Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(AP) 835

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, C.J., R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.
Chandu Nagarjuna, S/o. Harshavardhan – Appellant
Versus
Chief Commissioner of Land Administration and Spl. Chief Secretary to Government of A.P. Secretariat – Respondent
Writ Petition No.30343 of 2023
Decided on : 03-05-2024.

Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Harsha Vardhana Rao C, Advocate
For the Respondent:GP for Services I, V.Venkata Naga Raju (SC FOR APPSC), Ravi Kiran Kumar Kolusu (SC for SAAP), N Pramod, S Murali Mohan, Advocates

IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that arbitrary restrictions on eligibility criteria for sports quotas violate constitutional principles of equality and fair classification.

Headnote:
Sports - Eligibility - Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1996 - The court quashed the government order limiting sports performance consideration to ten years, emphasizing the need for fair evaluation of merit without arbitrary restrictions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner applied for a government post under the sports category but was aggrieved by a government order limiting eligibility based on sports performance to ten years prior to the recruitment notification.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the government order arbitrary and irrational, as it unjustly restricted the eligibility of sportspersons based on outdated performance criteria, violating the principles of fair classification under Article 14.
Issues: Whether the government order restricting eligibility for sports quota appointments to ten years of performance is arbitrary and violates the principles of equality and fair classification.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the government order's restriction lacked rational basis and failed to meet the requirements of reasonable classification under Article 14, thus rendering it unconstitutional.
Result: The court quashed the government order limiting sports performance consideration to ten years.

JUDGMENT :

PER DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, C.J.

The Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission issued an advertisement notice dated 28.12.2021, inviting applications from eligible candidates for the posts of Junior Assistant-cum-Computer Assistant in A.P. Revenue Department in Group-IV Services. The petitioner claiming himself to be eligible, has applied for the said post under the sports category.

2. According to the advertisement notice, the candidates within the age group of 18 to 42 years as on 01.07.2021 were eligible to apply for the advertised posts. The notification further envisages that candidates seeking appointment under the sports category should have represented at least a university from Andhra Pradesh state in the inter-university competition at national/zonal/regional level in one of the recognized games/sports and should submit the certificate of participation along with the application form.

3. The post for which the petitioner had applied is governed by the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules”). Rule 22(d) thereof envisages as under:

"22(d): The unit of appointment for the purpose of direct recruitment shall be hundred vacancies, of which two shall be reserved for meritorious sportspersons horizontally in all categories of posts."

4. Notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner has applied under the sports category, he is aggrieved by Government Order bearing G.O.Ms.No.8, Youth Advancement, Tourism and Culture (Sports) Department, dated 23.11.2020, which envisages as under:

“The Candidate appointed under sports quota must represent the department in which he is appointed for at least 5 years from the time of appointment. Ten (10) years of sports performance of the applicant preceding to the date of notification for recruitment will be considered for eligibility.”

5. It appears from the record that Government Order No.8, dated 23.11.2020, amended the earlier Government Order No.74 which envisaged as under:

“The Candidate appointed under sports quota must represent the department in which he is appointed for at least 5 years from the time of appointment.”

6. According to the petitioner, the certificates obtained by him on account of his participation in archery, based upon which he seeks consideration for appointment under the sports quota, were obtained in the years 2005-06 and 2007, which would not entitle him to claim the benefit in view of the impugned Government Order No.8, dated 23.11.2020.

7. Counsel for the petitioner would urge that although the Government had framed the sports policy, as evident from Government Order bearing G.O.Ms.No.74, Youth Advancement, Tourism and Culture (Sports) Department, dated 09.08.2012, yet the same was not implemented till 2018 when Rule 22(d) was incorporated, formally permitting 2% reservation for meritorious sportspersons in all categories of posts. The argument is that the Government Order, inasmuch as it envisages to consider the sports performance of the applicant only limited to ten years preceding the date of notification for recruitment, is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It was also urged that restricting the consideration of sports performance to ten years from the date of notification for recruitment, would take away the benefit of reservation prescribed under Rule 22(d) of the Rules, which otherwise prescribes horizontal reservation for meritorious sportspersons.

8. In the reply affidavit filed by the Government justifies the condition under challenge in the following manner:

“35) ...It is the endeavour of the State that the person qualified/appointed in various departments under sports quota needs to represent the concerned department at various levels of competition and In view of the same the State inducted Rule-3 in G.O.Ms.No.8, YAT&C(S) Department, dt:23.11.2020 by considering those meritorious and able sport persons to participate in the Selection / Recruitment process u