2024 is 02.08.2024 and 13.08.2024 respectively, whereas the present batch of petitions were filed much after that. The challenge to same selection process in the previous round failed on the ground of delay. Since the petitions filed prior in time in the previous round were not entertained on the ground of delay, it is not possible for us to persuade ourselves that subsequent round of litigation i.e., the present batch can be entertained by ignoring much larger delay. More-so, when the order passed in W.P.No.21239 of 2024 got stamp of approval by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal and the SLP before the Supreme Court was also dismissed. The delay is fatal for the present petitions as well. We are not satisfied with the explanation of the delay given in one case as discussed above.
33. At the cost of repetition, it cannot be forgotten that the selection questioned in these matters is same selection which became subject matter of challenge in the previous round i.e., W.P.No.21239 of 2024. If lesser delay in filing 59 previous round of litigation was held to be fatal, it is not possible to hold that a much larger delay in filing the present batch of petitions will fade into insignificance. The other contentions raised in the written submissions are relating to merits of the matter which cannot be gone into in view of delay in filing this batch of Writ Petitions." The learned Special Government Pleader referred the above two case laws on behalf of the Advocate General. The main contention of the Government on behalf of the 3rd respondent is that there is a delay of six months in filing the writ petitions, and on the ground of delay itself, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.
The first case i.e. State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Nandalal Jaiswal and others; it was filed by the Nandalal Jaiswal on November 28, 1985, about 11 months after the date of the impugned policy decision.
In the 2nd case, the order was passed by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court, and with regard to the delay, it is observed that "after a lapse of six months from the date of cancellation of old Notification, questioning the New recruitment, Notification i.e. 2/2024 as per G.O.Ms.No.29 was issued."
60
In the case at hand, there is no cancellation of the Notification. After issuing the Notification, a Web Note was subsequently issued with regard to the sports quota related to Form-I, which is eligible for Group-I services. Moreover, the present case is filed during the selection process. However, the issue involved in the said case is the policy decision and implementation of a 2% sports quota. The cases relied on by the State are not particularly relevant to the present case and also the above two case laws also cannot be considered on the grounds of legal sustainability.
Regarding the delay and latches, the case at hand cannot be dismissed. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. Moreover, once the petitioners' claim is genuine and they are seeking relief as a sportsperson, their right is legal. With regard to delay and latches, this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tukaram Kana Joshi and others Vs. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation and others, 2013 (1) SCC 353, which was decided on November 2, 2012. In the said case, the petitioner 61 approached the Court after a lapse of 24 years. In the said case, Apex Court observed as follows:
"12: The State, especially a Welfare State which is governed by the Rule of Law, cannot arrogate itself to a status beyond one that is provided by the Constitution. Our Constitution is an organic and flexible one. Delay and latches is adopted as a mode of discretion to decline exercise of jurisdiction to grant relief. There is another facet. The Court is required to exercise judicial discretion. The said discretion is dependent on facts and circumstances of the cases. Delay and latches is one of the facets to deny the exercise of discretion. It is not an absolute impediment. There can be mitigating factors, continuity of cause of action etc., that apart, if the whole thing shocks the judicial conscience, then the Court should exercise the discretion more so, when no third party interest is involved. Thus analysed, the petition is not hit by the delay and latches as the same is not constitutional limitation, the cause of action is continuous and further the situation certainly shocks judicial conscience.
13. The question of condonation of delay is one of the discretions and has to be decided on the basis of the facts of the case at hand, as the same vary from case to case. It will depend upon what the breach of fundamental right and the remedy claimed or and when, and how the delay arose. It is not that there is any period of limitation for the Courts to exercise their power under Art. 226, nor is it that there can never be a case where the Courts cannot interfere in a matter, after the passage of certain length of time. There may be a case where the demand for justice is so 62 compelling, that the High Court would be inclined to interfere in spite of delay. Ultimately, it would be a matter within the discretion of the Court and such discretion, must be exercised fairly and justly so as to promote justice and not to defeat it. The validity of the party's defence must be tried upon principles substantially equitable.
14. No hard-and-fast rule can be laid down as to when the High Court should refuse to exercise its jurisdiction in favour of a party who moves it after considerable delay and is otherwise guilty of latches. Discretion must be exercised judiciously and reasonably. In the event that the claim made by the applicant is legally sustainable, delay should be condoned. In other words where circumstances justifying the conduct exist, the illegality which is manifest, cannot be sustained on the sole ground of latches. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side, cannot claim to have a vested right in the injustice being done, because of a non-deliberate delay. The Court should not harm innocent parties if their rights have in fact emerged by delay on the part of the petitioners.
Under the aforementioned circumstances, the respondent authorities contention is denied.
