SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(AP) 688

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

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : V MALLIK
For the Respondent: C SINDHU KUMARI, RAVI KIRAN KUMAR KOLUSU (SC FOR SAAP), V VINOD K REDDY, GP FOR SERVICES I, V.VENKATA NAGA RAJU (SC FOR APPSC)

IMPORTANT POINT
Statutory rules regarding sports reservations must be adhered to, and executive orders cannot override the rights of eligible candidates.

Headnote:

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:

    “…..to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the appointment of the respondent No.4 as Assistant Executive Engineer in Zone–IV as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of rights guaranteed under Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India by declaring that the writ petitioner is entitled to be selected and appointed as Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil) in Zone-IV against Post Code No.4 in pursuant to the recruitment Notification No. 9/2018, dated 29.11.2018 issued by the 3rd respondent herein by further declaring that Form-I to III enclosed to G.O.Ms.No.74, dated 09.08.2012 issued by the 1st respondent where under ‘2%’ sports reservation has been provided for meritorious sports person in all posts and the impugned action is contrary to the G.O.Ms.No.74, dated 09.08.2012 and further contrary to Rule-2(19) of A.P.State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 and issue consequential directions and pass such other orders....”

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:

    “(19) Meritorious Sportsman:- “Meritorious Sportsman” means a sportsman who has represented the State and or the Country in a national or international competition or Universities in the Inter-University tournaments conducted by the Inter- University Boards or the State School in the national sports/games for schools conducted by the All India School Games, Federation in any of the games, sports, mentioned below and any other games/sports as may be a specified by the Government from time to time”.

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

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top