The State Of Rajasthan vs Ali Aman Elahi S/O Abdul Malik
2021 Latest Caselaw 6374 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

             D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 696/2021

1.    The State of Rajasthan, through its Chief Secretary,
      Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2.    The Addl. Chief Secretary, Department of Personnel, Govt.
      of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3.    The Addl. Chief Secretary, Department of Home, Govt. of
      Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4.    The Addl. Chief Secretary, Department of Youth Affairs and
      Sports, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
                                                                ----Appellants
                                  Versus
1.    Ali Aman Elahi S/o Abdul Malik, aged about 21 years, R/o
      101, Allah Buksh Building, M.I. Road, Jaipur (Raj.)
2.    Rajasthan State Sports Council, through its Secretary,
      Sawai Man Singh Stadium, Jaipur (Raj.)
                                                              ----Respondents

Connected With D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 567/2021 Rajasthan State Sports Council, through its Secretary, Sawai Man Singh Stadium, Jaipur (Raj.)

----Appellant Versus

1. Manini Kaushik D/o Shri Anil Kaushik, aged about 20 years, R/o F-4, 187, Modi Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur (Raj.)

2. The State of Rajasthan, through its Chief Secretary, Govt.

of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)

3. The Addl. Chief Secretary, Department of Personnel, Govt.

of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

4. The Addl. Chief Secretary, Department of Forest, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

5. The Addl. Chief Secretary, Department of Youth Affairs and Sports, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

----Respondents D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 580/2021 Rajasthan State Sports Council, through its Secretary, Sawai Man

(2 of 15) [SAW-696/2021]

Singh Stadium, Jaipur (Raj.)

----Appellant Versus

1. Ali Aman Elahi Son Of Abdul Malik, aged about 21 years, R/o 101, Allah Buksh Building, M.I. Road, Jaipur.

2. The State of Rajasthan, through its Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. (Raj.).

3. The Addl. Chief Secretary, Department of Personnel, Govt.

of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

4. The Addl. Chief Secretary, Department of Home, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

5. The Addl. Chief Secretary, Department of Youth Affairs and Sports, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

----Respondents D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 697/2021

1. The State of Rajasthan, through its Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).

2. The Addl. Chief Secretary, Department of Personnel, Govt.

of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. The Addl. Chief Secretary, Department of Forest, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

4. The Addl. Chief Secretary, Department of Youth Affairs and Sports, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

----Appellants Versus

1. Manini Kaushik D/o Shri Anil Kaushik, aged about 20 years, R/o F-4, 187, Modi Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur (Raj.)

2. Rajasthan State Sports Council, through its Secretary, Sawai Man Singh Stadium, Jaipur (Raj.)

----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. R.P. Singh, AAG with Mr. Jaivardhan Singh Shekhawat Mr. Jai Raj Tantia For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vigyan Shah with Mr. Akshit Gupta Mr. Harendra Neel and Ms. Sarah Sharma

(3 of 15) [SAW-696/2021]

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Judgment

11/11/2021

These appeals arise out of the common judgment of the

learned Single Judge dated 15/03/2021 passed in S.B. Civil Writ

Petition No.12343/2020 and connected petitions. Since facts are

substantially similar, we may note them from the original writ

petition in the case of Manini Kaushik. The petitioner Manini

Kaushik had filed the above mentioned writ petition seeking a

direction that the respondent State authorities should consider her

candidature for out of turn appointment on a State Government

post as a medal winner under the Medal Winner Rules, 2017

(hereinafter referred to as the "Rules of 2017"). The petitioner had

participated in a team event of 10 Meter Air Riffle Women Junior

Team in ISSF World Championship, Chanangwon held at South

Korea in the year 2018 winning a Gold medal in the event. The

petitioner also claimed that in the process of winning Gold medal

the team had broken the world record in the junior category.

Besides, she had also won a Bronze medal in the Asian

Championship 2017 (junior category) in the same event. Since the

State authorities did not consider the petitioner eligible for

appointment under the said Rules of 2017, she has approached

this Court.

