Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Garvit Vyas vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 1 August, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:34054-DB] (1 of 12) [SAW-111/2025]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 111/2025
in
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1954/2022
Garvit Vyas S/o Sh. Shashank Vyas, Aged About 24 Years, R/o
Chabili Ghati, Bikaner District Bikaner, Rajasthan.
----Appellant
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 Appellant(s) : Mr. Kamal Kishore Dave.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. B.L. Bhati, AAG.
Mr. Manoj Bhandari, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Nes Gupta.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU
JUDGMENT
01/08/2025
BY THE COURT : (PER HON'BLE SANDHU, J.)
1. The present Special Appeal (Writ) has been directed against
the order dated 10.10.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge,
whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant-petitioner was
dismissed.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the
Director General of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur issued an
advertisement dated 28.12.2019 under Rule 17(2)(a) of the
[2025:RJ-JD:34054-DB] (2 of 12) [SAW-111/2025]
Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Rules of 1989) for direct recruitment to the
post of Sub-Inspector/Platoon Commander under the sports
quota. Under Rule 17(2)(a) of the Rules of 1989, there is a
provision for filling up the posts upto 10% of the total vacancies
by giving preference to the Sportspersons. Total 68 posts were
advertised out of which, one post for the sport Body Building was
advertised. The appellant-petitioner, being eligible, applied for one
post for the sport Body Building under the EWS category. The
respondent No.3- Mukesh Choudhary also applied for the same,
however, in the provisional assessment of the application forms,
his form was rejected with the remark "invalid certificate".
However, during the course of provisional assessment of
application forms, the respondents issued an amended
advertisement dated 29.06.2021 in furtherance of the earlier
advertisement dated 28.12.2019, in view of the notification dated
16.074.2021 and increase in posts. The total posts were increased
to 81 and the fresh online application forms for all the posts were
invited, including the 13 additional posts and, fresh dates were
mentioned for submission of the application forms. The online
application forms were invited from 30.06.2021 to 14.07.2021.
The respondent No.3, in pursuance to the amended
advertisement, submitted a fresh application along with a fresh
sport certificate and his candidature was considered. Since, he
was given the higher marks for his sport certificate, he stood
higher in merit than the appellant-petitioner and he was selected
for the post of Sub-Inspector/Platoon Commander. Since the
respondent No.3 was selected, the appellant-petitioner could not
[2025:RJ-JD:34054-DB] (3 of 12) [SAW-111/2025]
find place in the select list and therefore, being aggrieved against
the selection of the respondent No.3, he preferred the above-
numbered writ petition before the learned Single Bench, laying
challenge to the select list dated 25.01.2022, praying that the
same may be corrected and he may be given appointment on the
post of Sub-Inspector/Platoon Commander with all consequential
benefits.
3. Learned Single Judge, after hearing the arguments advanced
by the learned counsel for the parties and, considering the
material available on record, dismissed the writ petition vide order
dated 10.10.2024 while holding that there is no illegality in the
selection of the respondent No.3 and his candidature was rightly
considered in light of the conditions of the advertisement.
4. Shri Kamal Kishore Dave, learned counsel representing the
appellant-petitioner, while laying down challenge to the order
passed by the learned Single Judge, has stated that earlier the
application of the respondent No.3 submitted in pursuance to the
advertisement dated 28.12.2019 stood rejected and therefore, the
subsequent application which was filed in pursuance to the
amended advertisement dated 29.06.2021 could not have been
entertained and hence, the selection of the respondent No.3 based
upon the second application, is illegal and unjustified being in
clear contravention to the condition No.2 of the amended
advertisement dated 29.06.2021.
