K.G.Venkatesh, vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh,
2021 Latest Caselaw 3289 AP

                                   1




       HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU

              WRIT PETITION No.6771 of 2021

ORDER:

This writ Petition is filed seeking relief that the exclusion

of the petitioner from the meritorious sports quota for

appointment of services is violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of

the Constitution of India.

This Court has heard Sri Srinivasa Baba, learned counsel

for the petitioner and Sri N.A.Ramachandra Murthy, learned

standing counsel for the A.P.P.S.C., and the learned

Government Pleader.

Sri Srinivasa Baba submits that the petitioner applied for

a job as lecturer in Chemistry pursuant to the Notification

dated 31.12.2018 issued by the 2nd respondent. The petitioner

claims to be a meritorious sports person, who has played in

the South Zone All India Interuniversity Tournament by

representing Sri Venkateswara University. This tournament

was held between 11.11.2003 and 20.11.2003. The contention

of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no

rationale in limiting the selection of Group I and Group II posts

only to international players. Learned counsel for the

petitioner argues that the post of Chemistry Lecturer, to which

he has applied, is only one post reserved for sports quota.

Therefore, the petitioner is eligible for consideration. He points

out that in the Notification it is not mentioned that Group I

services are only reserved for international players. He also

states that the G.O., which is referred to in the Notification and

the Notification itself does not distinguish the people who

participated in the international competition, the people who

participated in the national competition, the people who

participated at the University level, national level etc. It is only

in the forms, which are annexed to the G.O., there is a

limitation given in Form-I to Group I and Group II services

under the Government. Learned counsel submits that it is a

clear case of discrimination. The Annexure-2 to the

Notification, according to the learned counsel, lists out 90

disciplines giving priority to persons (1) won a gold medal in

Olympic Games, (2) won silver medal in Olympic Games, (3)

won bronze medal in Olympic Games and so on till Item No.90.

Therefore, he submits that one eliminates the other and this

by itself is enough to select the candidate. His last submission

based upon para 8 of the writ affidavit is that the tail is wagging

the head and therefore he submits that what is prescribed in

the annexures cannot hamper the Notification. He calls it an

arbitrary exercise of power and operating against the statutory

rules. Therefore, he prays for a Writ.

In response to this the learned standing counsel for the

APPSC, who is the main answering respondent, argues that the

petitioner who applied to the post cannot question the

notification. The request for attending the oral interview is

subject to verification of all the certificates. It was found at the

time of verification that the petitioner represented in the

interuniversity games only and that he did not succeed.

Therefore, he cannot be said that the petitioner is eligible for

Group I or Group II. Relying upon the contents of the Forms

learned standing counsel argues that Form-1 is for

International Competition and Multi International

Competitions and Form-2 is meant for people who participated

and represented the State in a national competition. Learned

standing counsel argues that a person who represented the

University in Interuniversity competition is fit for employment

for Group-IV and has to submit Form 2. It is argued that the

petitioner is not a meritorious sports person, who has the

eligibility for the post of lecturer of Chemistry. Therefore, it is

submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. The

rejection by the respondent is correct as per the learned

standing counsel.

This Court in Writ Petition No.11057 of 2021 has already

passed an order holding that the tail cannot wag the head and

that what is specified in the forms cannot control the body of

the notification. The judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

of India on this issue were also cited in the said order. In the

present case also it is noticed that the notification issued

squarely clearly defines the meritorious sports person in clause

4.3. It includes the person who represented the Universities in

inter university competitions. Along with sports persons, who

represented India in national and international competitions,

participation in the interuniversity tournament, State, school

team etc., were also included in the definition of "meritorious"

sports person. Nothing else is specified.

As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel Annexure-

II to G.O.Ms.No.74 clearly states the priorities of sports and

games for recruitment of 2% quota starts with Olympic gold

medal and ends with participation in the State, inter district

championship. Therefore, one clearly excludes the other. The

sub-clause 2 (2) of the notification also states that participation

in the discipline is also important. In the Notification for the

jobs also nothing is specified as to the international, domestic

or other participation. A meritorious sports person is defined

in Clause 4.3 as hereunder:

"4.3 The meritorious 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 rational 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 specified by the Government from time to time, in terms of Rule 2 (19) of AP State and Subordinate Service Rules."

Therefore, a person who participated in the Inter

University tournament is also included. This Court is of the

opinion in view of the settled law that what is mentioned in the

fine print in a form appended to G.O.Ms.No.74 cannot be a

ground to reject the case of the petitioner. If the Notification

or the G.O. had specifically stated that Group I, II and III, IV

posts are reserved for people for specific level of participation

from Olympics, international competitions to school games

etc., the case of the respondent can be upheld. In the absence

of such criteria being fixed in the G.O. or the Notification this

Court opines that relying on a clause in form appended to the

G.O. is not correct to disentitle the petitioner.

Apart from this, this Court also does not find a

discernable reason or a clear rationale behind the classification

adopted by the respondent. It is not clear why only a person

who participated in the Olympics or in international

competition is eligible for a Group I post and a person, who

participated in other competitions in a national championship,

is not eligible. There should be a clear criteria fixed in such

cases before the sportsman is excluded. It is not clear why a

person who participated in the University level is only eligible

for Group IV appointments. In the opinion of this Court, this

criteria adopted is clearly discriminatory. There are many

meritorious sportsmen, who have participated in the inter

university and national level, who cannot participate in

international level competitions because of financial or for

other reasons. There could also be non -participation due to

situations like the cancellation of Olympic games or boycotts

of Olympic games which happened not so long ago. Depriving

a person of a job only on these grounds is not correct. It runs

contrary to the principles of clear and equal opportunities

which are enshrined in our constitution. A purposive

interpretation is necessary and for the post of a chemistry

lecturer the level of sports that the petitioner has is adequate.

The reliance on what is mentioned only in the form appended

is not correct. Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed. The

impugned order is set aside the petitioner is directed to be

considered for the post he has applied for under 2% quota

without relying on what is stated in the annexures of the

notification. There shall be no order as to costs.

Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications, if any,

pending shall stand closed.

__________________________ D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU, J

Date:01.09.2021.

Ssv