67. Sri P.S. Rajasekhar, learned Standing Counsel for TGPSC, has relied upon the following judgments:
1. Ramesh Kumar Choudhary Vs. State of Rajasthan 10 10 2012 SCC OnLine Raj 2824 63 "The petitioner offered his candidature in the recruitment aforesaid in "Backward Class" category; and also claimed his entitlement to be considered in other category as "Outstanding Sportsman" with reference to a certificate said to have been issued by Sanskrit Education Department of the Government of Rajasthan to the effect that he had participated in the State level tournament of Sanskrit Colleges in Kabaddi and was part of the first ranking team.
In the result of the written examination taken by the petitioner for the recruitment in question, he was assigned merit number 508. However, his claim for consideration in the vacancies reserved for "Outstanding Sportspersons"
category was declined by the respondents on the ground that the documents submitted by him were not certifying him to be an Outstanding Sportsperson at international level. The petitioner made a representation and having failed to get the claimed relief, has filed this writ petition seeking to challenge the validity of the Explanation to Rule 10 the Rules of 1998.
For the questions sought to be raised, appropriate it shall be to take note of the provisions contained in Rule 10 of the Rules of 1998 as under:-
"Rule 10: Reservation of vacancies for Outstanding Sportspersons:-- Reservation of vacancies for Outstanding Sportspersons shall be 2% of the total vacancies outside the purview of the Commission in that year earmarked for direct recruitment. In the event of non- availability, of the eligible and suitable Sportspersons in a particular year, the vacancies so reserved for them shall be filled in accordance with the normal procedure and such vacancies shall not be carried forward to the subsequent 64 year. The reservation for Sportspersons shall be treated as horizontal reservation and it shall be adjusted in the respective category to which the Sportspersons belong.
Explanation - "Outstanding Sportspersons" shall mean and include the Sportspersons belonging to the State who have participated individually or in team, in the Games recognized by the International. Olympic Committee and Indian Olympic Association or, in International championships in Badminton, Tennis, Chess and Cricket recognized by their respective National Level Association, Federation or Board; with the following descriptions for each class of the Civil Services:--
Class of Service Description Subordinate Service Has represented India in Asian Games, Asian Championships, Common Wealth Games, World Championships, World University Games, World School, SAARC Games or Olympic Games where he (in an individual item) or his team (in a team event) has obtained Ist IInd or III position.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the very purpose of Rule 10 Ibid. stands frustrated by way of the Explanation where the meaning of "Outstanding Sportspersons" has been restricted only to the persons securing 1, 2 or 3 position in international competitions. It is submitted that from the practical standpoint, the benefit of intended reservation cannot be derived because of the Explanation aforesaid; and for this reason, no candidate got selected in this category in the recruitment in question. It is submitted that the object of providing reservation to the sportspersons in the 65 employment is to encourage the sports activities and to uplift the sportspersons but the Rule as framed, particularly the Explanation thereof, run counter to such avowed object. It is also submitted that the Rule is essentially a part of the welfare legislation and the category envisaged therein ought to be given wide meaning because the Legislature never intended that the provision be framed in such a manner that its operation and applicability would be rather impossible. The learned counsel has referred to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raheja Universal Ltd. v. NRC Ltd.: (2012) 4 SCC 148 (paragraphs 50 and 64) and in S.K. Gupta v. K.P. Jain: AIR 1979 SC 734 (paragraph
25); and to the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Darbari Lal v. Smt. Dharam Wati: AIR 1957 Allahabad 541 (paragraph 30).
A look at the scheme of the Rules of 1998 as a whole makes it clear that part-III thereof provides for the methods of recruitment to the posts of the services, i.e. Rajasthan Rural Development and Panchayati Raj State Services and the Rajasthan Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Subordinate Services. General provisions in relation to the recruitment in Part III, of course, provide for reservation of vacancies for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (per Rule 7); and for Backward Classes, Special Backward Classes and Economically Backward Classes (per Rule 8). Further, horizontal reservation is provided in relation to the Woman candidates in Rule 9 and for Ex-servicemen in Rule 10-A. In the company of these Rules is the questioned Rule 10 ibid. that provides for horizontal reservation of 2% vacancies for Outstanding Sportspersons (as quoted herein before).
66The fundamentals of the law, per Article 16 of the Constitution of India, envisage equality of opportunity in the matters of public employment. Of course, exceptions are provided to the extent of permissible classification and for reservation for specific class of persons; and, as already noticed, the Rules of 1998 have otherwise provided for reservation of vacancies for various classes of persons with reference to the social welfare requirements. So far as the sports activities are concerned, may be that the legislature has thought it fit to make a provision so as to serve both the purposes of providing job opportunities to the outstanding sportspersons and at the same time, to motivate the sportspersons to excel in their respective arena and to bring laurels to the country but, for its very nature, no such intention could be perceived in this rule as if to create another class of persons for reservation only in the name of sports activities.