5. Shri Dave further argued that the earlier application of the
respondent No.3 was rejected on the ground that his sport
certificate was not as per the norms and hence, now the certificate
filed along with the second application could not have been
[2025:RJ-JD:34054-DB] (4 of 12) [SAW-111/2025]
considered. It is further argued by the learned counsel that the
certificate filed by the respondent No.3 has been issued by the
Indian Body Builders Federation (hereinafter referred to as 'the
IBBF') and the same being not a body recognized by the Indian
Olympic Association (IOA) and not enumerated under condition
No.9 of the advertisement dated 28.12.2019, could not have been
taken into consideration. Learned counsel for the appellant-
petitioner has further argued that since the sports certificate of
the respondent No.3 itself could not have been considered,
therefore, the grant of weightage of marks upon the same is not
justified and his selection deserves to be cancelled. On the other
hand, the appellant-petitioner has the certificate issued by the
Maharaja Ganga Singh University, Bikaner which is a member of
the Association of Indian Universities (AIU) and hence, was a valid
certificate for which 25 marks have been awarded and therefore,
his candidature deserved to be considered and selected for the
advertised post. Learned counsel thus prayed that the selection of
the respondent No.3 may kindly be cancelled and the appointment
be offered to the appellant-petitioner on the post of Sub-
Inspector/Platoon Commander with all consequential benefits.
6. Per contra, Mr. Manoj Bhandari, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. Nes
Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent
No.3 - Mukesh Choudhary vehemently opposed the submissions
advanced by the counsel for the appellant-petitioner. He urged
that the Director General of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur had first
issued the advertisement on 28.12.2019 wherein, a total of 68
vacant posts for Sub-Inspector/ Platoon Commander were
advertised and in pursuance thereto, the respondent No.3 -
[2025:RJ-JD:34054-DB] (5 of 12) [SAW-111/2025]
Mukesh Choudhary filled an application along with the sport
certificates as he had at that relevant time, however, the same
was not found to be as per the norms and therefore, his
candidature was not considered. However, during the course of
provisional assessment of the applications, an amended
advertisement was issued on 29.06.2021, wherein the total
number of vacant posts were increased from 68 to 81 and the
entire vacancy was re-advertised and the applications were re-
invited. The online applications were called between 30.06.2021 to
14.07.2021. A condition No.2 was inserted only for the sake of
convenience for the already existing applicants so that they are
not hassled to again fill the application forms. It is argued that the
condition No.2 does not put a bar on filling of the fresh
applications and since, the respondent No.3 had acquired the
fresh sports certificate, he applied by way of submitting a fresh
application along with the new certificate which was pertaining to
the Body Building National Championship held on 3 rd to 4th April,
2021. Therefore, it is stated that the respondent No.3 was right in
submitting the second application form in light of the amended
advertisement dated 29.06.2021. Learned Senior Counsel Shri
Bhandari further submitted that the IBBF is a duly recognised
federation by the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports,
Government Of India and hence, the certificate issued by such a
recognised federation/association/body deserves to be considered
for grant of weightage of marks. The selection committee, only
upon verifying the same, has considered the sport certificate of
the respondent No.3 to be valid and only thereafter, has selected
[2025:RJ-JD:34054-DB] (6 of 12) [SAW-111/2025]
him, and there is no illegality in considering the candidature of the
respondent No.3.
7. Shri B.L. Bhati, learned AAG appearing on behalf of the
respondent-State has argued that the selection undertaken by the
authorities is in accordance with Rule 17(2)(a) of the Rules of
1989 and as per the same, the preference has been given to the
Outstanding Sportsperson in various sports. He further submits
that the information was sought from the Indian Olympic
Association as well as the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports,
Government Of India regarding the recognised National Sports
Federations and Associations and only upon receiving the list of
the same from the Government of India, the sport certificate
issued to the respondent No.3 by the IBBF was considered and the
marks were accorded for the same. The learned AAG further
submits that the selection process has been conducted in just and
fair manner and there is no illegality in the same.
8. We have heard the submissions advanced at Bar by the
learned counsel for the respectively parties and perused the
material available on record so also the impugned order dated
10.10.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge.
9. The main arguments raised by learned counsel for the
appellant-petitioner in the writ petition as well as in the special
appeal laying challenge to the impugned order dated 10.10.2024
passed by the learned Single Judge, are that firstly, the second
application of the respondent No.3 could not have been considered
in light of the condition No.2 of the amended advertisement dated
29.06.2021 and secondly, the certificate submitted along with the
second application issued by the IBBF (Annexure-R/03/05), was
[2025:RJ-JD:34054-DB] (7 of 12) [SAW-111/2025]
not issued by a recognized association as enumerated in condition
No.9 of the advertisement dated 28.12.2019 and hence, the same
could not have been considered.
