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