[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Dipak Asaram Pawar vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary, ... on 13 March, 2026
Author: M.S. Jawalkar
Bench: M.S. Jawalkar
2026:BHC-NAG:4318-DB
J-wp332.20 final.odt 1/22
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION No.332 OF 2020
Deepak Asaram Pawar,
Age: 25 years,
Occ: nil, R/o Ambedkar Nagar,
Chambhar Galli, Ward no. 16,
Mehkar, Dist. Buldhana. : PETITIONER
...VERSUS...
1. State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Department of School Education
and Sports, Mantralaya,
Mumbai 400032.
2. Deputy Director of Sports and
youth Services, Amravati Division,
Amravati. Divisional Sports Complex,
Morshi Road, Amravati 444 603.
3. Sant Gadgebaba Amravati University,
through It's Registrar,
Amravati. : RESPONDENTS
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Petitioner in-person.
Mr. N.R. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mr. V.V. Dahat h/f. Mr. J.B. Kasat, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
CORAM : SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR AND
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 11th FEBRUARY, 2026.
PRONOUNCED ON : 13th MARCH, 2026.
JUDGMENT :
(Per : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
with the consent of the parties.
2. The present petition initially sought quashing of
communication dated 24/10/2019 and subsequently sought
declaration that "Body Building" is a species of Gymnastics and thus
eligible for 5% reservation in Government and Semi Government
Class 'A' to 'D' posts. After due amendment, it further prays for
quashing and setting aside the Government Resolution dated
01/07/2016 issued by the respondent No.1 as also a letter dated
21/03/2023 issued by the respondent No.1 through Deputy
Secretary.
3. Facts emerging from the petition are as under :
The petitioner at the relevant time was a student and
was pursuing Master in Arts (M.A.) from Sant Gadge Baba Amravati
University. The respondent No.1 issued a Government Resolution
on 30th April 2005 whereby 5% of the posts in Class 'A' to 'D' of the
Government and Semi Government institutions were kept reserved
for players from the sports quota. In the said list, attached as an
appendix, game of "Body Building" is mentioned as eligible for
reservation. Thereafter on 18/11/2006, there was a new eligibility
criteria for appointment to group 'D' and group 'C'. On
20th September 2013 a Government Resolution was issued by the
State of Maharashtra mentioning specifically therein that those
players, who had competed and secured first, second or third
position or have been awarded gold, silver or bronze medal in inter
universities competition in individual or team sports would be
eligible for 5% reservation.
4. Thereafter, the government chose to issue another
Government Resolution on 01/07/2016 by superseding all the
earlier Government Resolutions in that regard. As per clause 2(b)
(vi), of the said G.R. there is a reference of All India Inter
Universities Sports Meet and the second column further states that
the player of State of Maharashtra while representing the
University, if he has obtained first, second or third rank or obtained
gold, silver or bronze medal would be eligible. Clause 3(Aa) further
lays down a condition that the Inter University competition should
be organized by Inter Universities Sports Board. Schedule (A) of the
said Government Resolution which is framed as per clause (2) of
the said Government Resolution spells out various games/sports
which are held to be eligible for the appointment in Group (A) and
Group (B) posts. It is worthwhile to mention that for Group (B)
posts, the eligibility is securing first, second or third rank in All
India Inter Universities Competition. However, a note below
eligibility for group (B) is the bone of contention in the present
matter. The said note states that only those games which are held in
Olympics, Asiad and Commonwealth games as also games of Chess,
Kabaddi and Kho-Kho would be included in the said eligibility. In
other words, as per the said note only those sports persons/ players,
who are playing games which are played in Olympics, Asiad and
Commonwealth games as also playing Chess, Kabaddi and Kho-Kho
would only be eligible to avail the 5% reservation. It is this
Government Resolution and more particularly the note which
specifically limits the competitions as stated above is principally
challenged in the present petition.
5. We have heard petitioner in-person, Mr. N.R. Patil,
learned Asstt. Government Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.
