Jharkhand High Court
Mayank Singh Thakur @ Mayank Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 1 November, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 1492 of 2020
Mayank Singh Thakur @ Mayank Singh ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Secretary, Tourism, Art Culture Sports & Youth Affairs
Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
3. The Chairman, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Ranchi
4. The President, Indian Olympic Association, New Delhi
5. Mr. Rajeev Mehta, the Secretary General, Indian Olympic Association,
New Delhi
6. Jharkhand High Court through the Registrar General, Jharkhand High
Court, Ranchi
7. Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms
& Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
... Respondents
--------
CORAM : SRI SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA, C.J.
SRI RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J
--------
For the Petitioner: Ms. Shivani Kapoor, Advocate
Amicus Curiae: Mr. Kumar Vaibhav, Advocate
For the State: Mr. Harsh Preet Singh, A.C. to G.P.-V
For the JPSC: Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, Advocate
Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Advocate
Mr. Prince Kumar, Advocate
For the JHC: Mr. Sudarshan Srivastava, Advocate
For the IOA: Ms. Sidhi Jalan, Advocate
--------
C.A.V. on 27.02.2023/19.05.2023 Pronounced on 01.11.2023
Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court passed
the following, (Per, Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, C.J.)
ORDER
1. The petitioner in this case, an aspirant for the post of Civil Judge
(Junior Division) in the State of Jharkhand has filed this writ petition
seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon
the respondents, particularly respondent no.3 that horizontal quota in the
sports category should be provided to him for the examination held for
Civil Judge (Junior Division) in pursuance of Advertisement No. 12/2018
dated 24.12.2018. He has also prayed for issuance of writ in the nature of
mandamus commanding upon the respondents to take appropriate action
W.P.(S). No. 1492 of 2020
with respect to his candidature for the aforesaid post in the aforesaid
examination.
2. The chronological order of events may be succinctly narrated as
follows:
(i) On 26.10.1998 the Indian Olympic Association granted
recognition to the School Games Federation of India.
(ii) On 12.09.2007 Sports Policy was formulated by the State of
Jharkhand.
(iii) The petitioner, on 13.12.2010, participated in 56th National
School Games 2010-11 held between 09.12.2010 to
13.12.2010. The petitioner was a member of the team that
won Soft Ball competition and secured first place.
(iv) On 12.02.2011 the Indian Olympic Association in its Annual
General Assembly took a decision that there will not be any
category of recognized members and only the affiliated
federations and associations shall be the members of the
Indian Olympic Association.
(v) In the meantime, the advertisement dated 24.12.2018 was
issued by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission,
Ranchi (hereinafter referred to as "JPSC" for brevity). The
petitioner submitted his application under 'Unreserved'
category and also claimed for reservation on the basis of
Sports Quota.
(vi) On 27.05.2019 Preliminary Test was conducted and the
results were declared on 19.07.2019. The petitioner
qualified in the Preliminary Test. He also took the Main
written examination. Interviews were held between
16.12.2019 to 20.01.2020.
(vii) On 11.02.2020 final results were published. The petitioner's
W.P.(S). No. 1492 of 2020
name was not in the final list.
(viii) On 18.03.2020 the petitioner preferred a representation to
the JPSC.
(ix) On 20.03.2020, marks statement was published by the
JPSC.
Since the petitioner was aggrieved by the decision of the JPSC
not to treating him as a successful candidate in the Unreserved category
with horizontal reservation of Sports Quota, he filed the present writ
petition.
3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was provisionally
selected for interview by horizontal reservation. The said marks statement
contained and endorsement 'Sports Certificate not produced as per
advertisement' and then therefore, he was held to be not successful in the
examination. Respondent No.3, i.e., JPSC took the specific plea that 56th
National School Games 2010 certificate of which was produced by the
petitioner for seeking reservation under the Sports Quota was organized
by the Directorate of Public Instructions, Government of Chhattisgarh
under the aegis of the School Games Federation of India and not by a
federation affiliated with the Indian Olympic Association and as such, the
said sports certificate is not valid for extending the benefits of reservation
in terms of the advertisement.
The School Games Federation of India is recognised by Ministry
of Youth Affairs and Sports, Government of India and the Indian Olympic
Association, and the Directorate of Public Instructions, Government of
Chhattisgarh is not recognized/affiliated body to the Indian Olympic
Association. Therefore, it is a specific case of the JPSC that there is
difference between recognized and affiliated institutions and benefit of
reservation can only be extended to the local resident of the State of
Jharkhand. No recommendation was made by the JPSC against Sports
W.P.(S). No. 1492 of 2020
Quota as no candidate was found eligible.
