Rajinder Singh vs H.P. Subordinate Service Selection Board and H.P.S.E.B.

Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge

Respondent No. 1 issued an advertisement No. 11/2007 on 6.7.2007 whereby applications were invited for filling up the posts of Junior Engineer (Electrical). Two posts were reserved for general (sportsman). The last date of receipt of applications was 14.8.2007. Petitioner submitted an application for considering his candidature under the sportsman quota. Written test was held on 8.1.2009. The interviews were to be held on 4.3.2009. Case of the petitioner was not considered under sports quota, instead he was considered under general (unreserved) category. Respondent No. 3 has moved an application bearing CMP No. 5723 of 2009 for impleadment. The application was allowed by this Court on 4.4.2012. Respondent No. 4 was added on the request of petitioner''s counsel on 18.4.2012. Respondents No. 1, 3 and 4 have filed detailed replies.

Ms. Shweta Joolka has strenuously argued that the case of the petitioner was required to be considered under general (sportsman) quota. She then contended that the petitioner has not been apprised by respondent No. 1 about the criteria prescribed for filling up the posts under general (sportsman) quota.

Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sharma and Mr. Rajinder Dogra, learned Addl. Advocate General appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 4 have argued that neither petitioner nor respondent No. 3 were eligible to be considered against general (sportsman) quota.

Mr. T.S. Chauhan has argued that his client was more meritorious candidate under general (sportsman) quota vis-�-vis petitioner. He then argued that his client secured more marks than petitioner.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully.

It is not in dispute that two posts were under general (sportsman) category vide advertisement dated 6.7.2007. Petitioner and respondent No. 3 appeared in the written test on 8.1.2009. Petitioner was called for interview on 4.3.2009. He was apprised that since he did not fulfill the criteria; he could not be interviewed for the same. Petitioner submitted an application vide Annexure R-2 on 4.3.2009 to consider him against general (unreserved) category. Thereafter, petitioner was considered against general (unreserved) category. Petitioner has not mentioned this fact in the petition. He has concealed material facts from this Court about changing his category from sportsman (general) category to general (unreserved).

Ms. Shweta Joolka has argued that her client stood first in Broad Jump in the Amateur Athletic Association of Himachal Pradesh held from 23.12.1998 to 24.12.1998 at Mandi and also stood first in Broad Jump in Junior Boys in 15th H.P. Amateur Athletics Meet held in the month of January, 1994 at Sundernagar and came 3rd in 100 meters Junior Boys in the same competition and was Runner Up in the Sub Junior Boxing Championship held at Shimla with effect from 28.8.1992 to 30.8.1992.

Mr. T.S. Chauhan has argued that his client has represented India in Indo Nepal International 7-A side football Championship held at Nepal on 25 to 27.11.2006 and stood runner up. He has also argued that his client has received Himachal Gaurav award/physical efficiency award and also participated in under 16 State level cricket tournament during 1998-99 and 1999-2000. According to him, his client has participated in Rajeev Gandhi federation cup National 7-A football championship. He has participated in 51st Senior National Ball Badminton Championship held at Quilon, Kerala. According to him, his client has participated in national level games.

In order to ensure whether the petitioner and respondent No. 3 fulfilled the criteria to be considered against the sports quota, respondent No. 4 was added as party. Respondent No. 4 has filed detailed reply. According to the reply filed by respondent No. 4 neither petitioner nor respondent No. 3 fall under distinguished sportspersons category and thus were not eligible for appointment under the quota. According to the criteria fixed by the Director Youth Services, the minimum eligibility for sportspersons is at least three times participation in National Championship and Senior National Championship in one game. In fact, respondent No. 3 had attended the office of respondent No. 4 for sponsoring his name for the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) under 3% quota. He was informed vide letters dated 2.4.2009 and 29.6.2009 that his claim for appointment under sports quota could not be considered since he did not fulfill the required criteria prescribed under 3% reservation policy. Respondent No. 4 has annexed the copy of scheme with the reply. According to the affidavit filed by respondent No. 4, names of the distinguished sportspersons are registered in the Sports Cell and on receiving of requisition from any of the recruiting department; names are sponsored from amongst the eligible sportspersons, who fulfill the required educational and essential professional education prescribed under the Recruitment and Promotion Rules. It has also come in the affidavit that the department has sponsored the name of three eligible sports persons against the available posts for outstanding sportspersons and the appointments letters have also been issued by respondent No. 2 to them.

Ms. Shweta Joolka has argued that the petitioner was not apprised about the criteria in the advertisement nor at the time of interview. There is no merit in the contention of Ms. Shweta Joolka. The petitioner has been apprised as per the affidavit filed by respondent No. 1 vide letter dated 21.2.2009 that he did not fulfill the criteria fixed for considering his candidature under the sportspersons quota. In these circumstances, petitioner has changed his category from sportspersons general to general (unreserved). In case the petitioner was distinguished sportsperson, he ought to have registered his name with Sports Cell. The candidate must know that it is only the distinguished sportspersons, who are required to be considered under the sportspersons quota. Respondent No. 3 has also been apprised by respondent No. 4 that he was not eligible for being considered under sportspersons quota vide letters dated 2.4.2009 and 29.6.2009. It has also come in the reply filed by respondent No. 1 that none of the candidates under the sportsman quota were found eligible. There is no illegality in the action of respondent No. 4 ignoring the claim of petitioner and respondent No. 3.

Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, neither the petitioner nor respondent No. 3 was eligible to be considered for appointment in general (sportsman) quota. Consequently, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.