10. We will firstly examine the argument raised by the counsel
for the appellant-petitioner regarding the acceptance of the
second application form submitted by the respondent No.3. The
first advertisement was issued on 28.12.2019 by the Director
General of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur, wherein 68 vacant posts
were advertised and the applications were called for the same.
During the provisional assessment of the application forms, the
amended advertisement was issued on 29.06.2021, whereby the
posts were increased to 81 and the applications were re-invited for
these posts. The first paragraph of the amended advertisement
dated 29.06.2021 reads as under:-
"bl dk;kZy; ds foKfIr Øekad u&5¼7½iq-Qks-@m-fu-
@2019@6279 fnukad 28-12-2019 ds }kjk mi fujh{kd@IykVwu
dek.Mj ¼[ksy dksVk½ lh/kh HkrhZ 2019 gsrq dqy 68 in foKkfIr fd,
x, FksA vkxkeh o'kZ esa 13 vfrfjDr in miyC/k gksus ,oa dkfeZd
¼d&2½ dh foHkkx dh vf/klwpuk fnukad 16-04-2021 }kjk vkfFkZd :i
ls detksj oxZ ds vH;fFkZ;ksa dks vk;q lhek esa NwV iznku fd, tkus ds
QyLo:i dqy 81 inksa ¼ukWu Vh,lih&72] Vh,lih&9½ gsrq iqu%
vkWuykbZu vkosnu i= vkeaf=r fd, tkrs gSA"
11. From a bare perusal of the first paragraph of the amended
advertisement dated 29.06.2021, it is clear that the earlier
advertisement has been amended, posts have been increased and
the applications have been re-invited for all the posts. The earlier
advertisement dated 28.12.2019 has for all purposes merged with
the amended advertisement dated 29.06.2021. New dates of
submission of application forms were also given and the last date
was fixed as 14.07.2021. Only for the purpose of convenience to
[2025:RJ-JD:34054-DB] (8 of 12) [SAW-111/2025]
the already existing applicants, the condition No.2 was inserted so
as to avoid unnecessary submission of the application forms. The
condition No.2 did not put a complete bar on submission of forms
by the candidates and if any candidate, who was eligible as per
the amended advertisement dated 29.06.2021, could fill the
application form.
12. The respondent No.3 participated in the Body Building
National Championship held by the Indian Body Builders
Federation (IBBF) from 3rd to 4th April, 2021, and he secured "3 rd
Place" in the Senior Men's Body Building above 100 kgs. category.
This certificate was a national level certificate which was certainly
acquired after the advertisement dated 28.12.2019, but before
the cut off date of submission of application form mentioned in the
amended advertisement dated 29.06.2021 i.e. 14.07.2021 and
hence, he being otherwise eligible under the conditions of the
advertisement dated 29.06.2021, submitted the fresh application
form.
13. Any person, who was eligible as per the cut off dates of the
amended advertisement dated 29.06.2021, could have applied
and so did the respondent No.3 and hence, there can be no
illegality in accepting the second application form of the
respondent No.3 by the respondent authorities even if his first
application was rejected before the conclusion of the selection
process on the ground of "certificate not as per norms". Now, since
the respondent No.3 had acquired a new sport certificate and was
within the cut off date specified in the amended advertisement
[2025:RJ-JD:34054-DB] (9 of 12) [SAW-111/2025]
dated 29.06.2021, he was in his right to fill the fresh application
and the same has been rightly considered.
14. Now, we consider the second argument raised by the counsel
for the appellant-petitioner regarding the validity of the sport
certificate that was submitted by the respondent No.3 issued by
the IBBF. While examining this ground, we see that as per the
condition No.9 of the advertisement dated 28.12.2019, the
certificate issued by the authorities mentioned therein were to be
considered and it is alleged by the appellant-petitioner that the
Indian Body Builders Federation (IBBF) is not recognized by any of
the authorities mentioned in the condition No.9 or the certificate
has not been issued by any of the authorities mentioned in the
condition No.9. In the advertisement dated 28.12.2019, as
amended on 29.06.2021, one post for Body Building sport was
reserved.
