Shalu Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan
2023 Latest Caselaw 3 Raj

(1 of 4) [CW-6712/2022]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6712/2022

Shalu Sharma W/o Shri Brijesh Kumar Sharma D/o Shri Yogesh Bihari Sharma, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Padalwas, Bharatpur, Rajasthan, C/o Dr. Gk Sharma, Singhviyo Ka Bas, Jaitaraniya Gate Road, Sojat City, Sojat, District Pali, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Director Of Elementary Education, Bikaner.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Saurabh Soni For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pankaj Sharma, AAG

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

02/01/2023

1. The petitioner has prayed that the respondent No.1 be

directed to consider petitioner's candidature in outstanding sports

personnel category.

2. In support of her claim, the petitioner has relied upon the

certificates dated 03.01.2012 and 23.12.2012 issued by the

School Games Federation of India.

3. Mr. Pankaj Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, at

the outset, submitted that petitioner's claim of being considered

as an outstanding sports person is not tenable inasmuch as she

has only taken part in the competition, without winning any medal

whereas, the condition of advertisement and the relevant rules

require that a candidate must win a medal in such tournament.

(2 of 4) [CW-6712/2022]

4. Mr. Sharma, learned AAG relied upon the judgment rendered

by a Co-ordinate Bench this Court in the case of Harjinder Singh

Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.6286/2022) and other connected writ petitions, dated

21.07.2022 and a judgment of Division Bench of this Court dated

25.08.2022 rendered in the case of Ms. Sumitra Bishnoi Vs. The

State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.580/2022),

wherein the view of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has been

upheld.

5. In Harjinder Singh (supra), the Co-ordinate Bench of this

Court has held thus:-

"I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

The notification dated 21.11.2019, whereby the Rajasthan Various Service (V-Amendment) Rules, 2019 came into effect, inter alia, provided the following in relation to outstanding sportsperson:-

"Explanation: "Outstanding Sportspersons" shall mean sportspersons who are bona fide resident of the State of Rajasthan, and,-

(i) ............................ or

(ii) Medal winner in the individual or in team event in any School National Games of any Sports and Games organized by the School Games Federation of India; or

(iii) ............................ or

(iv) ............................ or

(v) represented Rajasthan in individual or in a team event in national games/national para games or national championship/para national championship of any sports and games, organized by Indian Olympic Association/Para Olympic Committee of India or its affiliated National Sports Federation."

A bare look at the above would reveal that for a candidate to seek benefit of outstanding sportsperson, he must be a bonafide resident of State of Rajasthan and a medal winner in the individual or in team event in any School National Games of any Sports and Games organized by the School Games Federation of India or should have represented Rajasthan in National Games or

(3 of 4) [CW-6712/2022]

National Championship organized by IOA/POCI or its affiliated National Sports Federation.

A look at the certificates produced by the petitioners reveal that they had participated in National School Games and did not win medal at the said games.

The requirement of the Rules clearly stipulates that the candidate should have won a medal in any School National Game organized by the School Games Federation of India and, therefore, clearly the petitioners do not fulfil the requirement of the stipulation made in the advertisements for getting the benefit of being an outstanding sportsperson.

Having failed to win a medal at the National School Games, the petitioners seek to fall back upon clause-(v) (supra) of having represented Rajasthan at the said School Games. However, the requirement under clause (v) (supra), inter alia, requires that the games should have been organized by IOA/POCI or its affiliated National Sports Federation.

The petitioners have produced list of recognized National Sports Federation for the year 2019 issued by the Department of Sports, Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, wherein it is inter alia claimed that the School Games Federation of India is recognized.

However, a bare look at the requirement of the Rules reveal that the game should have been organized by a National Sports Federation 'affiliated' to IOA/POCI'.

This Court during the course of hearing today, in similar nature petitions led by SBCW No.5683/2022, had occasion to consider the above aspect and based on the Memorandum and Rules and Regulations of IOA, wherein list of affiliated National Sports Federations was annexed and was made available to counsel for the petitioners by counsel representing the respondents during the course of submissions, finds that the School Games Federation of India, is not an affiliated Federation of IOA. As such, the claim made by the petitioners based on clause (v) of the Rules even otherwise, has no substance.

Besides the above, even if the case of the petitioners had fallen under clause (v), still they were not entitled for the status as an outstanding sportsperson, inasmuch as, the clause (ii) dealing with the National School Games organized by School Games Federation of India, is a specific provision dealing with the claim of the petitioners and, therefore, they could not have fallen back on clause

(v), which clause qua clause (ii) is general in nature.

The basic Rule of statutory interpretation is 'generalia specialibus non derogant' i.e. general law

(4 of 4) [CW-6712/2022]

yields to special law should they operate in the same field/on the same subject would apply.

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commercial Tax Officer, Rajasthan v. Binani Cements Ltd. & Anr.: (2014) 8 SCC 319, inter alia, laid down as under:-

"32. Before we deal with the fact situation in the present appeal, we reiterate the settled legal position in law, that is, if in a statutory rule or statutory notification, there are two expressions used, one in general terms and the other in special words, under the rules of interpretation, it has to be understood that the special words were not meant to be included in the general expression. Alternatively, it can be said that where a statute contains both a general provision as well as specific provision, the latter must prevail."

(emphasis supplied)

From the above, it is apparent that once the case of the petitioners fall in clause (ii) of the Rules, even if their case had fallen in clause (v) of the Rules, they could not have sought benefit under clause (v) as clause (ii) specifically deals with their cases i.e. participation in School National Games organized by School Games Federation of India and as they had failed to win medal at the said games.

In view of the above discussion, the rejection of the petitioners' candidature as an outstanding sportsperson, cannot be faulted.

Consequently, there is no substance in the writ petitions, the same are, therefore, dismissed."

6. Following the adjudication aforesaid made in the case of

Harjinder Singh (supra), the present petition is dismissed.

7. Stay petition also stands disposed of accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 24-Arvind/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)