While granting ad interim relief, the learned Single Judge had

directed the authorities to consider the candidature of the

petitioner as a medal winner at world championship under

category 'A' of the said Rules as amended in the year 2020. In

compliance of the directions, the respondent constituted a

(4 of 15) [SAW-696/2021]

committee, which considered the case of the petitioner in the

meeting held on 16/10/2020 and found that she was ineligible

because she had won a medal in junior category and that there is

a clear distinction between junior and senior category in the

regulations framed by the International Shooting Sports

Federation (ISSF), the Federation which controls the game of rifle

shooting.

While finally disposing of the writ petition, the learned Single

Judge referred to the provisions contained in the Rules of 2017

and Regulations framed by ISSF and came to the conclusion that

the petitioner was wrongly held ineligible for appointment in terms

of the said Rules. Perusal of the judgment of the learned Single

Judge would show that the petition was allowed primarily on two

grounds:-

(i) Firstly the learned single Judge was of the opinion that the

ISSF had not drawn distinction between Junior and Senior World

Championship. Though not specifically so stated, it would appear

that the learned Single Judge was of the opinion that petitioner

had won a Gold medal in a team event of open category World

Championship.

(ii) Secondly, the learned Single Judge was of the opinion that

no such distinction as is sought to be made by the authorities, is

to be found in the Rules. Learned Judge has therefore opined that

such distinction to deprive a rightful candidate such as the

petitioner, is discriminatory.

The State Government had challenged that decision in these

appeals. The learned Additional Advocate General raised the

following contentions:-

                                            (5 of 15)                 [SAW-696/2021]



(i)     That the Rules of 2017 are clear and would cover only those

sports persons who had won the medals in specified open

category championship. This would not include junior or sub junior

events.

(ii) The leaned Single Judge committed serious error in holding

that the petitioner had participated in open category events when

clearly they had won medals in junior category.

(iii) Counsel pointed out that under the Rules of 2017, there is no

upper limit of number of persons who can be appointed on

government posts. Recognizing the junior level events for such

appointments would open flood gates and large number of

candidates would come forward seeking government jobs out of

turn. He therefore submitted that the interpretation adopted by

the authorities being reasonable, should have been upheld by the

learned Single Judge.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the original petitioner

opposed these appeals. His contentions were:-

(i) The rules are clear and permit no ambiguity. By way of

cardinal principle of statutory interpretation, no words can be

added or subtracted.

(ii) The Rules of 2017 make no distinction between

championships, which are open category vis-a-vis those who are

of junior level.

(iii) The petitioner had won medals at an event which was meant

for all age groups and on facts also, therefore, the learned Single

Judge was correct in holding that no distinction of Open vs. Junior

level championship, could be applied in this case.

(iv) Counsel submitted that the Rules of 2017 are in the nature

of benevolent legislation and such legislation must be interpreted

(6 of 15) [SAW-696/2021]

liberally so as to give the benefit flowing from the statute to the

eligible persons.

(v) Counsel submitted that in certain Central Government

organizations such as Railways and Indian Air Force, no such

distinction as junior level and open category championship events

is made. It would therefore be logical that no such distinction be

made in the Rules in question.

In support of his contentions regarding the interpretation of

the Rules, counsel relied upon the following judgments:-

1. Rohitash Kumar and Others vs. Om Prakash Sharma and Others : (2013) 11 Supreme Court Cases 451.

2. Nasiruddin and Others vs. Sita Ram Agarwal : (2003) 2 Supreme Court Cases 577.

3. Brahampal Alias Sammay and Another vs. National Insurance Company : (2021) 6 Supreme Court Cases 512.

4. Parvaiz Ahmad Parry vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others : (2015) 17 Supreme Court Cases 709.

It is undisputed that the State Government has two separate

schemes for supporting and encouraging sports persons of

outstanding merit and achievements. An independent scheme is

provided under the Rajasthan Service Rules, where by virtue of

Amendment of 2013, 2% of the total vacancies are reserved for

sports persons. Since we are not primarily concerned with this

reservation, it is not necessary to take note of the provisions

contained in these Rules. For our purpose, what is of significant is

the Rules of 2017. These Rules were promulgated under a

notification dated 03/07/2017. Rule 2 of the Rules provides that

notwithstanding anything contained in the Service Rules regulating

recruitment of persons in various services of the State, the sports

medal winner of Rajasthan shall be eligible for appointment on the

(7 of 15) [SAW-696/2021]

posts specified in Schedules I, II & III appended to the Rules. Rule

3 of the said Rules pertains to the criteria and manner for out of

turn appointment to sports medal winners, relevant portion of

which reads as under:-

"3.Criteria and manner for out of turn appointment to Sports Medal Winners.- (1) The appointment to Sports Medal Winners shall be made in accordance with the following criteria :-

