Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Garvit Vyas vs State Of Rajasthan on 10 October, 2024

Author: Rekha Borana

Bench: Rekha Borana

[2024:RJ-JD:25241]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1954/2022

Garvit Vyas S/o Sh. Shashank Vyas, Aged About 22 Years, R/o
Chabili Ghati, Bikaner District Bikaner, Rajasthan.
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary,                        Home
         Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2.       The Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3.       Mukesh Choudhary S/o Rameshwar Lal Choudhary, R/o
         C/o Office Of Director General Of Police, Rajasthan,
         Jaipur.
                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Dr. Sachin Acharya, Sr. Adv. With
                                Mr. Pramendra Bohra
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Manoj Bhandari, Sr. Adv. With
                                Mr. Govind Suthar
                                Mr. Monal Chugh for
                                Mr. Rajesh Panwar, AAG



              HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

10/10/2024

1. The matter came upon an application under Article 226(3) of

the Constitution of India for vacation of the interim order dated

08.02.2022. However, with the consent of learned counsels for

the parties, the matter was heard finally and the judgment was

reserved.

2. The present writ petition has been preferred aggrieved of the

select list dated 25.01.2022 for the post of Sub Inspector/Platoon

Commander in pursuance to the direct recruitment for the said

post in the sports category quota vide the advertisement dated

28.12.2019 (Annex.5)/29.06.2021 (Annex.7). It has been prayed

[2024:RJ-JD:25241] (2 of 9) [CW-1954/2022]

that the petitioner be declared selected qua the said recruitment

in the sport of 'Bodybuilding'.

3. The facts are that vide advertisement dated 28.10.2019

(Annex.5), applications were invited for the post of Sub Inspector/

Platoon Commander (Sports Quota) qua 17 sports. For the sport

of bodybuilding, one vacancy was advertised.

4. The petitioner being eligible, applied for the same in the EWS

category. After the recruitment process been completed, as the

petitioner was not selected, the present writ petition has been

preferred with the averment that during the recruitment process,

a list dated 16.12.2021 (Annex.8) of the candidates whose

applications had been rejected provisionally, was issued and the

name of respondent No.3 reflected at Sr. No.530 in the said list.

On 03.01.2022 (Annex.9), a final list of the candidates whose

forms had been rejected, was issued wherein also, the name of

respondent No.3 reflected at Sr. No.547 with the remark

"Certificate Not as per Norms". Meaning thereby, the form of

respondent No.3 stood rejected. Despite the same, he has been

selected and his name found place in the provisional list of the

selected candidates issued on 25.01.2022 (Annex.11).

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

selection of respondent No.3 even after his form having been

rejected, speaks of clear malafides. When once the form of

respondent No.3 had been rejected on the count of the certificate

not being as per norms, how could the same have been

considered subsequently and how could he have been selected.

[2024:RJ-JD:25241] (3 of 9) [CW-1954/2022]

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3

submitted that in fact the form which was submitted by him in

pursuance to the first advertisement dated 28.12.2019 was

rejected, but after the issuance of the amended advertisement on

29.06.2021, he filled up the second form, enclosing therewith a

certificate of a tournament in which he had participated in the

month of April, 2021 and had secured 3 rd place in the said

championship. It is the said second application which was

considered and on basis of which he had been selected. Learned

counsel submitted that the said fact is evident from the different

application numbers as assigned to both the applications.