We need not dilate much on the philosophy behind the Rule in question but this much is clear that only some sportspersons with outstanding achievements are intended to be given the benefit and hence, the reservation itself has been provided only for Outstanding Sportspersons. As to what level of standing or achievement in the arena of sports be treated as 'outstanding' was definitely for the Legislature to provide. Broadly speaking, the explanation to the Rule puts such persons in outstanding category who have obtained some rank in the recognized international competitions. We find nothing of fault or infirmity in such a proposition.
We have also examined the submissions as made on behalf of the petitioners as regards the principles to be applied for 67 interpretation of expression "Outstanding" as occurring in Rule 10 ibid.; and find the submissions meritless. If we look at the normal and basic meaning of the adjective "Outstanding" in the dictionaries, we find that as per Chambers English Dictionary, the assignable meaning of adjective "Outstanding" in the present context is "prominent:
excellent, superior". As per Webster's Dictionary, it signifies something "standing out from a group: conspicuous, prominent." As per Oxford Dictionary, it is: "Noteworthy, remarkable; exceptional". Thus, the expression "Outstanding" by itself well qualifies any particular person or thing as being prominent much away, apart and above the ordinary class; and, for any person to stand in the category of "Outstanding" in relation to any field of activity, he is required to be exceptional and should stand superior to the other persons in the same field. It is but obvious that an "Outstanding Sportsperson" has to be something over and above a mere sportsperson; and for that matter, ought to be over and above even a good or very good Sportsperson.
A look at the Explanation to Rule 10 ibid. makes it clear that the phraseology employed therein is specifically of the nature as to leave nothing to doubt or guess as to what is intended by "Outstanding Sportspersons" where the meaning has been assigned with the phrase "shall mean and include". Thus, even while applying the principles in cited decisions, it cannot be taken that the phrase has been defined in the manner as to enlarge the meaning of phrase "Outstanding Sportspersons with the employment of the expression "means". It being not a deeming definition or of stating examples, the meaning as given therein brings 68 about more of certainty and specification, leaving no room for doubt or any other interpretation. It is clear that the definition is clear and specific and no other meaning is to be assigned to the words or expressions defined, then as put down in the Explanation itself.
If the expression "Outstanding" is to be interpreted to a particular level which the petitioner would suggest, like that of any rank in the States or National level tournament, the scope of the rule would be unnecessarily enlarged and that too at conflict with the fundamentals of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. This particular rule is not meant for providing reservation to any person for merely being a sportsperson or for merely having participated in some tournament at some level. The idea has been to provide limited reservation, only to the outstanding sportsperson at international level; and in case of non-availability of such a candidate, to fill up the vacancies by the other regular categories."
In the above mentioned case, the entire case was discussed in relation to "outstanding sportsmen." However, in the case at hand, the issue concerns "meritorious sportspersons." There is a difference between "outstanding sportspersons" and the "meritorious sportspersons."
According to the Chambers dictionary "outstanding" means, excellent, superior or remarkable. "Meritorious" means formal deserving reward or praise having merit. The TGPSC relied on the case about the outstanding observations as follows:69
If the expression "Outstanding" is to be interpreted to a particular level which the petitioner would suggest, like that of any rank in the States or National level tournament, the scope of the rule would be unnecessarily enlarged and that too at conflict with the fundamentals of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. This particular rule is not meant for providing reservation to any person for merely being a sportsperson or for merely having participated in some tournament at some level. The idea has been to provide limited reservation, only to the outstanding sportsperson at international level; and in case of non-availability of such a candidate, to fill up the vacancies by the other regular categories."
Regarding the paragraph mentioned above, the particular State reservation is intended only for outstanding sportspersons. For this, no need to produce any Forms because to prove the grading of outstanding, Forms are not required. Whereas in the case on hand, vacancies will be filled up by the "Meritorious sportspersons" following the Annexure-I i.e. recognized list of games and Annexure-II recognized priority list. In such circumstances, an outstanding sportspersons is altogether different. Accordingly, the contention of the TGPSC cannot be sustained.
68. In the following case, it was decided with regard to the implementation of 2% sports quota as well as the policy.70
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dev Gupta vs. PEC University of Technology & others 11; held as follows:
"1. Special leave granted. This appeal challenges an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No.14594 of 2023, dated 14.07.2023. The High Court rejected the appellant's Writ Petition which had questioned the imposition of minimum 75% aggregate marks as an eligibility condition (in the qualifying examination) for enabling a candidate to claim admission in engineering courses under the 2% sports quota.