4. In the rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner, inter alia, further raised
that stipulation of benefit of reservation only can be extended to local
resident of State of Jharkhand is applicable only to case based on
reservation. Even the advertisement and the Sports Policy do not
stipulate that benefits of reservation under the Sports Quota shall be
extended only to the local residents of State of Jharkhand. The Rules of
National School Games, the petitioner rejoinded, provide that the National
School Games are to be organized by the affiliated units of the School
Games Federation of India. The Education Departments/Sports
Departments of the State are the affiliated units of School Games
Federation of India. It is further stated that 56th National School Games
were organized by the School Games Federation of India which is a
federation, recognised by the Indian Olympic Association and thus, is a
federation associated with Indian Olympic Association.
5. In course of the proceeding before the coordinate Bench of this
Court vide order dated 10.09.2021 the Indian Olympic Association
through its President was impleaded as party respondent to the writ
petition. The Indian Olympic Association, i.e., respondent no.4 filed
affidavit on 27.10.2021 and stated that the School Games Federation of
India is not an affiliated unit of the Indian Olympic Association and as of
August, 2018 the School Games Federation of India was not a member of
the Indian Olympic Association.
6. The petitioner again filed rejoinder to the said counter affidavit
filed by the Indian Olympic Association and stated that 'affiliation'
federation to the Indian Olympic Association is different from a
'recognized' federation by the Indian Olympic Association, as per
document dated 12.11.2014 of the Indian Olympic Association. 'Affiliated'
associations have voting rights, but 'recognized' associations do not have
W.P.(S). No. 1492 of 2020
such voting rights. He further stated that Indian Olympic Association in its
document dated 22.07.2013 has stated that the School Games
Federation of India was granted recognition by the Indian Olympic
Association in its Annual General meeting held on 26.10.1998 which
recognition was withdrawn in its Annual General Meeting held on
12.02.2011.
7. The coordinate Bench of this Court again directed the Secretary
General of the Indian Olympic Association to be impleaded as party
respondent on 06.04.2022. He filed an affidavit on 05.07.2022 wherein
the Secretary General stated that the constitution of the Indian Olympic
Association was amended in the Annual General Assembly meeting held
on 12.02.2011 whereupon a letter dated 11.07.2011 was issued by the
Secretary General to the effect that only affiliated federations/associations
would be the members of the Indian Olympic Association and there will
not be any category of recognized members henceforth and with effect
from 11.07.2011, there is no category of recognized members of the
Indian Olympic Association. School Games Federation of India was one
of the recognized members of the Indian Olympic Association upto July,
2011 and in terms of letter dated 11.07.2011 the Secretary General of the
Indian Olympic Association would further inform the Court that there is no
category of recognized members of the Indian Olympic Association as
such School Games Federation of India ceased to be a recognized
member of the Indian Olympic Association.
8. Respondent No.3 filed a supplementary counter affidavit on
23.09.2022 wherein the JPSC has brought on record letter No. 332 dated
24.01.2022 addressed by the Department of Personnel, Administrative
Reforms and Rajbhasha to the JPSC stating that reservation for Sports
Quota as per resolution dated 12.09.2007 is only applicable to the local
residents of State of Jharkhand.
W.P.(S). No. 1492 of 2020
9. Again on 03.08.2022, the coordinate Bench of this Court directed
that the High Court of Jharkhand be added as respondent to the writ
petition. Accordingly, High Court of Jharkhand through the Registrar
General was added as respondent no.6 and has filed counter affidavit.
10. Respondent No.3-JPSC has filed reply to the counter affidavit filed
by respondent No.4 wherein the JPSC has, inter alia, stated that the
Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha vide its
letter dated 05.09.2022 has again sent requisition to the JPSC for starting
selection process of appointment of 52 Civil Judges in Junior Division.
11. A supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of
respondent no.2 wherein resolution dated 10.10.2002 of the Department
of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha letter no. 332 dated
24.01.2022 addressed by the said department to the JPSC and Sports
Policy contained in resolution dated 12.09.2007 has been brought on
record. Again on 08.02.2023, Department of Personnel, Administrative
Reforms and Rajbhasha through its Principal Secretary has been added
as party respondent no. 7 to the writ petition.
12. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings raised at the bar the sole
issue involved in the instant writ petition is whether the petitioner is
entitled to the horizontal reservation in the Sports Quota as per resolution
dated 12.09.2007.
