[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana And Another vs Surya Sangwan on 28 April, 2026
LPA-3437-2025 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
LPA-3437-2025 (O&M)
Date of order 28.04.2026
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER
....Appellants
Vs.
SURYA SANGWAN
....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR
Present: Mr. Nitin Kaushal, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana, and
Mr. Saurabh Mohunta, DAG, Haryana
for the appellants.
Mr. Nazmi Waziri, Senior Advocate
(through Video Conferencing)
Mr. Gurmandeep Singh Sullar, Advocate
Mr. R.A. Iyar, Advocate
Ms. Devaki Anand Sullar, Advocate
Mr. Harmesh Kumar, Advocate
for the respondent.
****
ROHIT KAPOOR, J. (Oral)
The present appeal filed under clause X of the Letters Patent is
directed against the judgment and order dated 29.07.2025 passed by the learned
Single Judge in CWP-31692-2024, whereby the writ petition filed by the
respondent-petitioner has been allowed and the rejection of her claim by the
appellants for appointment to the post of Junior Coach (OSP) vide order dated
08.11.2023 (Annexure P-9), has been set aside.
2. The facts involved lie in a narrow compass.
3. The State of Haryana framed the Haryana Outstanding Sportspersons
(Group A, B and C) Service Rules, 2021 (for short 'the 2021 Rules' or 'Rules') in
exercise of its powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution
of India, for regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of persons
MOHIT GOYAL appointed to Haryana Sportspersons (Group A, B and C) service. The stated
LPA-3437-2025 (O&M) -2-
intent for the enactment of the Rules was to bring objectivity and transparency in
the assessment of the worth and suitability of outstanding sportspersons (for short
'OSP') in the matter of providing Government employment. The respondent who
is an eminent sports person in Netball, applied for the post of Junior Coach (OSP)
under the 2021 Rules, by submitting an application dated 25.01.2023 on the
prescribed form, which was duly diarized on 30.01.2023. The respondent based
her claim for the post upon her achievement in the 36th National Games,
organized by the Indian Olympic Association in September, 2022, where she
played more than 75% of the matches and while representing the State of
Haryana, her team won the Gold medal. Apart from winning the above-
mentioned gold medal, the respondent-petitioner consistently won gold medals at
National Netball Championships held since 2018 to 2022 (except for winning
Silver medal in 2019) and also represented the Republic of India in the Asian
Netball Championships held in Singapore in 2022.
4. The appellants vide a letter dated 30.01.2023 sought the original
certificate in proof of the Gold medal won by the respondent in the National
Games, 2022, which was duly provided. Despite the fact that the factum of the
respondent having won the gold medal at the 36th National Games in the
discipline of Netball was duly verified, yet the appellants kept on delaying the
matter on one pretext or the other. In response to a query under the Right to
Information Act, respondent-petitioner was informed that out of a total of 250
vacancies, 166 posts of Junior Coach (OSP) were lying vacant. As no action was
being taken, the respondent was constrained to lodge a complaint at the CM
Window and also serve legal notices upon the appellants.
LPA-3437-2025 (O&M) -3-
5. It transpires that the application of the respondent was rejected vide
order dated 08.11.2023 (Annexure P-9) on the ground that she has been found
ineligible due to non-fulfilment of the essential condition laid down under Rule
4(c)(ii) of the 2021 Rules, requiring representation of India in any sports
tournament mentioned in Schedule I and II. Aggrieved therefrom, the respondent
filed a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India before the Supreme
Court of India. In the response filed by the appellants, although a stand was taken
that the respondent is ineligible for the post in terms of the statutory Rules,
however it was conceded that certain similarly situated sports persons had been
given appointment on various posts. Terming such appointments to be an
inadvertent mistake, it was stated that the department is in the process of issuing
show cause notices to the said employees.
6. The aforementioned petition was disposed of vide order dated
25.10.2024 with liberty to the respondent to approach this Court. It is in this
backdrop that the respondent-petitioner filed CWP- 31692-2024. The writ court,
while entertaining the petition, ordered that one post be kept vacant. The petition
was ultimately allowed by the learned Single Judge inter-alia on the ground that
the case of the petitioner was covered under clause 4 (c) (i) and the interpretation
that the requirements of both clause (i) and (ii) were required to be satisfied,
would be contrary to the Rules, and would render clause (i) otiose and nugatory.
