Karan Singh Shekhawat @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan & Ors

Mohammad Rafiq, J

This writ petition has been filed by six petitioners who all are working on the post of Coach Grade-III/ Coach Grade-II with Respondent No. 2-

Rajasthan State Sports Council. They are aggrieved by the part of Clause 2 of the Notice Inviting Applications for appointment on the post of

Sports Officer (for short ‘the NIA’), Annexure-3 of the writ petition, prescribing Diploma in coaching NIS (Regular)/ M.P.Ed. of a university

established by law in India as an alternative qualification and Clause 8 of the NIA prescribing upper age limit of 40 years. They have challenged the

relevant entry in Column no. 5 of Clause 1 of Part-I of Schedule appended to the Rajasthan State Sports Council Services Rules, 2006 (for short

‘the Rules of 2006’) whereunder Diploma in Coaching NIS (Regular)/ M.P.Ed. of a University established by law in India has been prescribed

as alternative eligibility qualification for appointment against 50% direct recruitment quota for the post of Sports Officer, as also upper age limit of 40

years and prayed that they same be declared ultra vires to the Constitution of India as the same violate their right of equality and equal opportunity of

employment guaranteed by the Constitution of India.Â

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners have been working on the post of Coach Grade-III/ Coach Grade-II for the last 25

years inasmuch as they are fully qualified to be appointed as Sports Officers. They are having minimum qualification of graduation with diploma in

coaching (NIS) with 25 years experience. They have achieved highest award of a Coach of the State of Rajasthan. They are the players of

national and international level. The post of Sports Officer is a gazetted officer post with grade pay of Rs. 5400/- while the post of Coach Grade-III

is Group C Post (Subordinate Cadre) but the qualification prescribed for both the posts is same. It is contended that Governing Body of Rajasthan

State Sports Council resolved to provide out of turn promotion to the Coaches of extra zeal and having devotion to duty. Copy of the resolution has

been placed on record. Meeting of Governing Body of Rajasthan State Sports Council was convened on 23.01.2003 and it was resolved at Point

No. 10 and 15 to give a chance to outstanding experienced sports persons to serve the Council and provide out of turn promotion to the Coaches for

extra zeal. Learned counsel argued that the persons with B.P.Ed. and M.P.Ed. are qualified for the post of Training Instructor whether in school or

college and have no speciliasation or expertise in the particular sports. Furthermore, duties and responsibilities of the Coaches in sports are

different. The Governing Body in its meeting dated 23.01.2003 did not prescribe for qualification of M.P.Ed. for recruitment of Sports Officer. The

respondents are seeking to make appointments on the post of Sports Officer only on the basis of interview. There is no transparency in the whole

recruitment process. The petitioners, having served the respondents for more than 25 years, have legitimate expectation to advance in their career

and therefore they should be appointed on the post of Sports Officer by way of promotion or upgradation. The respondents are not adhering to their

own commitment resolved in the meeting of the Governing Body of Rajasthan State Sports Council. Since the respondents did not advertise

aforesaid post for as long as 20 years, the petitioners have become over age and there has been no year wise determination of the

vacancies.    Â

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material on record, we find that the Rules of 2006 were framed way back in 2006

and the qualification and experience for direct recruitment on the post of Sports Officer, since then has remained as follows:

“1. Graduate of a University established by law in India.

Participated as a player in Olympic/World Cup/World Championship/ Asian Games/Asian Championship or any other Games declared equivalent

thereto.

Or

Diploma in coaching NIS (Regular)/ M.P.Ed. of a University established by Law in India.â€​

It is not that the petitioners do not have eligibility for promotion against the aforesaid posts. However, what they want is that the candidates with

alternative qualification of Diploma in coaching NIS (Regular)/ M.P.Ed. of a University established by law in India should not be made eligible only

they should be appointed against these posts of direct recruitment. Therefore, they have challenged this part of prescribed qualification with a

prayer that the same be declared ultra vires of the Constitution of India because as per their perception, this violates their right of equality and equal

opportunity of employment. We are afraid that we cannot countenance such a spacious argument. The petitioners may be eligible for promotion,

but they cannot stop others from competing against the quota of direct recruitment as per the qualification prescribed under the Rules. Source of

recruitment on the post of Sports Officer, as is evident from the Schedule appended to the Rules of 2006, is 50% by direct recruitment and 50% by

way of promotion. We are in the present case concerned with the posts which are to be filled in by direct recruitment. So far as promotion quota

is concerned, the petitioners are not and will not be taken as over age but they want to compete against the posts of direct recruitment quota by also

challenging the upper age limit of 40 years. The upper age is fixed for such direct recruits as 40 years, the same cannot be said to be unreasonable

or restrictive. The respondents by way of direct recruitment are seeking to recruit young and fresh blood on the post of Sports Officer. Most of

the petitioners have crossed age of 55 years and therefore they can have no grievance insofar as the posts of direct recruitment are concerned.Â

Their claim would be limited only against 50% quota of promotion posts. There was neither any commitment, nor any resolution by the Governing

Body of Rajasthan State Sports Council to grant the petitioners out of turn promotion against the posts of direct recruitment. When the aforesaid

resolution refers to the word, “promotion†it implies that the petitioners can claim promotion against 50% quota meant for the said purpose and not

against 50% quota of direct recruitment.

In view of above discussion, there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.Â

Stay Application No. 14044/2018 also stands dismissed.