Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Smt. Ansee vs State Of Rajasthan on 10 August, 2021
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
(1 of 3) [CW-9448/2021]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9448/2021
Smt. Ansee D/o Shri Kheta Ram W/o Shri Babu Lal, Aged About
28 Years, By Caste Obc, Resident Of Indrawas, Jakharo Ka Tala,
Tehsil Ramsar, District Barmer.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Medical And
Health Department, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Medical And Health Department, Jaipur.
3. The Additional Director (Administration), Medical And
Health Services, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Bhandari
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta for
Mr. K. S. Rajpurohit, AAG
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
10/08/2021
1. Petitioner has prayed that she be appointed on the post of
Female Health Worker under outstanding sports person quota.
2. In support of her claim, the petitioner has relied upon
certificate Annex.3 evincing that she stood third in National School
Games Championship of Handball organised by School Games
Federation of India.
3. Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents, at the outset, submits that the issue involved in the
present writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment dated
19.02.2021 passed by Division Bench of this Court in the case of
(2 of 3) [CW-9448/2021]
State of Rajasthan Vs. Altaf Hussain & Ors (DB SAW
No.1349/2019).
4. The Division Bench in the judgment aforesaid has held thus :
"9. The Explanation (i) to (iv) to Rule 7C covers
various International and National Sports and Games
event, participation and performance wherein as
specified, makes a person entitle to claim the
consideration of his candidature against the vacancies
reserved for Outstanding Sports Persons. It is to be
noticed that only Explanation (ii) covers the Sports
and Games recognized by Indian School Sports
Federation or concerned recognized National School
Games Federation and no other Explanation attached
to Rule 7C deals with the participation in School
Sports and Games Tournament. Explanation (ii),
covers only a person who has represented Indian
Team, in individual or in Team event in any
International Tournament of any Sports and Games
recognized by the Indian School Sports Federation or
concerned recognized National School Games
Federation. The respondents have not participated in
any International Sports and Games event
representing the Indian Team in Individual or in Team
and therefore, they are not entitled to claim benefit of
reservation meant for outstanding sports persons by
virtue of Explanation (ii) to Rule 7C. A bare perusal of
the Explanation (iii) makes it abundantly clear that it
does not cover any School Sports or Games event
recognized by the National School Games Federation,
rather, it refers to Open National Tournament of any
Sports and Games recognized by Indian Olympic
Association or concerned National Sports Federation.
Thus, the participation of the respondents in National
School Games Championship recognized by School
Games Federation of India is not covered by
(3 of 3) [CW-9448/2021]
Explanation (iii)attached to Rule 7-C of the Rules
either. National School Games Championship is also
not covered by any of the description of National
Games Championship as mentioned in the Guidelines
(Annexure 8) placed on record.
10. In this view of the matter, in the considered
opinion of this court, the action of the appellants in
refusing to consider the candidature of the
respondents for recruitment to the post of Constable
against the vacancies reserved for Outstanding Sports
Persons to be filled in by operating horizontal
reservation is in conformity with Rule 7C of the Rules
and cannot be faulted with.
11. For the aforementioned reasons, the orders
impugned passed by the learned Single Judge
deserve to be set aside and the writ petitions deserve
to be dismissed.
12. Accordingly, the special appeals are allowed.
The orders impugned passed by the learned Single
Judge are set aside. The writ petitions preferred by
the respondents are dismissed. No order as to costs."
5. Mr. Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioner, is not in a
position to dispute the aforesaid position of facts and law.
6. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of
following the judgment in the case of Altaf Hussain (supra).
7. Stay application is also disposed of.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
273-A.Arora/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
