Radhey Shyam Sharma vs Union Of India & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 7184 Del

$~16
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                              Date of Decision: December 14, 2012

+                               WP(C) 7773/2012

       RADHEY SHYAM SHARMA                     .....Petitioner
                   Represented by: Mr.M.K.Bhardwaj, Advocate.

                                  versus

       UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                     ..... Respondents
                     Represented by: Ms.Barkha Babbar, Advocate.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)

1. Under the Sports Quota the petitioner was enrolled as a Constable with BSF in the year 2002. In the same year he competed at the All India Police and Central Para Military Forces Sports Event and won a bronze medal in the 4 km. cross country run and was a part of a relay team which secured a Gold Medal.

2. The grievance in the writ petition is that whereas Ct.Ranjit Singh, who was also a part of the relay team which secured a Gold Medal, was promoted under the Sports Quota, the petitioner was not. Thus, the petitioner prays that a mandamus be issued to promote him under the Sports Quota.

3. The representations sent by the petitioner has been duly considered and responded to by the department on December 22, 2011 which brings out that firstly since the year 2004 no promotions has been effected under the Sports Quota and that prior thereto only 5% of the vacancies in

a particular calendar year were reserved for out of turn promotion and on said account, number of claimants being more and post available being less, comparative merit in terms of performance as also seniority of the persons concerned were considered.

4. We have perused the relevant record produced before us which would reveal that even Ct.Ranjit Singh had won a bronze medal in the cross-country run, as did the petitioner, and needless to state as admitted by the petitioner, both of them were a part of the same team which won a Gold Medal.

5. But, from the record we find that Ct.Ranjit Singh was senior to the petitioner, and keeping in view the limited number of quota posts available in the Sports Category, we find nothing unfair in the decision taken; while breaking the impasse to give preference to Ct.Ranjit Singh.

6. We would simply highlight that out of turn promotions in the Sports Quota cannot be claimed as a matter of right and further the claim to be treated at par for being considered to be promoted as would be a claim when a person falls within the zone of consideration in a normal promotional situation, meaning thereby the principle that nobody has a right to be promoted but has a right to be considered for promotion when the right to be so considered accrues would not be attracted in the strict sense of the term, because of the fact that an out of turn promotion by its very nature is a bounty. It is true that every state decision even if it be related to a bounty must be informed by reason and not at the sweet will of the executive; but in relation to a bounty as long as there is fairness in procedure and some rule predicated on reason is discernable in the decision making process, the Court would, and ought to adopt the hands of approach.

7. Now, Ct.Ranjit Singh and the petitioner had an equal performance

in sports, but Ct.Ranjit Singh being senior and number of posts available being restricted, we find no infirmity in promoting Ct.Ranjit Singh and denying promotion to the petitioner. We would additionally highlight that the petitioner had joined service in the sports quota in the year 2002 and thus it could be doubtful whether he could claim a right to be promoted the very next year on the strength of his performance in sports.

8. We find no merit in the writ petition which is dismissed but without any order as to costs.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

(MANMOHAN SINGE) JUDGE DECEMBER 14, 2012 skb