ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATHI
D.V.S.S. Somayajulu, J.
J. Venkat Balaji - Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. - Respondents
W.P. No. 11057 of 2021
Decided On : 29-07-2021
SPORTS QUOTA - GROUP-I POSTS - ELIGIBILITY - PARTICIPATION IN INTERNATIONAL/MULTINATIONAL COMPETITION - FORM-I - INTERPRETATION OF NOTIFICATION, G.O. AND RULES - APPLICABILITY OF FORM OVER SUBSTANTIVE PROVISIONS - RATIO DECIDENDI: FORM CANNOT CONTROL SUBSTANTIVE PROVISIONS OF NOTIFICATION, G.O. OR RULES.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a meritorious sportsman, sought employment in Group-I of State services under the 2% Sports quota. He was rejected on the ground that he had not represented India in an International Competition or Multinational Competition as prescribed in Form-1 of Annexure-III. The petitioner challenged the rejection, arguing that the Form-1 stipulation was not mentioned in the notification, G.O., or advertisement.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Form-1 stipulation in Annexure-III could not control the substantive provisions of the notification, G.O., or the State and Subordinate Service Rules. It found that there was no specific mention in the notification or G.O. that only participants in International or Multinational competitions would be eligible for Group-I posts under the Sports Quota.
Issues: 1. Whether the Form-1 stipulation in Annexure-III could control the substantive provisions of the notification, G.O., or the State and Subordinate Service Rules? 2. Whether there was a specific mention in the notification or G.O. that only participants in International or Multinational competitions would be eligible for Group-I posts under the Sports Quota?
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principle that the form cannot control the substantive provisions of the main Notification/G.O. or the State and Subordinate Service Rules. It also noted that a purposive interpretation was necessary to ensure that the scheme served its actual purpose of encouraging meritorious sportsmen to get good jobs.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's case under the meritorious sports category for the 44 carry forward posts and 125 vacancies.
JUDGMENT
“Whether the dog can wag the tail or the tail will wag the dog” is the question in this case.
2. With the consent of both the learned counsel, the writ petition is taken up for hearing.
Factual Matrix in Brief:
3. The petitioner is a candidate seeking employment in Group-I of the State services. He has cleared the preliminary and the main written examination. He is a sportsman, who has played Competitive Tennis at a certain level. He seeks employment under the 2% Sports quota. After qualifying in the main examination, the petitioner was asked to submit his eligibility certificates/sports certificates by an email dated 03.06.2021. The same were referred to a committee constituted by respondent No.2. The said committee by its order dated 31.05.2021 rejected the petitioner’s case on the ground that he has not represented India in an International Competition, Multinational Competition as prescribed in Form-1 of Annexure-III.
4. The stipulation in Form-1 is that he should have represented the country in an International tournament is the bone of contention. Rejecting his candidature on the basis of what is mentioned in Form-1 only is not correct as per the petitioner.
For Petitioner:
5. Learned senior counsel, Sri B.Adinarayana Rao, appearing for the petitioner has taken this Court through the relevant clauses of the notification dated 31.12.2018. He draws the attention of this Court to clause 4 of the notification which deals with reservations and in particular to clauses 4.4 and 4.9 which are as follows:
All the three Government Orders mentioned in the clause 4.9 are filed by the respondents. Of these, G.O.Ms.Nos.13 and 473 are clarificatory in nature and amend the existing G.O.Ms.No.74.
6. G.O.Ms.No.74 is the main G.O. that deals with incentives to sportspersons and reservations of 2% of posts. Learned senior counsel draws the attention of this Court to clauses (ii), (ix) (x) (xii) and (xiv) which are as follows:
(ix) In the quota of two percent (2%) set apart for sports reservation for meritorious sports persons, individual events have to be given preference over team events within a priority.
(x) Participation at higher level shall be considered only when it is supported by winning medals at the lower level.
(xii) The appointing authorities shall call for applications by publishing in leading news papers in English/Telugu/Urdu languages from meritorious sportspersons along with the certificates in Form-I, Form-II, Form-III and Form-IV as the case may be, vide Annexure-III enclosed to this notification and shall submit the same to the Sports Authority of Andhra Pradesh. After scrutiny by the Sports Authority of Andhra Pradesh, like genuineness of the certificates, verifying medals
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.