IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
K. MANMADHA RAO, J.
M Bharat Kumar Reddy – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No.16062 of 2020
Decided on : 09-08-2024
Reservation - Appointment - Article 14, 16, 21 - G.O.Ms.No.74, Rule 2(19) - The court interpreted the provisions regarding sports reservation for meritorious sports persons, emphasizing the need for adherence to statutory rules over executive orders, leading to the conclusion that the petitioner's appointment was warranted under the sports quota.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the appointment of the 4th respondent as Assistant Executive Engineer, claiming entitlement under the 2% sports reservation due to his qualifications and participation in sports events, which was allegedly ignored by the respondents.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was eligible for the 2% sports reservation and that the actions of the 3rd respondent in appointing the 4th respondent were contrary to the applicable government orders and rules.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to be appointed under the 2% sports reservation and if the appointment of the 4th respondent was illegal and arbitrary.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that statutory rules prevail over executive orders, and the definition of 'meritorious sportsman' included the petitioner, thus entitling him to the reservation.
Result: The writ petition was allowed, declaring the appointment of the 4th respondent illegal and directing the appointment of the petitioner under the sports quota.
ORDER :
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:
2. The precise case of the petitioner is that he was qualified in the computer based examination for the post of Assistant Executive Engineer under notification No.9/2018, dated 29.11.2018 issued by the 3rd respondent and he presented all documents including his sports credentials before the 3rd respondent and also the petitioner was identified under Sports Quota as per note in web. As there was no objection to the tentative placement, the said list has been finalized. It is not known whether any clarification is sought from 1st respondent and the petitioner was kept under dark with regard to his candidature though he was qualified under 2% sports quota. By virtue of non-implementation of 2% sports reservation, though the petitioner is entitled too and in the pretext of Forms 1 to III, 3rd respondent has erroneously refused to implement the sports reservation of 2% this Writ Petition came to be filed to direct the 3rd respondent to reserve one vacancy of Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil) against post code No.4 in Zone-IV in respect of recruitment notification dated 29.11.2018 issued by the 3rd respondent and further declare the appointment of the 4th respondent as illegal and arbitrary and contrary to the G.O.Ms.No.74, dated 09.08.2012 and also contrary to Rule-2(19) of A.P.State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996. Hence, requested to allow the writ petition as prayed for.
3. Heard Mr. V. Mallik, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr.K. Ravi Kiran Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent/SAAP; Mr. S.S.Prasad, learned Senior Counsel, representing Ms. C. Sindhu Kumari, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent and Mr. G.R.Sudhakar, learned counsel, representing Mr. V.Vinod K. Reddy, learned counsel for the 4th respondent.
4. During hearing learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contents urged in the writ petition and mainly contended that as per Form-I, II and III annexed to G.O.Ms.No.74, dated 09.08.2012 are inconsistent to Rule 2(19) of A.P.State and Subordinate Service Rules (in short ‘the Rules’) and G.O.Ms.No.74, dated 09.08.2012 itself. Rule 2(19) of the Rules is reproduced hereunder:
5. Wherein, it is mentioned Atheletics, Badminton, Basketball and Teak Wondo (aa) Carroms etc., The definition of meritorious sports person includes participants not only international and national events and also inter universiti
Statutory rules regarding sports reservations must be adhered to, and executive orders cannot override the rights of eligible candidates.
The form prescribed under the rules can never have any effect on the interpretation of the parent statute.
Candidates from any category can compete for a horizontally reserved post based on their sports merit, and candidates from reserved categories have the right to compete for open category posts based ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of judicial review in the case of selection/appointment and the requirement to adhere to the conditions stipulated in the adverti....
Point of Law;Service Law - Changing the criteria after completion of the selection process, when the entire selection was proceeded, was found to be illegal
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.