The impugned Government Resolution was found to be in conflict with the policy of the State of Maharashtra and resulted in discrimination, ultimately leading to its rejection by the court.

S.S. SHINDE, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the parties.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that while taking education, he constantly practised Indian Origin Sport known as Atyapatya. The petitioner has acquired mastery in the said sport. He also received participation certificate for the years 2008-2009, 2010-2011, 2012-2013 at State level and for the year 2012-2013 at National level, and secured second place in the said sport. All these sport competitions in respect of Atyapatya were held by Atyapatya Federation of India which is affiliated to All India Olympic Association. In order to promote sports in the State of Maharashtra and more particularly, Indian Origin Sports, the Government of Maharashtra has taken a policy decision to reserve 5% of posts in jobs for sports persons by issuing Government Resolution dated 30.04.2005. An object to be achieved by the said policy is that the persons who show progress in National sports need to be taken care of, because of their career in sports, they may not able to concentrate on educational career, and they may not in a position to compete with other students who focus on educational career. After the young age is over, the meritorious sports person has to search for service. This reservation would be applicable in all offices of State of Maharashtra, Corporations and undertakings of State of Maharashtra, Local Self Bodies and other Institutions which would receive direct or indirect benefits from the State Government.

4. It is further the case of the petitioner that the candidate who seeks reservation from the sports quota must possess required educational qualification besides sports qualification and for that purpose four groups i.e. (a), (b), (c) and (d) are made. The petitioner falls in group (b). He has obtained second place in Atyapatya competition. The petitioner was representing State of Maharashtra in the said competition. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for appointments in all institutions and service places as mentioned in the Government Resolution dated 30.04.2005. The petitioner appeared for Maharashtra Public Service Commission Examination [Pre], 2014. The petitioner has passed preliminary examination. Thereafter, he appeared for main examination and the petitioner got qualified in main examination also. The petitioner was also called for verification of his documents. Since the petitioner sought appointment from sports quota, he was asked to submit the sport certificates as contemplated under the Government Resolution. After verification of documents, the Deputy Director, Sports and Youth Service, Maharashtra State, Pune issued a letter dated 17.03.2015, who is supposed to do the verification of certificates and the said authority held that as per Circular dated 11.02.2011, Indian Olympic Association has withdrawn the affiliation of Atyapatya Federation of India, and therefore, the petitioner did not qualify / possess eligibility from sports quota.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned Government Resolution dated 30.12.2013 is contrary to the policy of the Government. The aims and object of the policy creating sports quota is stated in the Government Resolution dated 30.04.2005. This policy is still intact. However, the impugned Resolution runs contrary to this policy. The impugned Government Resolution has no nexus with the object which is to be achieved. The object is to promote sports persons who in their peak period of education career devote to the sport, engage in sport activities and are not in a position to compete with other persons who focus on educational career and so as to give protection to such sports persons, the Government Resolution dated 30.04.2005 was issued. In the impugned Government Resolution, there is no deviation from the policy. In such circumstances, depriving the petition