6. The petitioner has pointed out various grounds as
raised in the petition. He submits that the action of the State in
limiting the games only to those which are held in the said
competitions is absolutely bad-in-law and shows colourable exercise
of power. He further submits that the Government of India and
many other States since have approved 'Body Building' as sport, the
State of Maharashtra ought to have done so. He takes us through
various notifications of the Government of India as well as other
States to buttress his submission. He further submits that in the first
Government Resolution dated 30th April 2005, 31 games were
recognized as eligible for 5% Government quota, wherein
admittedly game of 'Body Building' was finding its place. It is his
submission that the intention behind the policy is to encourage
students to opt for the above games. By taking us through the said
Government Resolution, it is the submission of the petitioner that in
the year 2013 Inter Universities students securing first, second and
third position at national level were also entitled to claim benefits
of 5% reservation without making distinction between Olympic
games and other games notified in the Government Resolution
dated 30th April, 2005. He further submits that the change in
criteria as has been done by the Government Resolution dated
01/07/2016 and limiting it to games recognized in Olympic,
Commonwealth and Asian Games is not based on intelligible
differentia and has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved,
which is to compensate or encourage sport persons in the State. In
his submission, three Indian games as incorporated in the
Government Resolution dated 01/07/2016 is a special class and the
game of 'Body Building' being in the earlier list is equally placed.
Thus, in his submission there a discrimination and, therefore,
consequent violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He
submits that the classification and making special class in favor of
Chess, Kabaddi and Kho-Kho and now Mallakhamb also is without
any logic. It is, therefore, his submission that the note below
Annexure A violates fundamental rights and specifically Article 14
of the Constitution of India. He relies on a judgment of Allahabad
High Court reported in Amit Chaudhary Vs. State of U.P. and
others, 1999(4) AWC 3230.
7. Per contra, the learned Assistant Government Pleader
submits that inclusion of the games which are recognized or are
held in Olympics, Asiad and Commonwealth games is a matter of
policy and, therefore, no judicial review is permissible unless the
same is shown to be ex facie, arbitrary. He further submits that the
issue more or less stands concluded by judgment of the Full Bench
of this Court in Umesh Devaji Burande Vs. State of Maharashtra,
2022 (2) Mh.L.J. 296 wherein it was specifically held that there is
no legally enforceable right based upon the principles of promissory
estoppel and legitimate expectation in respect of the policy framed
under the Government Resolution dated 30th April, 2005 since its
supersession by the Government Resolution dated 01/07/2016 is in
larger public interest.
8. In this background, we have appreciated the
contention canvassed by the learned counsels for the parties. A Full
Bench of this Court was constituted by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice
as an earlier Co-ordinate Bench in Umesh Burande's case, Writ
Petition Number 4832/2018 while considering the effect of
Government Resolution dated 01/07/2016 in the background of
earlier Government Resolution dated 30th April, 2005 and judgment
of another Co-ordinate Bench in Sandeep Tandale Vs. State of
Maharashtra, Writ Petition Number 4409/2019, felt that the
principles of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation were
required to be considered in the matter of withdrawal of benefits of
the earlier policy.
9. Perusal of the said judgment of the Full Bench would
reveal that the rephrased questions are reproduced in para 11 :
"11. At the outset, we feel that the questions
referred to need to be rephrased. We therefore,
rephrase the questions as under :-
(1) Whether a legally enforceable right can
be claimed based upon the principles of
promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation in
respect of the policy framed under the
Government Resolution dated 30/4/2005, which
has been superseded by the Government
Resolution dated 1/7/2016?
(2) Whether the Government Resolution dated
1/7/2016 is retrospectively applicable?
Ans : (Question No.1)
A legally enforceable right cannot be claimed
based upon the principles of promissory estoppel
and legitimate expectation in respect of the policy
framed under the Government Resolution dated
30/4/2005 as its superseding by the Government
Resolution dated 1/7/2016 is in larger public
interest.
Ans : (Question No.2)
The Government Resolution dated 1/7/2016 is
not retrospectively applicable."
10. However, the Full Bench in para 32 has recorded a
finding that there is no challenge in the petition to the change in
policy on the basis of any discrimination or violation of Article 14 of
the Constitution. The Full Bench relying upon judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in The State of Jharkhand and others Vs.
