Punjab-Haryana High Court
Anand Pal Singh And Anr vs State Of Haryana And Others on 4 March, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:031821
Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:031821
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
228
CWP-113-2021 (O&M)
Decided on :04.03.2024
ANAND PAL SINGH AND ANR
. .PETITIONERS
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS . . . RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
PRESENT: Mr. Jasbir Mor, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
****
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (Oral)
1. In the present petition, the grievance being raised by the
petitioners is that their claim for appointment on the posts of Group 'C'
under Haryana Outstanding Sportsperson (Recruitment and Conditions of
Service) Rules, 2018 (Annexure P-7) has not been considered keeping in
view the facts and circumstances of the present case as well as settled
principle of law on the issue involved.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that prior to the year
2010, for the specially disabled athletes, tournament being organized at the
level of the Asian games was known as Far East and South Pacific (herein
after referred as FESPIC) Games (for the disabled), which games started in
the year 1975 and the last games under the said nomenclature were held in
December, 2006 at Kuala Lumpur, (Malaysia). Thereafter, the Asian Para
Games were introduced in place of FESPIC Games and the first Asian Para
Games were introduced in the year 2010, Guangzhou, China, which
tournament is now in operation. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that though the Para Olympic Committee of India has already clarified the
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:031821
CWP-113-2021 (O&M) 2 2024:PHHC:031821
said rectified position to the Government of Haryana that the FESPIC
Games as well as the Asian Para Games are the same, but, the benefit of the
FESPIC Games has not been extended to the petitioners which act of the
respondents is totally illegal and arbitrary.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners further argues that in CWP
No. 24851 of 2019 titled as 'Joginder Singh v. State of Haryana and
another' decided on 10.09.2021, these facts are duly find mentioned in
paragraph No. 2 wherein, the FESPIC Games held in the year 2006 have
been held equivalent to the Asian Para Games. Learned counsel for the
petitioners further submits that it is also a matter of fact that once, the
candidate, namely, Rajesh, who had also participated in the FESPIC games
in the year 2006 has already been treated as eligible candidate and has
already been given an appointment in the School Education Department on
the post of Group 'C' under 2018 Rules by the authority and the said fact is
clear from the order Annexure P-16 which is the recommendation letter in
the favour of said Rajesh.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits
that once under the Sports Policy of the year 2018, FESPIC games are not
mentioned, the petitioners cannot force the State to recognize the said games
in order to claim eligibility and benefit under 2018 Sports Recruitment Policy
(Annexure P-7). Learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to
deny the facts that the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Joginder Singh's
case (supra) has made observations qua the equivalence of FESPIC
games with Asian Para Games as well as that the candidate appearing in
FESPIC games has already been treated as a eligible sportsman for the grant
of benefit under 2018 Rules.
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:031821
CWP-113-2021 (O&M) 3 2024:PHHC:031821
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
6. The sportsman who appear for the State or the country needs
recognition so that the said recognition given to them is noticed by others
sports person so that they are motivated to join the sports faculty. The basic
idea behind the grant of benefits under 2018 Rules was to encourage the
youngsters to participate in the sports events so as to bring laurels for the
State and Country. The Sport policy was not framed to oust the eligible sports
persons from the arena for the benefit for which the 2018 sports policy was
framed but, the efforts of the respondents seems to be such that the objections
are being taken without realizing as to whether, the same is permissible or
not.
7. The first objection which has been taken to oust the petitioners
from the zone of consideration is that the FESPIC Games do not form the
part of the 2018 sports policy and only Asian Para Games is a valid sports
event for which a candidate can be evaluated for the grant of benefit of
appointment under 2018 Rules.
8. Once, a highest sports body of the country has already given in
writing to the Government that from the year 1975 till 2006, the FESPIC
Games were being held which are equivalent to Para Asian Games and from
the year 2010, Para Asian Games are being held for the same purpose and
only the nomenclature of the games differs hence merely that the
nomenclature of the FESPIC games was not made part of the 2018 Rules,
the sports person are being ,made to suffer so as to approach the Court to get
the relief.
9. Once, FESPIC Games have been converted into Para Asian
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:031821
CWP-113-2021 (O&M) 4 2024:PHHC:031821
Games, which Games find mentioned in 2018 Sports Policy, coupled with the
fact that FESPIC Games have been held equivalent to Asian Para Games, by
a Co-ordinate Bench while passing judgment in Joginder Singh'case
(Supra), the respondents should have stopped there rather than raising
another similar objections. But, the respondent-government is still rejecting
the claim of the participant who have represented in the FESPIC games in
the year 2006 at Kaula Lumpur on the ground that the said FESPIC games
are not part of the 2018 Sports Policy. Hence, it is made clear that mere
change of the nomenclature will not oust the eligible candidates for the
consideration and the respondents are under obligations to treat FESPIC
Games equivalent to Para Asian Games for all intents and purpose for giving
benefits under 2018 Policy.
10. Further, a similar candidate, namely Rajesh has already been
treated eligible for the grant of benefit under 2018 rules. Once a candidate
who has also participated in FESPIC Games in 2006 at Kaula Lumpur has
been treated as a eligible candidate, treating the other athletes who
participated in same tournament as ineligible, is discriminatory. No valid
justification come as to why, after treating Rajesh Kumar eligible and
offering him appointment under 2018 Rules, the same benefit has not been
extended to the petitioners. Hence, the action of the respondents in treating
the similar athletes differently amounts to discrimination and the same
cannot be allowed.
11. Keeping in view the above, the impugned order dated
05.12.2018 (Annexure P-10) rejecting the claim of the petitioners is set-aside
and the respondents are directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner
under 2018 Rules by treating the FESPIC games equivalent to Para Asian
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:031821
CWP-113-2021 (O&M) 5 2024:PHHC:031821
Games. Let the said consideration be completed within the period of 08
weeks and the appropriate speaking order on the claim of the petitioners will
be passed within the said time framed. In case, the petitioners are fully
eligible as per the other requirement/terms and conditions of the 2018 policy,
the benefits be extended to them or otherwise due reasons order be passed
for the information and necessary action of the petitioners.
12. The present petition stands disposed of in above terms.
13. Pending civil miscellaneous application, if any, stands disposed
of.
04.03.2024 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
Riya JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:031821
5 of 5