(i) Category A

(a) Medal Winners of Olympic Games,

(b) Gold medal Winners of Asian games (Asiad)/ Commonwealth Games, shall be considered for appointment to the posts specified in Schedule I

(ii) Category B

(a) Silver and Bronze Medal Winners of Asian games (Asiad)/ Commonwealth Games.

(b) Winners and runners up of World cup/ World championship in sports which are recognized in Rajasthan sports act or are included in Olympics/ Asian games (Asiad),

(c) Medal Winners or Winners / runners up in Asian Athletics Championship / Commonwealth Games in sports mentioned above,

(d) Medal Winners of Para Olympics, shall be considered for appointment to the posts in grade pay 3600/- or above specified in Schedule II.

(iii) Category C

(a) Medal Winners (Senior) in National games,

(b) Medal Winners or Winners/ runners up in above sports in National Championship (Senior), shall be considered for appointment to the posts in grade pay less than Rs. 3600/- specified in Schedule II and to the posts specified in Schedule III. Explanation: The above Games/ Championships/ Cups should be recognized by the concerned International Association/ Body/ Federation for the games. (2) For the purpose of appointment under these rules, only sports achievements obtained by the players after 01/01/2016 shall be considered. For appointment under these rules, Medal Winner sports persons shall have to apply to the Secretary, Sports and Youth Affairs, Department within three years from the date of winning the medal.

(3) Appointment under these rules shall be given to eligible sports persons of the State of Rajasthan only.

(4) Medal Winners who are appointed under these rules shall be encouraged and provided enabling environment to continue playing and achieving high goals in their respective sports for at least five years and during this period their performance assessment will be linked to their sporting achievements. These players will also be made

(8 of 15) [SAW-696/2021]

available to the Sports and Youth Affairs Department for participation, training or supervision of tournaments as required (5) The eligible Medal Winners shall be appointed on different category posts which are vacant or by deemed creation of new posts in the required category by the concerned department. These new posts shall be in addition to the regular cadre strength. The eligible Medal Winners who join a department on a particular category of posts shall be exempted from the requisite professional qualifications and shall be required to complete special courses/Professional courses prescribed by the department in a given time frame.

(6) The educational qualifications required for the post under the relevant service rules shall not be insisted upon at the time of appointment and in such cases, conditional appointment may be given but the sportsperson shall have to acquire the requisite qualification within the period of five years failing which the appointment shall be terminated.

(7) The minimum age limit will be according to the concerned service rules but there will be no maximum age limit.

(10) The seniority of the persons appointed under these shall be determined from the date of their appointment on the post after regular selection in accordance with the provisions of these rules. The inter-se seniority of the persons appointed under these rules on the same date shall be determined in the following order:-

(a) Gold Medal Winners of Olympic Games.

(b) Silver Medal Winners of Olympic Games.

(c) Bronze Medal Winners of Olympic Games.

(d) Gold Medal Winners of World cum/World Championship.

(e) Silver Medal Winners of World cum/World Championship.

(f) Bronze Medal Winners of World cum/World Championship.

(g) Gold Medal Winners of Asian Games.

(h) Gold Medal Winners of Commonwealth Games. If two or more Medal Winners have the same medal in the same championship, the seniority shall be determined on the basis of their age and the older shall be considered to be senior. In case of same age, seniority shall be determined according to the alphabetical order of their names."

By notification dated 18/03/2020, the Rules of 2017 were

amended. These amendments do not change the complexion of

the case. Suffice it to record by virtue of these amendments,

besides other changes, the category of the winners and World Cup

(9 of 15) [SAW-696/2021]

championship, was moved from Category B to Category A in the

original Rules.