Brahmaputra Metallics Ltd. Ranchi and another, (2023) 10 SCC
634 (hereinafter referred to as "Brahmaputra Metallics") held that
the principle of promissory estoppel necessarily requires that there
is a promise on the basis of which party concerned must have acted
to its prejudice and that the doctrine of legitimate expectation
cannot be claimed as a right in itself but can be used only when the
denial of legitimate expectation leads to violation of Article 14 of
the Constitution. Thus, as stated above, since there was no ground
regarding violation of Article 14 in this background the Full Bench
recorded a finding that there cannot be any legally enforceable right
only on the basis of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation.
Thus, in our view, the Full Bench also states that if there is a ground
and challenge to the policy on the ground of violation of Articles 14,
doctrine of legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel may
give rise to a legally enforceable right.
11. As held in Brahmaputra Metallics, wherein the Hon'ble
Apex Court after exhaustively considering the entire law regarding
doctrine of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation has
stated that at times both these doctrines are used interchangeably
but that is not a correct usage because legitimate expectation is a
concept much broader in scope than promissory estoppel. By
referring to all earlier judgments on this issue and more particularly
judgment in National Buildings Construction Corporation Vs. S.
Raghunathan and Ors., reported in 1998 SCC (L&S) 1770 the
Hon'ble Apex Court held that the doctrine of legitimate expectation
has its genesis in the field of administrative law. The Government
and its departments in administering the affairs of the country are
expected to honor their statements of policy or intention and treat
the citizen with full personal consideration without any iota of
abuse of discretion. The policy statements cannot be disregarded
unfairly or applied selectively. Unfairness in the form of
unreasonableness is akin to violation of natural justice. It was in the
context that the doctrine of legitimate expectation was evolved
which has today become a source of substantive as well as
procedural rights. Furthermore, in the same judgment relying on an
earlier judgment in Union of India Vs. Lieutenant Colonel P.K.
Chaudhary reported in 2016 (4) SCC 236, the Hon'ble Court held as
under :
"41. In Union of India vs Lt. Col. P.K. Choudhary
32, speaking through Chief Justice T S Thakur,
the Court discussed the decision in Monnet Ispat
(supra) and noted its reliance on the judgment in
Attorney General for New South Wales vs. Quinn
33. It then observed:
"This Court went on to hold that if
denial of legitimate expectation in a
given case amounts to denial of a right
that is guaranteed or is arbitrary,
discriminatory, unfair or biased, gross
abuse of power or in violation of
principles of natural justice, the same
can be questioned on the well-known
grounds attracting Article 14 of the
Constitution but a claim based on mere
legitimate expectation without anything
more cannot ipso facto give a right to
invoke these principles."
Thus, the Court held that the doctrine of
legitimate expectation cannot be claimed as a
right in itself, but can be used only when the
denial of a legitimate expectation leads to the
violation of Article 14 of the Constitution."
12. In another judgment of Monnet Ispat and Energy
Limited Vs. Union of India, reported in (2012) 11 SCC 1, the
Hon'ble Apex Court held that for application of the doctrine of
promissory estoppel there has to be a promise based on which the
promisee has acted to its prejudice. In contrast, while applying the
doctrine of legitimate expectation the primary considerations are
reasonableness and fairness of the State action. In another
judgment reported in Food Corporation of India Vs. Kamdhenu
Cattle Feed Industries reported in (1993) 1 SCC 71, the Hon'ble
Apex Court held as under :
"7. In contractual sphere as in all other State
actions, the State and all its instrumentalities have
to conform to Article 14 of the Constitution of
which non-arbitrariness is a significant facet.
There is no unfettered discretion in public law: A
public authority possesses powers only to use
them for public good. This imposes the duty to act
fairly and to adopt a procedure which is 'fairplay
in action'. Due observance of this obligation as a
part of good administration raises a reasonable or
legitimate expectation in every citizen to be
treated fairly in his interaction with the State and
its instrumentalities, with this element forming a
necessary component of the decision-making
process in all State actions. To satisfy this
requirement of non-arbitrariness in a State action,
it is, therefore, necessary to consider and give due
weight to the reasonable or legitimate
expectations of the persons likely to be affected by
the decision or else that unfairness in the exercise
of the power may amount to an abuse or excess of
power apart from affecting the bona fides of the
decision in a given case. The decision so made
would be exposed to challenge on the ground of
arbitrariness. Rule of law does not completely
eliminate discretion in the exercise of power, as it
is unrealistic, but provides for control of its
exercise by judicial review.