11. ....Para 2 of the policy stated that the benefit of this sports category would be available to those who "pass their qualifying examination from schools/colleges recognised by the Chandigarh administration and those who studied in Chandigarh schools or colleges for at least two years before applying for graduation certificates". The policy further stipulated that merit of the certificates, i.e, sports certificates would be graded appropriately as A, B, C and D, and in descending order. Grade A contains sports persons of international standing, who represented the country or who donned the India colour in Olympic Games, World Cups, tournaments and championships organised by international federations at the highest levels, and Commonwealth Games. Grade B comprised of sports persons, who participated in World University/international tournaments and games other than those in Grade A in which at least 10 teams participated, including Asian Federation Cup: Schools Games or obtained first three positions in recognised National Championships, International championships, State Federations, All India 11 2023 INSC 695 71 Combined Universities team etc. Grade C listed participation in senior nationals/inter-University tournaments/federation cup: Junior National Federation i.e. National School Games, KVS teams participating in the national school games; first three positions in recognised Chandigarh schools game (provided at least 7 teams participated) and several such other sports competitions and events. Grade D listed participation in senior national championship/national games participation in recognised junior championship; participation in national school games etc...
15. This court, in Ashutosh Gupta v. State of Rajasthan explained how the reasonable classification is to be applied:
"6. The concept of equality before law does not involve the idea of absolute equality amongst all, which may be a physical impossibility. All that Article 14 guarantees is the similarity of treatment and not identical treatment. The protection of equal laws does not mean that all laws must be uniform. Equality before the law means that among equals the law should be equal and should be equally administered and that the likes should be treated alike. Equality before the law does not mean that things which are different shall be treated as though they were the same. It is true that Article 14 enjoins that the people similarly situated should be treated similarly but what amount of dissimilarity would make the people disentitled to be treated equally, is rather a vexed question. A legislature, which has to deal with diverse problems arising out of an infinite variety of human relations must of necessity, have the power of making special laws, to attain particular objects; and for that purpose it must have large powers of selection or classification of persons and things upon which 72 such lows are to operate. Mere differentiation or inequality of treatment does not "per se" amount to discrimination within the inhibition of the equal protection clause. The State has always the power to make classification on a basis of rational distinctions relevant to the particular subject to be dealt with. In order to pass the test of permissible classification, two conditions must be fulfilled namely (i) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others who are left out of the group, and (ii) that that differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the Act. What is necessary is that there must be a nexus between the basis of classification and the object of the Act. When a law is challenged as violative of Article 14, it is necessary in the first place to ascertain the policy underlying the statute and the object intended to be achieved by it Having ascertained the policy and the object of the Act, the court has to apply a dual test in examining the validity, the test being, whether the classification is rational and based upon an intelligible differentia which distinguished persons or things that are grouped together from others that are left out of the group, and whether the basis of differentiation has any rational nexus or relation with its avowed policy and objects. In order that a law may be struck down under this article, the inequality must arise under the same piece of legislation or under the same set of laws which have to be treated together as one enactment. Inequality resulting from two different enactments made by two different authorities in relation to the same subject will not be liable to attack under Article 14"73
It has also been held, in State of J&K v. Triloki Nath Khosa' that "the object to be achieved" should not be "a mere pretence for an indiscriminate imposition of inequalities and the classification" should not be "characterized as arbitrary or absurd". The judgment in Venkateshwara Theatre v. State of A.P, is a decision where this court pointed out, to how discrimination arises, if persons who are un-equals are treated as equals, thus:
"Just as a difference in the treatment of persons similarly situate leads to discrimination, so also discrimination can arise if persons who are unequals, i.e. differently placed, are treated similarly.... A law providing for equal treatment of unequal objects, transactions or persons would be condemned as discriminatory if there is absence of rational relation to the object intended to be achieved by the law."
17. In Subramanian Swamy v Central Bureau of Investigation, this court frowned upon, and declared void, a classification based on status in public employment, characterizing that it defeats the purpose of the underlying law, i.e. combating corruption:
"59. It seems to us that classification which is made in Section 6-A on the basis of status in government service is not permissible under Article 14 as it defeats the purpose of finding prima facie truth into the allegations of graft, which amount to an offence under the PC Act 1988. Can there be sound differentiation between corrupt public servants based on their status? Surely not, because irrespective of their status or position, corrupt public servants are corrupters of public power. The corrupt public servants, whether high or how are birds of the same feather and must be confronted with the process of investigation and inquiry equally.74
Based on the position or status in service, no distinction can be made between public servants against whom there are allegations amounting to an offence under the PC Act, 1988.