7. So far as the final selection is concerned, learned counsel

submitted that respondent No.3 was awarded 40 marks for his

certificate of the National Championship in terms of Condition

No.10A of the advertisement and his selection was therefore,

completely as per the norms.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Department

submitted that there was nothing malafide or fishy in the selection

as made. He submitted that what has been pointed out by the

petitioner, was the first form as filled up by respondent No.3,

which stood rejected but in pursuance to the amended

advertisement of the year 2021, respondent no.3 filled up the

second form and the certificate as enclosed with the second form

being as per the norms, was considered and the marks for the

said certificate were awarded to him in terms of Condition No.10A

of the advertisement. The certificate of respondent No.3 being

pertaining to a Federation Cup National Sport Championship, and

[2024:RJ-JD:25241] (4 of 9) [CW-1954/2022]

he having availed 3rd position, was awarded 40 marks for the

same. He was awarded 28 marks for the trial thereby totalling to

68 marks. So far as the petitioner is concerned, he was awarded

25 marks qua the certificate of Association of Indian Universities

and was awarded 15 marks in the trial, totalling to 40 marks.

Respondent No.3 having scored more than the petitioner, was

selected.

9. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

the certificate as submitted by respondent no.3, could not have

been taken into consideration as the same was not a certificate

issued by any of the authorities as specified in Condition No.9 of

the advertisement. As per Condition No.9 of the advertisement, a

certificate issued by any of the ten bodies/associations as

prescribed therein, could only have been considered and it is clear

on record that the certificate as enclosed by respondent No.3, was

not issued by any of the prescribed bodies/associations.

Therefore, the certificate as submitted by respondent No.3 could

not have been taken into consideration and hence, his selection

was bad.

Counsel submitted that the certificate as enclosed by the

petitioner was issued by the Association of Indian Universities

(AIU) which was a body prescribed in Condition No.9.

10. Vide an additional affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner, it

was also pointed out that the Indian Body Builders Federation

(hereinafter referred to as 'IBBF') has not been recognized by the

Indian Olympic Association and therefore too, the certificate as

submitted by respondent no.3 could not have been considered.

[2024:RJ-JD:25241] (5 of 9) [CW-1954/2022]

11. Responding to the above argument, learned counsel for the

respondent-State submitted that as no Federation/

Association/Body had been recognized by Indian Olympic

Association for the sport of 'Bodybuilding', the respondent

authorities sought information from the Ministry of Youth Affairs

and Sports, Govt. of India regarding the recognized

Federation/Association/Body for the said sport. In response, the

Department received the communication of the Ministry of Youth

Affairs and Sports specifying that IBBF is recognized by the said

Ministry for conducting bodybuilding tournaments.

12. Learned counsel further submitted that IBBF is also

recognized by All India Police Force Control Board. Hence, as no

Federation/Association/Body was recognized by the Indian

Olympics Association for the sport of bodybuilding, the certificate

issued by the IBBF, which is recognized by the Ministry of Youth

Affairs and Sports, was taken into consideration and the marks

qua the said certificate, in terms of the advertisement and in

terms of the governing rules, were awarded to respondent No.3.

The same cannot, by any means, be termed to be malafide or

fishy.

13. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

14. So far as the issue raised by learned counsel for the

petitioner regarding selection of respondent No.3 despite his form

having been cancelled is concerned, it is evident on record that

the said ground is not tenable. As is evident from the reply of the

respondent-State, although the first form stood rejected,

[2024:RJ-JD:25241] (6 of 9) [CW-1954/2022]

respondent No.3 had filled up the second form in pursuance to the

amended advertisement, which stood verified and in pursuance to

the same, he participated in the recruitment process. Therefore,

this Court is not required to probe into the said issue any further.

15. Coming on to the issue whether the certificate as enclosed

by respondent No.3 could have been considered, as has been

submitted and is clear on record, no Federation/Association/Body

has been recognized by the Indian Olympics Association for

conducting any tournament pertaining to the sport of

bodybuilding. Nothing contrary to the same has been even

submitted on behalf of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the

petitioner has also not pointed out any Federation/

Association/Body which has been recognized by the Indian

Olympics Association for the sport of Bodybuilding.