While examining the eligibility conditions under Rule 8 read with the Schedules,
it was held that the requirement of the sporting event to be included in the
Olympic Games, was restricted only to 6 events, and therefore the respondent-
petitioner was found eligible. The operative directions are extracted and
reproduced as under:-
LPA-3437-2025 (O&M) -4-
"22. Consequently, the instant writ petition is allowed and the
impugned communication dated 08.11.2023 (Annexure P-9) is set
aside. The respondent(s) are directed to re-consider the claim of the
petitioner and to ascertain her eligibility in terms of Rule 4(c)(i) read
with Rule 8(1) and 8(2) of the Rules of 2021, as interpreted above. Let
the needful be done within a period of two months on the receipt of a
certified copy of this order.
23. In case, the verification of the Sports Gradation Certificate for
determining the eligibility was a pre-requisite to allow a candidate to
participate in a selection/appointment process and the petitioner was
not allowed to participate in the same, the petitioner shall be
subjected to the same and her merit would then be determined. If on
the merit so assigned, her position is above the last person already
selected, an appointment letter shall be issued to the petitioner. She
would be entitled to seniority and all other consequential benefits
notionally with effect from the date when other persons were
appointed and actually with effect from the date of actual
appointment or 04 months of receipt of this order, whichever is
earlier."
7. Learned State counsel has assailed the correctness of the findings of
the learned Single Judge by contending that it has committed an error in
interpreting the provisions of the statutory Rules of 2021, and has ignored that the
conditions prescribed under Rule 4(c)(i), (ii), Rule 8(1) and (2) and the Schedules
were all required to be satisfied by the respondent, for consideration to post in
question.
8. It is submitted that undisputedly the respondent did not fulfil the
requirement under Rule 4(c)(ii), and since the word 'or' has not been used
between clauses (i) and (ii), therefore, meeting both conditions was a necessary
prerequisite. Attention of the Court is drawn to the provisions of Rule 8 to urge
that the sporting events which were included in the Olympic games alone, are to
LPA-3437-2025 (O&M) -5-
be considered for ascertaining eligibility, with the only exception of Circle
Kabbadi. It is further contended that the respondent had submitted her application
on the basis of her sports achievement i.e. gold medal in the sporting event of
Netball in the 36th National Games, as well as participation in 'Asian Netball
Championship' in 2022. By referring to the remarks of the departmental
Committee constituted to examine the claim of the respondent, it is argued that
the said achievement is not covered under serial No. 7 of Schedule II, nor the
same is conducted by any recognized organizing committee, as mandated under
the Rules. Doubts have also been expressed as to which organization conducted
the 36th National Games. It is submitted that the respondent-petitioner having
failed to establish her eligibility, the impugned judgement cannot sustain.
9. Per contra, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent/petitioner while controverting the arguments raised on behalf of the
appellants has submitted that the achievements of the respondent and her being an
eminent sportsperson is not in dispute. It is contended that while submitting the
application for appointment, the petitioner based her claim on her achievement in
the National Games and not in the Asian Championship, as wrongly construed by
the appellants. The fact that the National Games are conducted by the Indian
Olympic Association (IOA), and is included in Schedule II, is not in dispute.
Submission is that the rejection of the claim of the respondent-petitioner, is a
result of gross misinterpretation of the statutory Rules, as held by the learned
Single Judge. It is urged that the appellants have deliberately been delaying the
appointment of respondent-petitioner, on one pretext or the other, despite her
fulfilling all requirements under the Rules. Learned senior counsel has
emphatically argued that despite having conceded that similarly situated sports
LPA-3437-2025 (O&M) -6-
persons have already been appointed, yet the appellants are selectively resisting
the claim of the respondent-petitioner in a discriminatory manner.
10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the material available on record with their able assistance.
11. Before dwelling upon the rival contentions raised by the parties, it is
necessary to extract the relevant provisions of the 2021 Rules, which are
reproduced as under:-
"PART-II RECRUITMENT TO SERVICE
*****
4. No person shall be appointed to any post in the Service, unless he:
(a) is a citizen of India;
(b) is a resident of Haryana possessing a Resident Certificate issued by
the concerned authority;
(c) (i) has represented the State of Haryana at the national level or has
represented the Central Government or any Central Public Sector
Undertaking, at National level tournament;
(ii) has represented India in any sports tournament as mentioned in
Schedule-I and Schedule-II.