On an objective application of the principles outlined above, this court is of the considered opinion that the objective of introducing the sports quota i.e. 2% of intake, was to promote and encourage those who excelled and gained a certain degree of prescribed proficiency and achievement in defined competitive sports. The introduction of this quota was to promote sports, and sportsmanship in educational institutions. No doubt, the state acts within its rights to prescribe a certain minimum eligibility standard or set of criteria as the threshold requirement for admission to any particular course, given its peculiar requirements. The Punjab and Haryana High Court, thus, upheld the prescription of a cut off eligibility standard of securing minimum 15% in the qualifying examination, in Jagatpreet Kaur And Ors. vs Punjab University":
"The petitioner has himself stated that the prospectus for Punjab Engineering College had specifically provided that there would a minimum cut off aggregate of 15 marks. The respondents-University have only introduced the criteria which ensures the bare minimum of academic excellence which would be required of a student who is ultimately to become an Engineer. In Amardeep Singh Sahota's case (supra) the Full Bench has categorically held that these are students who will ultimately serve humanity. Excellence in Sports may be a relevant consideration, but a certain minimum academic standard is required to be maintained."
The objective of introducing sports quota, however, is not to accommodate academic merit, but something altogether 75 different: promotion of sports in the institution, the university, and ultimately, in the country. Among others, universities are the nurseries or the catchment for sportspersons, who can represent in state, national, international level and Olympic sports. At the same time, the state or educational institution can insist upon a minimum eligibility condition. That is not to say that such condition would necessarily and mandatorily have to be what is applicable to general (or open category) candidates. The latter kind of criteria would tend to exclude meritorious sportspersons, and place the less (academically) meritorious sportspersons, at a disadvantageous position, because they satisfy the open category candidates' criterion of higher academic merit. For instance, it is quite possible that a sportsperson, who has and continues to represent the country in international Olympic sports, and gained such excellence as to have bagged a medal or two, in say, wrestling, would be altogether excluded in the eventuality of a wrestler, of the same category (but who has never reached the national level) securing 80% marks in the qualifying examination. It exactly this consequence which this court had warned would be the "unequal application" of a uniform criteria, a wooden equality without regard to the inherent differences, which Article 14 frowns upon, and forbids.
18. The conclusion drawn by the court is also supported by the fact that the sports policy of 2023 governing admissions, was evolved with a careful eye to detail, to ensure that performance in sport, rather than academic merit, was the chosen criterion to be applied for filling the 2% sports quota. Another reason which leads this court to conclude that discrimination has resulted, is because in 76 respect of sports too, the state has lowered the criterion for those enjoying vertical classification, under Article 15 (4). In such event, it was open to the state to lower the eligibility criterion, for sports quota, to other candidates too; the dissimilarity in treatment is therefore, egregious.... Lastly, the sports policy, itself underlines that the quota would be available to students who "pass their qualifying examination from schools/colleges recognised by the Chandigarh administration" or had studied in Chandigarh for two preceding years. Requiring all candidates to possess a fulfill a certain eligibility standard- such as the one, prescribed in the sports policy, of 2023 (alluded to) or the qualifying marks prescribed by the concerned Board, or university, to pass in the concerned subjects is entirely different from the prescription of a uniform standard, far higher than the such a minimum threshold. The imposition of the minimum 75% eligibility condition, therefore, does not subserve the object of introducing the sports quota, but is, rather destructive of it; the criterion, in that sense subverted the object and is discriminatory; it therefore, falls afoul of the equality clause, in Article 14 of the Constitution.
19. For the above reasons, it is held that exclusion of the petitioner and other like candidates, on the ground of their securing less than 75% in the qualifying examination, was unwarranted and discriminatory.... These candidates however should have qualified in terms of the immediately preceding academic year's criterion, applicable for the balance sports quota seat(s). At the same time, candidates who have been selected and given admission are concerned, shall not be disturbed. The process of filling the remaining vacant seat(s) - in the sports quota shall be completed within two weeks. Nothing said in this judgment 77 shall result in invalidation of admission of candidates in other (non-sports) categories."
In the above case law, for implementation of sports quota respondents imposed minimum of 75% aggregate marks in class XII (or equivalent) Board Examination as the eligibility condition for enabling the candidates to claim admission in Engineering course under 2% Sports Quota. This Hon'ble Court observed that such imposition of 75% aggregate marks is nothing but discrimination in the implementation of the Sports Quota and it is unwarranted and discriminatory.
In the case at hand also, for implementation of Sports Quota imposition of only Form-I candidates are eligible for Group-I services is nothing but discrimination in the implementation of the Sports Quota.
69. To adjudicate the sports policy and implementation of the 2% reservation for the benefit of the fair analysis of sports quota the following rules and regulations are incorporated as under:
Notification No.2/2024 dated 19.02.2024 in point No.4.7 reads as follows:
"The reservation to Meritorious Sportsperson is applicable as per the amendments made to the State and Subordinate Service Rules, as per G.O.Ms.No.107, General 78 Administration (Ser.D) Dept., Dt.27-07-2018 that is in Rule- 2, for sub-Rule (20) and in Rule-22(i) in sub-Rule (2), for Class-D. In implementing the reservation to Meritorious Sports Person, G.O.Ms.No.05 YAT&C (Sports) Department, Dt.14/05/2018 will be followed.
