Surendra Singh vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 8064 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:33201]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9739/2021

Surendra Singh S/o Shri Umaid Singh, Aged About 26 Years, Vpo Rabadiya, Tehsil Rani, District Pali, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. The Secretary, Department Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

3. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.

4. The Chief Education Officer, Zila Parishad Jalore, District Jalore, Rajasthan.

5. The District Eduacation Officer (Headquarter), Elementary Education Jalore, District Jalore, Rajasthan.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mohan Singh for Mr. Kailash Jangid For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dhairyaditya for Mr. Pankaj Sharma, AAG

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA Order 06/10/2023

1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has

challenged the order dated 26.07.2021 whereby the appointment

granted to him had been cancelled by the respondents, inter-alia

stating that in light of the circular dated 08.01.2020, issued by the

State Government only candidate who is resident of Rajasthan and

has played for/represented the State of Rajasthan can be treated

as an Outstanding Sports Person.

2. Mr. Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner

submitted that in its judgment dated 22.08.2023, rendered in a

[2023:RJ-JD:33201] (2 of 4) [CW-9739/2021]

bunch of writ petition led by Imran Khan Vs. State of

Rajasthan & Ors.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17693/2019

this Court has held that a candidate who is a bonafide resident of

the State of Rajasthan is entitled to be treated as an Outstanding

Sports Person, even if he has represented a State other than the

State of Rajasthan. And hence, the petitioner's writ petition

deserves to be allowed in light of the judgment rendered in the

case of Imran Khan (supra).

3. In the case of Imran Khan (supra) while dealing with the

conditions of the advertisement, this Court has held thus:-

"22. In the opinion of this Court, the fact that whether a candidate has represented the State of Rajasthan or any other State is of hardly any significance. So far as clause (iii) of Rule 2 of the notification is concerned, it hardly makes a reference of the State.

23. The explanation defining "outstanding sports person" uses an expression 'State', but that too in a limited sense that a sports person should be a resident of the State of Rajasthan. Such intention of the State is evident from the clear language used in following four clauses. Clause (i) and (ii) uses the words 'represented Indian Team', whereas in clause (iii) and (iv) such expression is conspicuously absent. The reasons are not far to seek; clause (iii) and

(iv) mandates a medal winner, while clause (i) and (ii) requires representation simplicitor. Presenting Indian Team in an International Tournament is comparable to winning a medal in National Tournament. If the intention of the Rule making authority was to confine the reservation for the persons representing the State of Rajasthan, then the expression 'represented Rajasthan' would have been used, as has been done in clause (i) and

(ii).

24. Apart from what has been discussed hereinabove, in the opinion of this Court as long as a candidate is a resident of the

[2023:RJ-JD:33201] (3 of 4) [CW-9739/2021]

State of Rajasthan and has won medal in any team event or individual event, he cannot be pushed out of ambit of State of Rajasthan, simply because he has chosen to or got an opportunity to represent a State other than the State of Rajasthan.

25. The purpose of the notification is to encourage or incentivise the residents of the State, who have excelled in the sports so that sports activities and talents of the State of Rajasthan are encouraged and such persons after being recruited can help the State in winning medals or performing better.

26. So far as reliance of the learned Additional Advocate General upon the circular dated 08.01.2020 is concerned, this Court hastens to hold that the notification dated 15.03.2013 and notification dated 21.11.2019 were issued by the Department of Personnel, the State of Rajasthan in exercise of power conferred under Article 309 of the Constitution having statutory force, whereas the clarificatory circular dated 08.01.2020 has been issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government, Elementary Education Department. Such circular cannot over-ride the express provisions of Rules or the notification issued by the State of Rajasthan. It is settled position of law that a circular issued against the mandate of a notification has to concede.

27. As an upshot of the discussion foregoing, these writ petitions are allowed.

28. The impugned order(s) rejecting petitioners' candidature as outstanding sports persons are hereby quashed.

29. The respondents are hereby directed to accord appointment to the petitioners, if they are otherwise eligible.

30. Needful be done within a period of eight weeks from today.

31. Stay petitions also stand disposed of."

4. Learned counsel for the State could not dispute the aforesaid

factual & legal position. The present writ petition is, therefore,

allowed in terms of the judgment in the case of Imran Khan

(supra).

[2023:RJ-JD:33201] (4 of 4) [CW-9739/2021]

5. The impugned order dated 26.07.2021, cancelling

petitioner's appointment is hereby quashed and set aside.

6. Stay application stands disposed of.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 35-AbhishekS/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)