The central issue revolving around these Rules is whether a

sports person winning a medal in Junior Level World

championship, is eligible for appointment. Before addressing the

central issue a side issue arising may be disposed of. As noted, the

view of the learned Single Judge was that the ISSF (the Federation

which controls the riffle shooting events) makes no distinction

between a junior and a senior world cup event. Learned counsel

for the original petitioner also tried to support this contention by

arguing that the petitioner had won medals in the Riffle Shooting

event, which was common for all participants and not confined

only to a certain age group of sports persons.

In our opinion, this issue needs a summary conclusion. The

petitioner Manini Kaushik herself in her petition in the very

beginning portion has stated that the petitioner is an outstanding

sports person who is a medal winner in various national and

international sporting events in the sport of shooting, wherein she

has brought laurels for the country and her one of the highest

achievements is winning a Gold medal in a team event of 10 Meter

Air Riffle Women Junior Team in 52 nd ISSF World Championship,

Changwon, South Korea in 2018 wherein her team while winning

the Gold medal also made a world record in junior category.

Besides the aforesaid achievement, she has also won the Bronze

medal in Asian Championship, 2017 (junior category) in the same

event.

Thus, according to the petitioner herself her participation in

the World Cup Championship in South Korea and Asian

Championship in the year 2017 were in Junior categories. Even as

(10 of 15) [SAW-696/2021]

per the result sheets produced by the petitioner for 52 nd ISSF

World Championship, Changwon, South Korea held in 2018, she

won a Gold medal in a team event, which was for "10 meter rifle

women junior team".

Under the circumstances, there is no getting away from the

fact that petitioner had won medals in the World Championship

events which took place in Junior World Cup Championships.

This brings us to the central issue of the interpretation of the

Rules of 2017. As noted, Rule 2 of the said Rules of 2017 enables

the State Government to give appointment to the sports medal

winners of Rajasthan ignoring the normal service rules which

appointment would be grated as per the criteria provided in the

Rules. Rule 3 in particular refers to the criteria and manner for out

of turn appointment to such medal winners. Category 'A' as

amended by the Amending Rules of 2020 includes medal winners

in Olympic Games (Summer), Paralympic Games; or medal

winners in World Cup, World Championship, Para World Cup, Para

World Championship; or medal winners in Asian Games, Asian

Para Games; or medal winners in Commonwealth Games,

Commonwealth Games Para Events; or winner, runners up of

Cricket World Cup/Championship; or winner/runners up of Polo

World Cup/ Championship. These sports achievers will be

considered for appointment on the posts specified in Schedule-I.

Likewise, Category B includes Silver and Bronze medal

winners of Asian games (Asiad)/ Commonwealth Games, winners

and runners up of World cup/ World championship in sports which

are recognized in Rajasthan Sports Act or are included in

Olympics/ Asian games (Asiad), medal winners or winners /

runners up in Asian Athletics Championship / Commonwealth

(11 of 15) [SAW-696/2021]

Games in sports mentioned above and finally, medal winners of

Para Olympics. These sports achievers would be considered for

appointment to Schedule II post.

Last is the Category C, which includes medal winners in

national games and medal winners or winners/runners up in above

sports in National Championship. These sports persons would be

considered for appointment to Schedule-III posts.

Sub Rule (10) of Rule 3 makes the provision for deciding the

inter se seniority of the persons appointed under these rules on

the same date. These categories are divided priority wise where

Gold medal winners of the Olympic games are placed at the

highest priority followed by Silver medal of the Olympic Games,

followed by Bronze winner of World Cup and followed by Gold

winner of Asian Games and so on.

Perusal of the Rules of 2017 would show that special

provisions are made in favour of medal winners and sports

persons at the highest level by ensuring recruitment on

government posts by waiving several essential qualifications and

requirements and without competing with other eligible

candidates. For example, as per sub-Rule (6) of Rule 3, the

educational qualifications required for the post in question shall

not be insisted upon at the time of appointment. As per sub-Rule

(7), the minimum age limit will be according to service rules but

there will be no maximum age limit. Sub Rule (4) of Rule 3

provides that the medal winner, who is appointed under the said

Rules shall be encouraged and provided enabling environment to

continue playing and achieving high goals in their respective

sports for at least five years.