8. The mere reasonable or legitimate expectation
of a citizen, in such a situation, may not by itself
be a distinct enforceable right, but failure to
consider and give due weight to it may render the
decision arbitrary, and this is how the requirement
of due consideration of a legitimate expectation
forms part of the principle of non-arbitrariness, a
necessary concomitant of the rule of law. Every
legitimate expectation is a relevant factor
requiring due consideration in a fair decision-
making process. Whether the expectation of the
claimant is reasonable or legitimate in the context
is a question of fact in each case. Whenever the
question arises, it is to be determined not
according to the claimant's perception but in
larger public interest wherein other more
important considerations may outweigh what
would otherwise have been the legitimate
expectation of the claimant. A bona fide decision
of the public authority reached in this manner
would satisfy the requirement of non-arbitrariness
and withstand judicial scrutiny. The doctrine of
legitimate expectation gets assimilated in the rule
of law and operates in our legal system in this
manner and to this extent."
13. Thus, the principle of law as emerging from the said
judgments is that the doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot be
claimed as a right in itself but can be used only when the denial of a
legitimate expectation leads to the violation of Article 14 of the
Constitution. In the same judgment of Brahmaputra Metallics
(supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under :
"The state must discard the colonial notion that it
is a sovereign handing out doles at its will. Its
policies give rise to legitimate expectations that
the state will act according to what it puts forth in
the public realm. In all its actions, the State is
bound to act fairly, in a transparent manner. This
is an elementary requirement of the guarantee
against arbitrary state action which Article 14 of
the Constitution adopts. A deprivation of the
entitlement of private citizens and private
business must be proportional to a requirement
grounded in public interest. This conception of
state power has been recognized by this Court in a
consistent line of decisions. As an illustration, we
would like to extract this Court's observations in
National Buildings Construction Cororation
(supra):
"The Government and its departments,
in administering the affairs of the
country are expected to honour their
statements of policy or intention and
treat the citizens with full personal
consideration without any iota of abuse
of discretion. The policy statements
cannot be disregarded unfairly or
applied selectively. Unfairness in the
form of unreasonableness is akin to
violation of natural justice."
14. Another aspect which needs to be considered is that
another Full Bench of this Court in Tapti Oil Industries and others
Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in MANU/MH/0263/1984 has
held that the doctrine of promissory estoppel is available even
against an executive action of the State. It further went on to hold
that it is not necessary for invoking the doctrine of promissory
estoppel to trace the right to any action of the Government under a
legislative enactment. If certain representations are made by the
State Government the question as to whether those representations
are made in the exercise of the executive power or not is not
relevant and if the promisee has acted on those representations and
altered his position then it will not be permissible for the State to
decide from its promise or representation to the prejudice of the
person who has acted on that promise.
15. The legal position regarding Government Resolutions
as executive actions is well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
In P.H. Paul Manoj Pandian Vs. P. Veldurai, (2011) 5 SCC 214, the
Court has elaborately discussed their nature, scope and limitations
under Article 162 of the Constitution. The relevant observations in
paras 45 to 47 read as under :
"45. Departmental circulars are a common
form of administrative document by which
instructions are disseminated. Many such
circulars are identified by serial numbers and
published, and many of them contain general
statement of policy. They are, therefore, of great
importance to the public, giving much guidance
about governmental organisation and the exercise
of discretionary powers. In themselves they have
no legal effect whatever, having no statutory
authority. But they may be used as a vehicle in
conveying instructions to which some statute
gives legal force. It is now the practice to publish
circulars which are of any importance to the
public and for a long time there has been no
judicial criticism of the use made of them.
46. Under Article 162 of the Constitution,
the executive power of the State extends to
matters with respect to which the State
Legislature has power to make laws. Yet the
limitations on the exercise of such executive
power by the Government are twofold; first, if
any Act or law has been made by the State
Legislature conferring any function on any other
authority, in that case the Governor is not
empowered to make any order in regard to that
matter in exercise of his executive power nor can
the Governor exercise such power in regard to
that matter through officers subordinate to him.
