The State Of Rajasthan vs Anil Kumar
2021 Latest Caselaw 16211 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 54/2020

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Director General Police, Police Headquarter, Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.).

3. The Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment), Police Headquarter, Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)

4. The Superintendent Of Police, District Churu, Churu (Raj.)

----Appellants Versus Anil Kumar S/o Shri Sharwan Kumar Tandi, Aged About 25 Years, B/c Jat, R/o Village And Post Galar, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu (Raj.).

                                                                 ----Respondent


For Appellant(s)          :     Mr. Manish Vyas, AAG.
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Deepak Nehra.


      HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI
            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

                                     Order

26/10/2021



Application for condonation of delay:

     Issue notice.

Mr. Deepak Nehra, learned counsel for the respondent waives

notice on behalf of the respondent.

For the reasons mentioned in the application and those made

out before us during the course of arguments, the delay in filing

the appeal is condoned.

The application is disposed of accordingly.

                                            (2 of 5)             [SAW-54/2020]




Special Appeal:

This appeal is filed by the State Government to challenge the

order of the learned Single Judge dated 21.05.2019 passed in S.B.

Civil Writ Petition No. 16042/2018.

The petitioner-respondent herein had applied for the post of

Constable in Rajasthan Police Service on special reservation for

outstanding sports persons. It is undisputed that the recruitment

Rules prescribed 2 % reservation in favour of such candidates, of

course, subject to certain conditions. The petitioner was a weight-

lifter and was competing in 77 Kgs weight category. The

recruitment advertisement had earmarked a total of 262 vacancies

for outstanding sports-persons. The breakup of such vacancies

would show that such vacancies were distributed for different

individual sports events such as Judo, Wrestling, Boxing, Archery,

Athletics etc. as well as for team sports events such as Hockey,

Volleyball, Basketball, Handball etc. For the event of weight lifting,

8 vacancies for men and 7 for women were originally notified. This

was later on revised to 5 vacancies for men and 5 for women. The

record would suggest that there were only 3 applicants for the

weight lifting category (Male). This included one Shri Narendra

Singh Rathore, Shri Laksh Meena and Shri Anil Kumar (the

petitioner). It is undisputed that Narendra Singh Rathore belonged

to a different weight category than the petitioner, whereas, Laksh

Meena was competing in the same weight category of 77 kgs for

weight lifting. The department thereafter ascertained as to which

of the two candidates, i.e., the petitioner or Laksh Meena was

more meritorious and finding that Laksh Meena was more

meritorious than the petitioner, the petitioner's name was not

(3 of 5) [SAW-54/2020]

recommended for appointment. This was primarily on the basis of

note no.-1 appended to the notification dated 4 th June, 2018 for

appointment which was in continuation of the original recruitment

notification dated 25th May, 2018. The note no.-1 appended to the

said notification provided that in each category of sports, not more

than one person would be appointed. According to the appellant,

since Laksh Meena and the petitioner both were competing for

appointment in reserved category of weight-lifting in 77kgs, only

one of them could be offered appointment. It was on this ground

that the petitioner's candidature was rejected.

Learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the present

case is a peculiar one since against the total 10 reserved

vacancies, only 3 persons qualified for appointment had applied

and in that view of the matter, the petitioner should not be kept

out of consideration. Eventually therefore, the learned Single

Judge directed the respondents to grant appointment to the

petitioner in the reserved outstanding sportsman category, if he

was otherwise eligible and the petitioner would be entitled to

consequential benefits.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties for final

disposal of the appeal.

Perusal of the notification dated 4th June, 2018 would show

that the total of 262 vacancies reserved for outstanding sports-

persons, is sub-divided sports category wise such as, as noted

above, individual events as well as team sports. Note-1 of this

notification provides that not more than one appointment shall be

made in each sub category of the specified sports. We need to

interpret this clause bearing in mind the overall purpose for

granting reservation in favour of sports persons and the number of

(4 of 5) [SAW-54/2020]

vacancies earmarked and reserved for said purpose. We may note

that under Standing Order No. 12/2018 dated 18 th May, 2018, the

State Government has laid down the procedure for recruitment of

constables. This Standing Order includes the procedure for

determination of vacancies reserved for different categories

including for outstanding sports persons. Clause (f) of this

Standing Order, in particular provides that as per the recruitment

Rules, 2 % of the total vacancies would be reserved for

outstanding sports-persons of Rajasthan in a particular year for

direct recruitment. It also provides that in the event of non

availability of sports persons in a particular year, the vacancies

shall be filled in accordance with the normal procedure and shall

not be carried forward.

As noted earlier, the notification dated 4th June, 2018 had

given a breakup of number of vacancies reserved for particular

sports events. If the reserved vacancies are thus projected over

different sports events, note-1, noted above, has to be seen as

limiting the number of appointment to one in each sub-category of

such sports. Any other view would render note-1 incongruous with

the specification of number of reserved vacancies for individual

sports events. Applying this limitation of not making more than

one appointment in each sub-category, without proper

modification in given situation, would lead to anomalous situation

and number of complications. The learned Additional Advocate

General may be justified in arguing that sub-categorization in

events such as Weight-lifting, Wrestling, Boxing etc. has to be

made according to weight categories, this formula will fail in other

individual sports such as Archery, Athletics, Gymnastics etc where

the sports do not recognize further bifurcation on the basis of

(5 of 5) [SAW-54/2020]

weight category. This imposition of ceiling of one appointment for

sub-category applied by the State Government on the basis of

weight categorization in a case where total number of applicants

were much lesser than the total vacancies reserved for individual

sport, therefore must fail in the present fact situation. The learned

Single Judge therefore was justified in over-ruling the objections

of the State Government in offering appointment to the petitioner.

Additional fact, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the

petitioner, is that Laksh Meena, who was found to be more

meritorious than the petitioner in the weight category, never

received the offer of appointment for some other fortuitous

reasons, for which we are not directly concerned.

Under the circumstances, the only modification that needs to

be made in the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge is

that the petitioner may be appointed with consequential benefits

of seniority but not actual pay for the past period. He shall be

appointed on the post within two months from today and he shall

draw pay and allowances from the date of his appointment.

However, his seniority will relate back to the date of appointment

of other candidates through the same selection process.

In the result, the appeal is disposed of.

Interim relief application also stands disposed of.

                                   (SANDEEP MEHTA),J                                        (AKIL KURESHI),CJ


                                   7-jayesh/-









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)