In the event of non-availability of eligible Meritorious Sports persons, two percent (2%) reservation of posts for them stand lapsed."
G.O.Ms.No.74, dated 09.08.2012, issued by Youth Advancement, Tourism and Culture (Sports) Department reads as follows:
2. The Government in consonance with the said sports policy hereby direct that the recruitments at all levels will have a sports quota reservation of two percent (2%) for meritorious sportspersons in all posts of State Government Departments, Educational Institutions, Local Bodies, Corporations, Boards, Authorities, Grandhalaya Samsthas, Market Committees and other establishments which are funded or aided by the State Government where direct recruitment is one of the methods of appointment, hereinafter. The following NOTIFICATION will be published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette:-
In pursuance of the Sports Policy declared in G.O.Ms.No.84, Youth Advancement Tourism and Culture (Sports) Department, dated: 04-05-2000, wherein orders were issued extending two percent (2%) Sports reservation in future direct recruitment in Government at all levels, the following guidelines are issued for governing such appointments:79
(i) The reservation for recruitment under sports quota shall apply to all the Government. undertakings/grant-in-
aid Institutions and other Government Institutions.
(ii) The performance of the individual in having obtained Medals/participation in disciplines for deciding a meritorious sportsperson, against two percent (2%) sports quota as mentioned in Annexure-II to this order, shall be the criterion, keeping in view the participation in recognized sports disciplines as per Annexure-I to this order, or as may be revised by the Government from time to time.
(xii) The appointing authorities shall call for applications by publishing in leading news papers in English/Telugu/Urdu languages from meritorious sportspersons along with the certificates in Form-I, Form-II, Form-III and Form-IV as the case may be, vide Annexure III enclosed to this notification and shall submit the same to the Sports Authority of Andhra Pradesh. After scrutiny by the Sports Authority of Andhra Pradesh, like genuineness of the certificates, verifying medals/ranks etc., the applications will be forwarded to a Committee at Government level in Youth Advancement, Tourism and Culture (Sports) Department and the said Committee shall finalise the proposals. The said Committee shall issue eligibility certificate for appointment under Sports quota.
(xiii) The recommendation of the Committee for issuing eligibility certificate shall be final. The Committee shall consist of the following members:-
(2) Prl. Secy.,/Secy., Youth Services & Sports - Chairman / Chairperson (2) Prl. Secy.,/ Secy, Home Department - Member 80 (3) Prl. Secy.,/Secy General Administration (Services) Department - Member (4) Vice Chairman & Managing Director, Sports Authority of Andhra Pradesh - Convenor ...
(xiv) The eligibility certificate issued by the Committee shall be forwarded to the Recruiting/Agency Appointing Authority for appointment under sports quota in various categories of posts in different Departments on the basis of Merit-Cum-
Sports Eligibility Certificate against the notifications issued by them.
(xvii) In the existing 100 roster points as per rule 22(2)(e) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, 48th and 98th point may be earmarked for reservation under Sports Quota.
70. Annexure to G.O.Ms.No.74, Youth Advancement, Tourism and Culture (Sports Department, dated 09.08.2012). In Annexure-I (List of recognized Sports disciplines for 2% (two percent) reservation in direct recruitment in Govt. Department / Govt. Institutions. In the said Annexure-I there are 29 recognized sports disciplines are there (1. Football, 2. Hockey,
3. Volleyball to item No.29 Body building (Uniform services like police, excise etc.,).
71. Annexure to G.O.Ms.No.74, Youth Advancement, Tourism and Culture (Sports Department, dated 09.08.2012). In 81 Annexure-II priorities of sports and games for recruitment of 2% (two percent) reservation under sports quota such as (1. Gold Medal in Olympic Games, 2. Silver medal in Olympic games, 3. Bronze medal in Olympic Games to 90 participation in the State / Inter District Championship for school games U - 19, U-17, CBSE, ICSE and Rural sports.) are there. Along with this G.O.Ms.No.74, Annexure-III contains the following:
Form-I - (for representing India in an International competition / Multinational competition in one of the recognized games / sports).
In the bottom of the Form-I there is a note as follows:
"This certificate will be valid only when signed personally by the Secretary, National Federation, National Association."
Form-II: For representing a State in India in a National competition in one of the recognized games / sports.
In the bottom of the Form-II there is a note as follows:
"This certificate will be valid only when signed personally by the Secretary of the State Association.