13. In course of hearing of the writ petition it also transpired that a
similar case under the same advertisement bearing no. 12/2018 involving
similar issue as in the instant case, i.e., the claim of horizontal reservation
under the Sports Quota fell for consideration before this Court in the case
of Shilpa Dalmia Vs. Jharkhand Public Service Commission & Ors, WP(S)
No. 1954 of 2020. In the said case, the petitioner's claim for reservation
under Sports Quota based, inter alia, on certificates issued by the School
Games Federation of India was denied stating 'sports certificate not
W.P.(S). No. 1492 of 2020
produced as per advertisement'. A coordinate Bench of this Court as per
judgment dated 18.06.2021 declined relief to the petitioner. The
coordinate Bench took into consideration Clause 1(d) of the
advertisement. It is appropriate to quote the same for better appreciation:
"1.(d) [ksydwn dksVk ds vUrxZr vkj{k.k ds nkos dh fLFkfr esa dyk] laLd`fr]
[ksydwn ,oa ;qok dk;Z foHkkx] >kj[k.M ljdkj ds Kkikad&1709 fnukda&12-
09-2007 }kjk Js.kh&II ds inksa ij lh/kh fu;qfDr gsrq fu/kkZfjr fuEu ekud ds
vuqlkj vuqekU; gksxk &
(i) vUrjkZ"Vªh; vksyfEid dfeVh vFkok muls lacaf/kr esMy
QsMjs'kuksa }kjk vk;ksftr izfr;ksfxrkA
(ii) Hkkjrh; vksyfEid la?k vFkok mlls lEc) QsMjs'kuksa izFke LFkku
}kjk vk;ksftr jk"Vªh; pSfEi;u'khi Lrj dh izfr;ksfxrkA
(iii) jk"Vªh; Lrj dh izfr;ksfxrkA fo'o fjdkड
14. In interpreting this provision the coordinate Bench has held as
follows:
"10. xx xx xx
It is evident from Condition No. 1(d) of the advertisement, as has
been quoted and referred hereinabove, that the candidate who is
claiming benefit of Horizontal Reservation under 'Sports Quota' to the
extent of 3 % in the light of circular issued by Govt. of Jharkhand vide
Memo No. 1709 dated 12.09.2007, is required to fulfill any of the three
conditions as mentioned in the advertisement at Condition No. 1(d) i.e.
either candidate has achieved 'Medal' in the competition organized by
International Olympics Committee or Competition organized by
Federation attached with it; OR has secured 'First Position' in the
competition organized at National Level by Indian Olympic Association
or Federation attached with it; OR has 'World Record' in the competition
organized at National Level; meaning thereby, in either of the three
situations the candidate would be given the benefit of Horizontal
Reservation to the extent of 3 % under Sports Quota.
xx xx xx "
15. Holding thus, the coordinate Bench dismissed the writ petition filed
by the petitioner in that case. The matter was taken to the Hon'ble
Supreme Court by the petitioner therein and the Hon'ble Supreme Court
W.P.(S). No. 1492 of 2020
while issuing notice as per order dated 17.09.2021 in S.L.P. No. 14308 of
2021 has held as follows:
" ...........learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner brought to
our notice that the certificate, which is placed at page 38 of the paper
book, issued by the School Games Federation of India, is recognized by
Indian Olympic Association. It is submitted that same is in conformity
with requirement which is extracted at Page No. 45 of the paper book.
In that view of the matter, issue notice returnable in six weeks."
16. However, finally S.L.P. No. 14308 of 2021 was dismissed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court on 23.02.2022. Thus, it is clear that the judgment
passed by the coordinate Bench headed by the then Chief Justice of this
Court was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has refused to interfere in the matter. It is also brought to
our notice that the essential qualification for appointment to a post are for
the employer to decide.
17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra Public
Service Commission through its Secretary Vs. Sandeep Shriram
Warade and others (being lead case), (2019) 6 SCC 362, has held as
follows:
"9. The essential qualifications for appointment to a post are for the
employer to decide. The employer may prescribe additional or desirable
qualifications, including any grant of preference. It is the employer who
is best suited to decide the requirements a candidate must possess
according to the needs of the employer and the nature of work. The
court cannot lay down the conditions of eligibility, much less can it delve
into the issue with regard to desirable qualifications being at par with the
essential eligibility by an interpretive re-writing of the advertisement.
Questions of equivalence will also fall outside the domain of judicial
review. If the language of the advertisement and the rules are clear, the
Court cannot sit in judgment over the same. If there is an ambiguity in
the advertisement or it is contrary to any rules or law the matter has to
go back to the appointing authority after appropriate orders, to proceed
in accordance with law. In no case can the court, in the garb of judicial
review, sit in the chair of the appointing authority to decide what is best
for the employer and interpret the conditions of the advertisement
W.P.(S). No. 1492 of 2020
contrary to the plain language of the same."
18. Thus, it is clear from the aforesaid discussion of facts and law that
the petitioner's case is already covered by the judgment of the coordinate
Bench of this Court and therefore, in due regard to the coordinate Bench
of this Court, we are not inclined to hold that the petitioner is entitled to
the relief he has claimed. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed being
devoid of any merit. There shall be no orders as to costs.
19. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
20. Grant urgent certified copy as per the Rules.
(Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, C.J.)
I agree
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
.
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi.
Dated - The day of 1st, Nov', 2023
N.A.F.R / VK