*****
8. (1) The name of a person shall be considered for appointment to a post,
in case of an individual event as per provision in Schedule-I and in case of
a team event as per provision in Schedule-II of these rules, subject to
fulfillment of other conditions of eligibility:
Provided that in the case (a) 4 Years World Cup/Championship, (b) World
Cup/Championship (Less than 4 Years), (c) 4 Years Asian Championship,
(d) World University Games, (e) Special Olympics, (f) Deaflympics/4
Years deaf World Cup/Championship/4 Years Para World
Cup/Championships, sports events only included in the Olympic Games
shall be considered, except Circle Kabaddi.
(2) In case of a team event, a person shall be considered for appointment
to a post as per Schedule-II, provided that he has participated in not less
than fifty percent of the matches played by the team in that tournament.
(3) to (5) xxx xxx xxx
LPA-3437-2025 (O&M) -7-
*****
Schedule II
{see Rule 8(1)}
(TEAM EVENT)
Sr. No. Tournament Organizing Medal Winner
Gold Silver Bronze Participation
Authority
1. Olympic Games IOC Group A Group A Group B Group C
Paralympics IPC Group B Group B Group B --
2. Asian Games OCA Group B Group B Group C Group C
Asian Para Games APC Group C Group C Group C ---
3. 4- year World Cup/ International Group B Group B Group C Group C
Championship (Sports Federation of
events included in the concerned game
Olympic Games only) recognized by
IOC
4. World Championship (Less International Fed- International International International Nil
than 4 years) (Sports events eration of con- Federation of Federation of Federation of
included in the Olympic cerned game re- concerned concerned game concerned game
Games only) cognized by IOC game recog- recognized by recognized by
nized by IOC IOC IOC
5. Commonwealth Games CGF Group C Group C Group C Nil
Commonwealth Para CGF Group C Group C -- Nil
games
6. World University Games IUSF -- -- -- Nil
(Sports events included
in Olympic Games)
7. 4-years Asian Champion- Asian Federation Group C Group C Group C Nil
ship (Sports events in- of concerned
cluded in Olympic game affiliated to
OCA or Interna-
Games only)
tional Federation
recognized by
IOC
8. Special Olympics (Sports Only those Group C Group C Group C Nil
events included in which are re-
Olympic Games only) cognized by
IOC
9. Deaflympics/4 years World ICSD Group C Group C Group C Nil
Cup/Championship/Circle
Kabaddi 4 years Asian
Championship (Sports
events included in Olympic
Games only)
10. South Asian Games SAGF Group C --- --- Nil
11. 4-year Blind Cricket WBCC --- --- --- Nil
World Cup
12. Ranji Trophy (Cricket) BCCI Group C Nil Nil Nil
13. 4 years World Cup/2 International Group C Group C Nil Nil
years Asian Champion- Kabaddi Feder-
ship (Circle Kabaddi) ation
14. National Games IOA Group C Group C Group C Nil
LPA-3437-2025 (O&M) -8-
12. The core issue arising for adjudication is whether respondent-
petitioner fulfills the eligibility criteria in terms of the 2021 Rules.
13. The appellants have argued that the respondent does not satisfy the
conditions stipulated under clause 4 (c) (ii), inasmuch as she has not represented
'India' in any sports tournament mentioned in Schedule I and II and meeting the
requirement under both sub-clause (i) & (ii), is essential. Having carefully
examined the provisions of the 2021 Rules, we are of the considered opinion that
the said argument cannot be countenanced. The said contention is premised only
on the ground that the word 'or' does not find mention between the two sub-
clauses, and since they are separated with a 'semicolon' as is the case in clause
(a), (b), and (c), the same would have to be read as the word 'and', and all
conditions stipulated in Rule 4 are required to be satisfied. This interpretation, in
our opinion, is inherently flawed, for the reason that it would run counter to the
overall scheme and object of the Rules, as it would result in ousting all
outstanding sportspersons in several of the sporting events mentioned in the
schedules attached to the 2021 Rules, such as Ranji Trophy and National Games,
as no sportsperson can possibly represent 'India' in the said sporting events. That
cannot possibly the legislative intent, else there was no requirement of including
such sporting events in the Schedules in the first place. It is a well settled
proposition of statutory interpretation that no particular provision is to be read in
isolation and all provisions are to be read in conjunction with each other, to give a
harmonious construction.