Form-III: For representing a University from A.P. State in Inter University competition at National level / Zonal level / Regional level in one of the recognized games / sports.82
In the bottom of the Form-III there is a note as follows:
"This certificate will be valid only when signed personally by Dean / Director or other Officer in overall charge of sports in the concerned University."
Form-IV: For representing a State School Team in the National games for school children in one of the recognized games / sports / representation at regional and State level.
In the bottom of the Form-IV there is a note as follows:
"This certificate will be valid only when signed personally by the District Educational Officer or overall in-charge of sports / games for school in the concerned District / or District Sports Development Officer, District Sports Authority."
72. This Court is of the view that the above Forms can serve no other purpose than to prove the genuineness of the sportsperson. Several sports academies issue sports certificates which are not recognized by the competent authorities. At that juncture, to maintain fairness, legality and the proper use of 2% quota, these Forms were established.
In the State of united Andhra Pradesh several examples are there; where private agencies conducted sports competitions and issued International / National Certificates to 83 the candidates. The same certificates were used for getting seats in Engineering and MBBS courses.
To curb this type of illegalities in the sports / games quota, getting certificate is not only the criteria but also, along with the certificate, they have to get proper authentication by the competent authorities by way of Form-I to Form-IV and produce before the competent authorities. In the said circumstances, only the culture of Form-I to Form-IV is implemented. That is the reason why there is no mention of Form-I to Form-IV anywhere in the Rules. They mentioned "meritorious sportspersons" only. In implementation of 2% Sports Quota, they have to depend upon only Annexure-I & II, which is recognized games and recognized priority list.
73. To implement the 2% sports quota, every authority has to follow Annexure-I and Annexure-II. At the time of filling out the sports quota, they must verify whether the sports certificate is genuine or not, with the Form-I to Form-IV which is recognized by competent authority.
On the contrary, respondents' counsel, while arguing the matter, stated that Group-I posts would not be allotted to the lower meritorious candidate. Where there is no such rule. 84 Such an interpretation would go against the spirit of sports policy of the government. For Example:- The majority of the competitive examinations, require a Degree as the minimum qualification for any post. For the said post, the authorities must verify whether the candidates possess the minimum qualification to appear for the examination. Instead of that, the Government authorities in the State of Telangana, along with that minimum qualification, they are discriminating among the sports / games personalities. It means, for Group-I services, only Form-I sportsperson is eligible. If such is the rule, it is nothing but discrimination against the sportspersons. The sports quota is only for an additional qualification and not a primary qualification to get employment or a seat in the Educational Institutions and classification in above terms in against the spirit of the sports policy.
74. In 2% sports quota, while following the Annexure-I and II, in Annexure-II, there are 90 priorities. While filling up the vacancies under sports quota, they have to follow the priority list only. For Example:- There are four vacancies under the sports quota. While applying the priority list, the authorities ask for applications under the sports quota, along with Forms-I to IV. At the time of filling up of vacancies, all the Forms have 85 to filter in accordance with the priority list; it means there are four vacancies and out of all the Forms, only two persons have the priority one certificate along with Form-I. At that juncture, the authorities follow as per the priority list out of Forms, the second priority event. If there is only one person, then they have to search for 3rd priority within the Form-I to IV certificates. Likewise, they have to follow the priority list, if there is no person under the priority list, authorities can transfer that vacancy to the open category.
75. In the State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, Rule 20 under "Meritorious Sportspersons", they only discussed Annexure-I and II respectively. It did not discuss about Forms- I to IV because the Forms are in no way connected with the recruitment. For the purpose of genuineness to curb the fake sports certificates, this system is adopted. Moreover, Rule 22 reads as follows:
"22. Special Representation (Reservation):- (1) Reservations may be made for appointments to a service, class or category in favour of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Socially and Educationally Backward Classes, Women, Persons with Disability, "Meritorious Sportsman", Ex-Servicemen and such other categories, as may be prescribed by the Government from time to time, to the extent and in the manner specified hereinafter in these rules or as the case may be, in the special 86 rules. The principle of reservation as hereinafter provided shall apply to all appointments to a service, class or category:-
(i) by direct recruitment, except where the Government, by a general or special order made in this behalf, exempt such service, class or category.
(ii) Otherwise than by direct recruitment the principle of reservation in the matter of promotion and appointment by transfer involving promotion in so far it relates to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes only shall apply to such services, class or category whose total cadre strength of the post is more than five.
Perusal of the above rule makes it clear that there is no discussion with regard to Forms.
76. Even the G.O.Ms.No.74, also with regard to Forms, is misunderstood by the authorities. In the said G.O. clause-II observed as "deciding a meritorious sportspersons against the (2%) sports quota as mentioned in Annexure-II and to this Order shall be the criterion, keeping in view the participation in recognized sports disciplines as per Annexure-I to this order." In the said expression, there is also no discussion with regard to the Forms. And the authorities also misunderstood (xii).