Secondly, the vesting in the Governor with the
executive power of the State Government does
not create any embargo for the legislature of the
State from making and/or enacting any law
conferring functions on any authority subordinate
to the Governor.
47. Once a law occupies the field, it will not
be open to the State Government in exercise of its
executive power under Article 162 of the
Constitution to prescribe in the same field by an
executive order. However, it is well recognised
that in matters relating to a particular subject in
absence of any parliamentary legislation on the
said subject, the State Government has the
jurisdiction to act and to make executive orders.
The executive power of the State would, in the
absence of legislation, extend to making rules or
orders regulating the action of the executive. But,
such orders cannot offend the provisions of the
Constitution and should not be repugnant to any
enactment of the appropriate legislature. Subject
to these limitations, such rules or orders may
relate to matters of policy, may make
classification and may determine the conditions
of eligibility for receiving any advantage, privilege
or aid from the State."
16. The controversy involved in the present matter has to
be adjudicated in the light of these authoritative pronouncements.
17. As stated supra, the principal ground of challenge in
the petition is that there was a legitimate expectation in the mind of
the petitioner that he being playing the game of 'Body Building'
which finds a place in the list of Sports as per the Government
Resolution dated 30th April, 2005 and further continued in
Government Resolution dated 18/11/2006 and 20 th September,
2013 will be getting a job in the said quota. It is an admitted
position on record that that the petitioner secured third position in
in All India University Best Physique (Male) tournament held at
Calicut University organized by the Association of Indian
Universities.
18. Before proceeding further the preamble which is aim
and object of the policy as per the Government Resolution dated
30th April, 2005 has to be looked into. Clause (2) of the said
Government Resolution states that the age of player who has
interest in sports and pursuing sports and the period of academic
pursuits is overlapping and, therefore, it becomes difficult for him
to pay attention towards both these aspects. It further states that
since a player pursues the sports seriously and therefore cannot
excel in academic pursuits which result in deprivation of the
government jobs putting them to serious inconvenience. It further
states that in that view of the matter the guardian/parents of the
players do not see sports as a career which entails them to
discourage their wards from participation. This was the aim and
intention of the Government policy. Same Government policy has
been refined in further Government Resolutions dated 18/11/2006
and 20th September, 2013 albeit limiting the eligible players. Even
the introduction to the Government policy in question contained in
Government Resolution dated 1/7/2016, repeats the said preface
which spells out the aim and object of the said policy. Even the list
of sports as enumerated remains the same. It is only the limiting of
such sports which are held in Olympic, Asiad and Commonwealth
Games has given rise for filing the present petition.
19. It is also admitted position on record that game of
Chess, Kabaddi, Kho-Kho, and now Mallakhamb also have been
included subsequently in the said list. It is worthwhile to mention
here that inclusion of all these four games is subsequent to the said
Government Resolution. In this regard, as stated by the State
Government in its reply, the games of Kabaddi, Kho-Kho, Chess,
and Mallakhamb have neither been included in Olympics, Asiad or
Commonwealth nor they are affiliated with Indian Olympic
Association and Maharashtra Olympic Association. Thus, it is clear
that even the games which are not fulfilling the criteria have been
included by the Government subsequently.
20. The petitioner has rightly submitted that inclusion of
these few Indian games and non-inclusion of the game of 'Body
Building' affects his fundamental rights. We are in agreement with
the argument of the petitioner in-person that the basis of
classification and limiting the games which are included only in
Olympic, Asiad and Commonwealth Games is not based on any
intelligible differentia and is not having any nexus with the object
of the said policy which is to encourage students to participate in
sports activities. Further conferment of the Arjuna Award by the
Government of India is a formal recognition of excellence in the
field of sports. It is conferred upon individuals who have achieved
outstanding performance in disciplines recognized by the Ministry
of Youth Affairs and Sports. The inclusion of bodybuilders among
the recipients of the Arjuna Award clearly indicates that the Central
Government, through its competent authority, acknowledges "Body
Building" as a legitimate and recognized sport. Once such
recognition is accorded at the national level, any contrary view
taken by the State authorities such as excluding Body Building from
the list of recognized sports for the purpose of reservation benefits
would be inconsistent, arbitrary, and devoid of reasonable
justification. The State cannot, in absence of any cogent or rational
basis, disregard the sport which has been accorded recognition by
the highest sporting authority of the nation. Thus, it is also clear
that said note is not based on intelligible differentia since at the
same time it creates rights in favour of few Indian games excluded
in Olympic as stated above and the game like 'Body Building' is
treated differently though similarly situated. When we hold so, we
are also aware of the fact that many States have recognized the
game of 'Body Building' as a sport and, therefore, it follows that the
action cannot be also sustained on that ground. Thus, it is clear
that the petitioner has chosen 'Body Building' as his career and
started doing exercise for Body Building since 2013 driven by the
reason that since 2005 to 2016 the game of 'Body Building' was
entitled to 5% reservation for persons securing first, second, and
third rank in competition held by the All India Inter University
Sports Board conducted by the Association of Indian Universities.