16. Considering the said admitted position, the criteria specified

at Sr. No.3 in Condition No.10A would clearly become redundant

as when there is no Federation/Association/Body recognized by

the Indian Olympics Association for the sport of bodybuilding, no

National level tournament can ever be held/conducted for the

sport of Bodybuilding. The same would clearly be detrimental to

the candidates pursuing the sport of bodybuilding as the

candidates/sportsperson pursuing the other sports would always

be at a higher pedestal as some or other Body/Association has

been recognized by the Indian Olympics Association for conducting

tournaments qua the said sport. No Body/Association having been

recognized by the Indian Olympics Association for the sport of

bodybuilding, would clearly deprive the sportspersons pursuing

[2024:RJ-JD:25241] (7 of 9) [CW-1954/2022]

the sport of bodybuilding of their legitimate right and the benefits

which they are otherwise entitled to. That cannot, and could not

have been the intention of the Legislature or even the recruiting

agency.

17. Further, the intention is very clear from the specification in

Sr. No.3 which specifically prescribes for a medal/participation in

Federation Cup National Senior Championship. Had the intention

been not to grant benefit to the candidates who won medal/

participated in such event, the same would not have been a part

of the said specification.

Further, the intention could not also have been to accord

benefit to a sportsperson winning a medal/participating in a

university level game but not to a sportsperson winning

medal/participating in a National Level Senior Championship.

18. Furthermore, as is the specific averment of the respondent-

Department itself, IBBF is a Body recognized by the Ministry of

Youth Affairs and Sports, Govt. of India and even by All India

Police Force Control Board. In the specific opinion of this Court,

absence of any Body/Association recognized by Indian Olympics

Association, the only Body of whose recognition could be termed

to be valid, is the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports and hence,

IBBF being a Body recognized by the said Ministry, the certificate

as issued to respondent No.3 by the said association, had rightly

been considered by the respondent-Department.

19. Now coming on the issue whether the marks as awarded to

both the petitioner as well as respondent no.3 were correctly

awarded, a bare perusal of the certificate of respondent no.3

[2024:RJ-JD:25241] (8 of 9) [CW-1954/2022]

makes it clear that the championship in question was conducted

by the IBBF on 03.04.2021-04.04.2021 and as per the certificate,

respondent No.3 secured 3rd place in Senior Men's Bodybuilding

Championship in the category of 'Above 100kg.'. Condition No.10A

of the advertisement prescribed for the award of marks qua the

certificates as under:

S.N.                  Certificate                           Position       Marks
1.     Won medal in Individual or Team 1st position                           70
       Event/Represented country in Olympic 2nd position                      67
       Games       (Summer)/World Cup/World rd


2.     Won medal in Individual or Team 1st position                           58
       Event/Represented country in Asian 2nd position                        55
       Championship/ Asia Cup/ SAF Games

                                                            any other         49
3.     Won medal in Individual or Team Event/ 1st position                    46
       Participated in National Games/ Senior 2nd position                    43
       National Championship/ Open National rd
       Athletic Championship/ National Inter 3 position                       40
       State Senior Athletic Championship/ any other                          37
       Federation     Cup    National  Senior
       Championship/ National Cross Country
       Championship.
4.     Won medal in Individual or Team Event/ 1st position                    34
       Participated in Youth National Games/ 2nd position                     31
       Youth national Championship/ Junior rd
       National Championship/ All India Inter 3 position                      28

5.     Won medal in Individual or Team Event in 1st position                  22
       Senior State Championship and obtained   2nd position                  19
                                                           3rd position       16

20. A bare perusal of the above Clause/Condition clarifies that 40

marks were to be awarded to a candidate who secured 3 rd position

in any National Game/Senior National Championship/Federation

Cup National Senior Championship. The tournament in which

[2024:RJ-JD:25241] (9 of 9) [CW-1954/2022]

respondent no.3 secured 3rd position, being a National

Championship, is not in dispute.

So far as the certificate of the petitioner is concerned, the

same is admittedly of a competition/tournament conducted by

Association of Indian Universities and that too, of a participation.

As per the above Condition No.10A, 25 marks were to be awarded

to a candidate who participated in any university level sport and