"Along with certificates" in Form-I, II, III and IV are mentioned.
But, nowhere it is mentioned that Form-I is the only for Group-
I, Form-II for Group-II posts. It means that along with their sports certificate, every candidate has to submit Forms to prove 87 the genuineness of the certificates issued by the competent authorities; but not for a specific Form for a specific post.
77. Once any State authorities want to encourage the sportspersons, at the time of filling up posts under sports quota in different departments, they have to follow Annexure-I and II only. If they introduce certain posts for certain Form persons only, it causes great injustice to the sportspersons. In the counter, the authority said that "less meritorious sportsperson do not occupy higher scale posts and also to ensure that higher scale posts are occupied by more meritorious sportspersons." The tone of the authorities in the said submissions indicates misunderstanding as to the importance of the sports quota and it is nothing but entertaining discrimination.
In the said counter, G.O.Ms.No.74 in the Government Sector, the jobs are to be categorized into five groups:
Group-I Services ( Deputy Collector, DSP, Assistant Director, cadre posts etc., ) Group-II Services : (Dy. Tahsildar, EO, PR & RD etc.,) Group-III Services: (Clerical posts in the HOD offices) Group-IV services : (Clerical posts in the Districts / Subordinate offices) Last Grade Services: (Class IV posts like office subordinates etc.) 88
78. If the above system follows, again, there must be discrimination among the sportspersons. To that extent, there is no clarity in the policy. Authorities have mistakenly compared the less "meritorious sportspersons" and the more "meritorious sportspersons." In any appointments or any educational institutions, such comparison alien to GOs, rules cannot be made. The Annexure-II directly indicates the list from the top "meritorious sportsperson" to the low "meritorious sportsperson." If the authority follows the Annexure-II, justice will be done to the sports quota. Otherwise, the very purpose of giving the sports quota will be vitiated.
79. As per G.O.Ms.No.5, dated 14.05.2018, the amendment clause reads as follows:
In the said guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.74, YAT & C (Sports) Department, dated 09.08.2012 for existing clause No.(xvii) the following shall be substituted, namely.
(xvii) Provide 2% reservations to meritorious sportsperson horizontally in Direct recruitment in the existing 100 roster points as per Rule-22(2)(e) of the T.S. and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, 48th and 98th points meant for open competition shall be earmarked to reservation under Sports Quota in Direct recruitment and the said reservation shall be horizontal. Further, in the event of Non-availability of eligible sportspersons, the points reserved for them should 89 be deemed to be ceased and allotted to open competition in the same recruitment.
Even according to the above amendment nothing is there with regard to the Forms. The authorities wrongly interpreted the same that for Group-I post, only Form-I candidates are eligible. In the event of Non-availability of eligible sportspersons, the points reserved for them should be deemed to be ceased and allotted to open competition in the same recruitment, which is incorrect. But, as per the Rules and G.Os., the authorities have to follow the Annexure-I & II and after following Annexure-I & II, if candidates are not available, then the points reserved for them should be deemed to be ceased and allotted to open competition in the same recruitment. Though there is no ambiguity, the authorities have misinterpreted the G.Os. Thus, the issue has arisen. Accordingly, the contentions of the respondents in prescribing the specific form for specific post cannot be legally sustainable.
80. Some of the petitioners questioned the Annexure-II (priority list) itself stating that priority structure is not correct and the priority list mentioned under Annexure-II has not been structured in alignment with the Form categories outlined in Annexure-III. However, in order to prove their contention, no 90 documentary evidence is placed before this Court to consider the same. As such, their contention is rejected.
81. In view of the aforesaid discussion, based on the Rules and the said G.O.Ms.No.74, dated 09.08.2012, G.O.Ms.No.5, dated 14.05.2018 and G.O.Ms.No.107, dated 27.07.2018, these Writ Petitions are disposed of with the following directions:
a. The respondent authorities are hereby directed to declare the results of the petitioners whose results were withheld pursuant to the Interim Order of this Court and fill up the vacancies if they are found eligible in accordance with Annexure-I and II.
b. The respondent authorities are further directed to fill up the vacancies which were directed to be kept vacant pursuant to the Interim order of this Court, if they are found eligible strictly in accordance with Annexure-I and II.
c. If all the posts have already been filled up as on the date of this order, the appointments so made, shall not be disturbed. However, in all future Notifications, the respondent authorities shall adhere to Annexures I and II respectively while filling up the 2% sports quota. The authorities shall also ask the candidates to produce Forms (I to IV) in relation to their respective sports certificates to verify their genuineness and grading so as to ensure a fair and transparent selection process under the sports quota.91
There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_____________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J Date: 14.10.2025 LR Copy is to be marked B/o. BDR