21. Taking this clue further, the petitioner was having a
legitimate expectation that he will get an opportunity of securing
Government job as per the promise given by the Government of
Maharashtra vide Government Resolution dated 30th April, 2005
and further on 20th September, 2013 since the game of 'Body
Building' was not excluded in the year 2013. Testing this fact on
the touchstone of settled principles of law, we find that the
inclusion or limiting the reservation only to those games which are
recognized or played in Olympics, Asia, or Commonwealth Games is
contrary to the aim and object of the policy of the Government of
promotion of sports. The said exercise is directly in breach of the
said Government policy. Furthermore, at one point of time limiting
the games to said sports events mentioned supra but adding Indian
games such as Chess, Kabaddi, Kho-Kho, and Mallakhamb is
without any reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved
as mentioned above. Thus, in other words, it can be said that the
action is arbitrary and since arbitrariness is an antithesis of law, the
said action violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
22. Furthermore, there is no reasonable basis to exclude
the game like 'Body Building' which was in fact included in the
initial policy. It, therefore, follows that the petitioner had a
legitimate expectation that he would secure job if he is qualified as
per the said policy and has dedicated his precious years of life in it.
Thus, there was a legitimate expectation and as stated supra the
action of the State in limiting the games but at the same time
adding some games without any rationale or logic behind it has led
to arbitrariness resulting in violation of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India.
23. It is a settled principle of law that class legislation is
that which makes an improper discrimination by conferring
particular privileges upon a class of persons arbitrarily selected
from a large number of persons all of whom stand in the same
relation to the privilege granted and between those on whom the
privileges conferred and the persons not so favored, no reasonable
distinction or substantial difference can be found justifying the
inclusion of one and exclusion of the other from such privilege. In
the present case also, we could not find any reasonable justification
for inclusion of certain games and exclusion of game like 'Body
Building'.
24. It is, therefore, clear that the said note is violating the
fundamental rights of the petitioner. As also, he being legitimately
expecting a job gives rise to a legally enforceable right. As is clear
from the abovesaid discussion exclusion of certain games and
limiting it to the games being held at Olympics, Asiad, or
Commonwealth is a matter of policy, but in view of reasons stated
supra, the same, in our opinion, is arbitrary.
25. At this stage, we put on record the sincere efforts put
by the petitioner, who appeared in-person before us and argued his
case with compassion. It was only with his proper assistance as also
the assistance of the counsels appearing for the respondents
including Assistant Government Pleader that we could go through
the matter with comparative ease. We, therefore, pass the following
order :
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The respondent No.1 is directed to include the
game of "Body Builders" in the Government
Resolution dated 01/07/2016 in the note found
below Schedule 'A' within four weeks from the
date of this judgment.
(iii) It is hereby held and declared that the "Body
Building" is a species of Gymnastics and is
eligible for 5% reservation in Government and
semi-Government Class 'A' to 'D' posts.
(iv) The communication dated 24/10/2019 issued by
the respondent No.2 is quashed and set aside
and the letter dated 21/03/2023 issued by the
respondent No.1 is also quashed and set aside.
(v) It is further directed that the respondents should
complete the procedure with respect to the
petitioner as per Government Resolution dated
01/07/2016 after addition of the game of "Body
Builders" as stated in clause (ii), within four
weeks thereafter.
26. Rule is made absolute in above terms.
(NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.) (SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.)
wadode
Signed by: Mr. Devendra Wadode
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 16/03/2026 17:58:10