(12 of 15) [SAW-696/2021]

These Rules thus serve several purposes and are framed to

encourage achievements in sporting events while recognizing that

those men and women who put enormous efforts, time and

energy in achieving excellence at the highest level in face of fierce

international competition, would not have enough time to devote

for general studies or to equip themselves so as to be able to

compete with other eligible candidates to secure government jobs.

This scheme ensures government employment to sports persons

who achieve certain standards at the international events and

encourages them to continue to play sports which in turn would

enhance the image of the State administration also.

These Rules are thus in the nature of exception to the

general principle of equality in public employment flowing from

Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and make several exceptions

noted above in favour of special class or category of citizens.

These rules therefore should be interpreted with this background

in mind. We do not think that these rules can be seen as a

benevolent legislation as sought to be canvased by the counsel for

the original petitioner but are, as noted above, the special

legislation making exceptions for specified categories of persons

for appointment on government posts breaching the principle of

equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Whether under these rules sporting event even at the

international level of junior category is recognized or not, must

therefore be answered with the background noted above. If we

analyze different categories recognized under the Rules, they are

medal winners of Olympic Games, Gold medal winners of Asian

Games and Commonwealth Games, medal winners at the World

Cup and World Championships, medal winners in Asian Athletic

(13 of 15) [SAW-696/2021]

Championship and medal winners in the National Games for Men

and Women.

Almost all these categories without any further prescription

relate to open events. For example, one can draw judicial notice of

the fact that the Olympic Games, Asian Games (for better

emphasis the word used is 'Asiad'), Commonwealth Games are all

open category events, which are not restricted to certain age

groups. It is true that these Rules also refer to the World Cup and

World Championships, which is possible for the petitioners to

argue are organized according to age group categories also.

However these expressions "World Cup" and "World

Championships" must be interpreted ejusdem generis along with

other expressions used in the Rules. If we take into account all

categories specified under the Rules which give special treatment

to the achievers and the medal winners for sports events, they all

relate to the sporting events in general categories without

restriction of age.

One more indication which is inbuilt in the Rules to adopt this

interpretation is to be found in sub-rule (10) of Rule 3. Sub-rule

(10) of Rule 3 provides for the seniority of persons appointed

under the Rules on the same date. It provides that the seniority of

such persons inter se shall be determined in the orders specified

therein. We have also reproduced this sub-rule earlier. Perusal of

sub-rule shows that for the purpose of inter se seniority, the order

fixed is the Gold medal winners of the Olympic games at the top.

This order is followed by Silver Medal winners of the Olympic

Games and the same is followed by Bronze medal winners of

Olympic Games and followed by Gold medal winners of World Cup

(14 of 15) [SAW-696/2021]

and is followed by Gold medal winner of Asian Games and Gold

medal winners of Commonwealth Games.

If we accept the contention of the petitioner that even Junior

World Cup Championship is to be included in Rule 3, it would

mean that a Bronze medal winner of a Junior Championship in the

World Cup would rank senior to a Gold medal winner in the Asian

Games which is open category game, which would be wholly

illogical. It cannot be denied that by lifting the age restriction in

any event, the completion of the event would certainly be much

greater. Even at the Asian Games level, to win a Gold Medal, a

sports person would have to put enormous efforts. This is not to

mean that at junior or sub-junior level at international level the

competition is not stiff. This is only to suggest that to rank a

Bronze medal winner in a junior or sub-junior level event of the

international tournament higher than a Gold medal winner in the

Asian games would defy logic.

Learned counsel for the State Government was also correct

in pointing out that these Rules recognize the right of the medal

winner sports persons in the specified categories to be considered

for appointment in government posts as per the scheme contained

therein without any restriction or limiting number of persons who

could be appointed. Unlike the Scheme of 2013, which makes

reservation of 2% for sports achievers, under these rules, there is

no ceiling of the number of persons who could be appointed. If the

scheme is drawn up for all levels of competitions including the

junior or sub-junior then many more claimants may seek

appointments which the State Government has not envisaged.

In the result, the interpretation adopted by the learned

Single Judge does not appeal to us.

(15 of 15) [SAW-696/2021]

The appeals are accordingly allowed and judgment of the

learned Single Judge is reversed.

                                    (REKHA BORANA),J                                                    (AKIL KURESHI),CJ


                                   Anil Goyal/BM Gandhi-PS/87-90









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)