15. In the reply submitted by the State, specially the additional
affidavit filed on 04.05.2022, it is clearly stated that the Selection
Board sought information from the Indian Olympic Association
(IOA) regarding all approved/sanctioned
federations/associations/bodies and the approved tournaments
(games) organized by the federations/associations/bodies. Vide
letter dated 26.10.2021, the Indian Olympic Association (IOA)
replied that none of the federation/association/body is recognized
by the Indian Olympic Association for the Body Building sport.
Thereafter, the Selection Board sought information from the
Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, Government Of India
regarding the recognized federation/association/body which
[2025:RJ-JD:34054-DB] (10 of 12) [SAW-111/2025]
conducts tournaments of Body Building and as per the letter
issued by the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, Government Of
India, the "Indian Body Builders Federation (IBBF)" is recognized
for conducting body building tournament and that the Indian Body
Builders Federation (IBBF) is also recognized by the All India
Police Sports Control Board. From a bare perusal of the letters
dated 26.10.2021, 01.02.2019 and 02.06.2020, it is clear that the
Indian Body Builders Federation (IBBF) is recognized by the
Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, Government of India and it
finds place along with the other federations and association of the
national level, which are also recognized by the Government of
India. From a bare perusal of these letters, it can safely be
concluded that the Indian Body Builders Federation (IBBF) is a
national level federation duly recognized by the Ministry of Youth
Affairs and Sports, Government of India and hence, the
certificates issued by it are certainly recognizable and deserve to
be considered for the purpose of recruitment and weightage of
marks.
16. The whole concept of recruitment under Rule 17(2)(a) of the
Rules of 1989, which is a proviso to the procedure for recruitment,
is selection of sportsperson having proficiency in games and
sports, by DG cum IG of Police. For the purpose of the same, the
certificate acquired by the sportsperson at State, National and
International levels are considered. The certificates are issued by
the different associations/federations/bodies which are recognised
at different levels. Such associations/federations/bodies should be
recognised so that there is authenticity of the tournaments held by
[2025:RJ-JD:34054-DB] (11 of 12) [SAW-111/2025]
such associations/federations/bodies and of the certificates issued
by them. When such associations/federations/bodies are duly
recognised, then the certificate issued by them deserves to be
considered and appropriate marks are required to be accorded, so
that the genuine sportsperson get recognition. Once the body is
recognized by the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports,
Government of India and its recognition is duly renewed, there is
no reason not to recognize the certificate issued by such a
body/federation. Hence, in the present case, once the IBBF is duly
recognised by the Government of India itself, there is no reason to
believe that it is not a recognised body or is not a competent body
to issue the sport certificate.
17. Moreover, the Selection Board has exercised due caution and
had sought the information from the Government of India and
only upon receiving the authentic information, they have acted
upon and have recognized the certificate issued by the Indian
Body Builders Federation (IBBF), specially in light of the fact that
there is no other body recognized at the national level or affiliated
with the Indian Olympic Association, and if that is taken to be so,
then there would be no national level body which is recognized
and whose certificate could be held to be valid. In view of the
same, the Selection Committee has not committed any error while
considering the certificate of the respondent No.3 issued by the
IBBF. There is no dispute about the marks that had been awarded
for the sports certificate held by the respondent No.3 and the
appellant-petitioner. The respondent No.3 was entitled for higher
[2025:RJ-JD:34054-DB] (12 of 12) [SAW-111/2025]
marks as per Clause No.3 of Condition No.10(A) of the
advertisement dated 28.12.2019 and he has rightly been awarded
so and, as the respondent No.3 was higher in merit, he has rightly
been selected and offered appointment and we find no illegality
therein.
18. The learned Single Judge, while considering the merits of the
case, has dealt with both the grounds extensively and we fully
agree with the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge in
the impugned order dated 10.10.2024 which does not call for any
interference by this Court, in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.
19. As an upshot of the discussion made herein above, we find
no force in the instant Special Appeal and the same is thus
dismissed.
(BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J (KULDEEP MATHUR),J
60-Tikam/Mrityunjay Singh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
