Gagan Goklaney vs State of Punjab

Mahesh Grover, J.

C.M. No. 8782 of 2014 :

Allowed as prayed for.

Main Case :

The petitioner is a practising Advocate, who inspired to become an Assistant District Attorney to respond to an advertisement seeking to fill up 98 posts, out of which 09 were earmarked for District Ferozepur, and 01 from amongst this, belonged to Sports Category. The petitioner and respondent no. 4, both laid a claim to the said reserved category for sportspersons. On a prior occasion, the petitioner had filed a Civil Writ Petition with a similar relief, which was disposed of on 20.05.2011. The petitioner claimed that he possessed a C-Grade Sports Certificate, which ought to have been considered valid for the purposes of appointment as an Assistant District Attorney in accordance with Rules of 1989 construing this post to be a Class III post. It is pertinent to mention here that one of the reasons for declining relief at that point of time was the rejection of Sports Certificate on the presumption that it was not valid for the post in question.

This Court, after noticing the grievance, directed the competent authority to decide the case of the petitioner in the light of the recruitment rules and guidelines issued for appointment to the post of Assistant District Attorney-Class III post under the Sports Category, in accordance with law. It is also necessary to state here that the petitioner was placed at Sr. No. 1 in this Category, while respondent no. 4 was placed at Sr. No. 2. Respondent no. 4 also made a similar challenge as the petitioner and his writ petition was also disposed of in similar terms.

Pursuant to the aforesaid directions given by this Court, the respondents have passed a speaking order, which is appended to the petition as Annexure P-7 and is the cause of grievance of the petitioner.

While negating the claim of the petitioner, the respondents have stated that the Certificate issued to the petitioner is of mere participation, which cannot be equated with any first or second position and besides this, it has been issued by Ferozepur District Cricket Association, which cannot be considered as a recognized body by the Government.

As a logical corollary to the rejection of the claim of the petitioner, respondent no. 4, who was at Sr. No. 2, entered employment.

It would not be out of place to mention here that not a word was said about the claim of respondent no. 2 and it was simply on account of the rejection of the claim of the petitioner that respondent no. 4 got appointment in default, even though he himself had filed a writ petition, where the Writ Court had mandated a similar consideration as the one accorded to the petitioner.

The petitioner''s case is that at the time when the Certificate (Annexure P-1) was issued to him by the Director Sports, Punjab, the instructions, which were holding the field, warranted a gradation in terms of which, the Certificate had been issued. It is only subsequently in the year 1997 that the respondent State issued fresh guidelines, which were more in conformity with the Rules.

For the purpose of reference, Rule 2 (d) defining a "Sportsman" is extracted here below :-

"2(d) "Sportsman" means a person of either sex who fulfills the following conditions, namely :-

(a) ___________

(b) In the case of recruitment to reserved vacancy in Class III posts :-

(i) That he belongs to the State of Punjab, and

(ii) That he has won first, second or third position in team or individual events while representing the State of Punjab in a State Level Championship in any of the discipline affiliated in the Punjab Olympic Association organized by the State Level Federation."

These instructions of 1997 would now prescribe the Grade-C

Certificate to be as follows :-

"GRADE-C

Sportsmen/women who have achieved 1st, 2nd and 3rd position in the following tournaments/championships meets will only be graded."

The contention of the petitioner is that if he had been issued a C-Grade Certificate by Director Sports, in accordance with instructions and rules prevailing at that time, then if the subsequent instructions varied the consideration, then it was incumbent upon the respondents to place equivalence on the Certificates which were validly issued prior to 1997 instructions.

I am in complete agreement with this contention, since the 1997 instructions/guidelines prescribe that a sportsmen/women, who achieve 1st, 2nd and 3rd positions in the following tournaments/championships meets, would be graded as per the following criteria :-

(i) Positions holder of Punjab State Championships for Senior and Junior organized by Punjab Sports Department/Punjab Olympic Associations.

(ii) Position holders of Inter District State Championships organized for seniors and juniors under the banner of Punjab Olympic Association/Punjab Sports Department/State Sports Associations.

(iii) Position holders of State School Games organized by Education/Sports Department,

The respondents were bound to undertake a process to evaluate the Certificate issued earlier by assigning them equivalence and relevance in accordance with latest instructions. The earlier Certificates could not have been wished away as there would be no occasion for the authorities at that point of time to imagine that the subsequent instructions would be at variance. In any eventuality, the official respondents have not even considered the issue appropriately, as they have proceeded on a false assumption on facts that the Certificate issued to the petitioner is by the Cricket Association, which is contrary to the factual aspect of it being issued by the Director Sports. That apart, once the official respondents were conducting the entire exercise, it should have evaluated the case of both-the petitioner and respondent no. 4 by making a comparative analysis, rather than giving appointment to respondent no. 4 by way of default, particularly when both-the petitioner and the said respondent had preferred a writ petition with similar results.

The petition is, therefore, accepted. The impugned order is set aside and as a consequence, appointment of respondent no. 4 would also necessarily go. However, the official respondents would re-consider the matter in the light of what has been stated above by assigning an equivalence to the Certificate issued to the petitioner in terms of its relevance to the present instructions and taking an appropriate decision by making a comparative analysis of the claims of both-the petitioner and respondent no. 4. The needful be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Till that time, the services of respondent no. 4 shall not be dispensed with. In case, the exercise results in favour of respondent no. 4, needles to say that his appointment shall persist.