14. The second argument of the appellants regarding ineligibility of the
respondent on the ground that Netball is not a sporting event included in the
Olympic Games, as per the mandate of Rule 8, is equally without merit and
LPA-3437-2025 (O&M) -9-
deserves to be rejected, primarily for the same reason. Perusal of proviso to Rule
8 (1) read with Schedule I and II would make it abundantly clear that the
requirement of the sporting events to be included in the Olympic games, is
restricted only to the Games and Championships mentioned in (a) to (f) of the
said proviso. Any ambiguity that may possibly exist after reading the proviso,
would get cleared while reading entries in second column of the Schedules under
the heading 'Tournament', where it is clearly specified that requirement of being
a sporting event included in the Olympics, is restricted to the six
games/championships mentioned in (a) to (f). Perusal of the Games and
Championships included in the Schedules attached to the Rules would show that
there are several sporting events included therein, that might not be included in
the Olympics. The learned single judge has noticed that out of the 56 games
included in the National Games, only 29 are recognized or played in Olympics.
Therefore the interpretation sought to be given by the appellants would run
counter to the Schedules itself, wherein it is clearly reflected that in case of
winning a medal/participation, even in the Games/Championships where sporting
events are not required to be included in Olympics, the applicants would be
eligible to apply for the category of posts mentioned the particular columns. We
are in respectful agreement with the observations and findings of the learned
Single Judge, who has applied the 'Golden Rule' of statutory interpretation in this
regard.
15. Adverting to the next argument of the appellants, as regards the
achievement of the respondent-petitioner in the Asian Championship not
fulfilling the requirements under Rule 8(1) and not being a sporting event as
defined under serial No.7 of Schedule II, as well as the objection that it is not
LPA-3437-2025 (O&M) -10-
organized by any recognized organizing authority, we are of the considered view
that the argument is bereft of any merit. Perusal of the application form
(Annexure P-3) would clearly show that the respondent had based her claim upon
her achievement of winning gold medal in the 36th National Games organized by
the Indian Olympic Association. The mere fact that she additionally attached a
participation certificate in the Asian Championship, cannot be taken as a ground
to test her eligibility on the strength of such additional certificate. As per the
information required to be filled against Sr. No.13 of the prescribed application
form, a candidate is to specify his/her 'best sports achievement' and is required to
enclose the certificate in support thereof. Under the said column, the respondent
mentioned her achievement as Gold Medal in the 36th National Games, and
rightly so. Winning of a gold medal in the National Games would definitely be
the better sports achievement than a participatory certificate in an Asian
Championship. National Games otherwise finds mention at Sr. No. 14 of the
Schedule II, which pertains to Team Events. There is no dispute about her
fulfilling all other requirements, and therefore Asian Netball Championship not
finding mention at serial no.7 of Schedule II is of no consequence. Records reveal
that the certificate of merit pertaining to the 36th National Games has been issued
by the Indian Olympic Association, and perusal of the schedules would also show
that the organizing authority for the National Games is the IOA and therefore
there possibly cannot be doubt regarding the same being organized by a
recognized authority. We, therefore, find force in the submissions made by the
learned senior counsel for the respondent/petitioner that she fulfills all eligibility
requirements under the statutory Rules and is entitled for being considered for
appointment to the post in question.
LPA-3437-2025 (O&M) -11-
16. Before parting, we would like to notice that although the appellants
had conceded that similarly situated sports persons were appointed, however a
stand was taken that show cause notices have been issued to all such appointees,
and consequential action is proposed. Despite lapse of almost two years since
such stand was taken before the Supreme Court and notwithstanding grant of
numerous opportunities by this Court, the appellants have failed to place any
material on record, in this regard. Learned State Counsel has only submitted that
the matter is still under active consideration of the State Government. We find
that such selective interpretation of the Rules to appoint a chosen few, while
rejecting the claim of the respondent, to be ex-facie arbitrary and discriminatory.
17. Be that as it may, in view of the reasons recorded above, we do not
find any illegality or perversity in the judgment and order dated 29.07.2025
passed by the learned Single Judge. As a result thereof, the instant appeal must
fail and is dismissed accordingly.
18. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.
(ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA) (ROHIT KAPOOR)
JUDGE JUDGE
28.04.2026
Mohit goyal
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
