Invalidation of a sports certificate based on subsequent policy changes is unjustified when the certificate pertains to a recognized event prior to the change.

JUDGMENT :

Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.

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

2. On 20^th February, 2025, in the backdrop of the order dated 29^th January, 2025, we had passed the following order :

“1. We had passed an order on 16^th October, 2024 and issued notice. For the last four months, the State has not filed any reply though we had initially granted time till12^th November, 2024.

2. Respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit on a limited point of invalidation of the Petitioner’s sports certificate. The aspect that the Petitioner has scored 107 marks and is already in the select list from the general category and, therefore, she has been appointed by the Buldhana Zilla Parishad because the cutoff marks for appointment with the said Zilla Parishad is 104, has not been dealt with. No reply has been filed by the State on this point despite the fact that this Court has delivered a judgment in Vijay Appaso Dhavale v/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors., 2021 SCC OnLine Bom. 6071.

3. In Vijay Appaso (supra), reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Saurav Yadav v/s. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2021) 4 SCC 542 more particularly, the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that reservations, both vertical and horizontal, are methods of ensuring representation in public services. These are not to be seen as rigid slots, where a candidate’s merit, which otherwise entitles her to be shown in the open general category, is foreclosed, as the consequence would be, if the State’s argument is accepted.

4. Today, the State orally contends that the Petitioner cannot be appointed, though the Petitioner has scored 107 marks and is in the merit list from the general category, ignoring that she is a sportsperson and she had a validated sports certificate, which was subsequently invalidated after her appointment with the Buldhana Zilla Parishad.

5. In view of the above, since the State is not filing a reply and the hearing in this matter is truncated, one last chance is granted and at the request of the learned AGP, office to accept the reply since it is being filed tomorrow, i.e., 21^st February, 2025.

6. List this Petition, on the supplementary board, on 26^th February, 2025, for furtherhearing and dictating order.

7. The ad-interim relief would continue until further orders.”.

3. The view taken by this Court in Vijay Appaso Dhavale (supra) has been sustained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dismissing SLP (Civil) Appeal No. 2367 of 2022, vide order dated21^st February, 2022. The law has, thus, crystallized.

4. The State has preferred an additional affidavit-in-reply, dated 21^st February, 2025, through Mr.Sandeep Sangave, the Deputy Director of Education, Mumbai Region, Mumbai. It is stated in the said affidavit that the Petitioner is otherwise qualified for being appointed. The recruitment of teachers was initiated through the Pavitra Portal and the Teacher Aptitude and Intelligence Test (TAIT) examination was conducted. Those who are successful were considered for appointment. In addition, the Petitioner had a sports certificate, which was invalidated pursuant to her selection on the basis of the marks (107) scored by her. She is apparently in the merit list from the general category.

5. In paragraph 16 of the affidavit, it is stated that the Petitioner was recommended for the post of Teacher in general sports category. However, later on, her validated sports certificate, was invalidated. In paragraph 17 of the affidavit, it is stated that the list was published on 25^th February, 2024 by the Buldhana Zilla Parishad and the cut off marks in general category is 130 and in general women category, the cut off marks for TAIT is 122. It is, then, stated that after recommending 11085 candidates in the general merit list, dated 25^th February, 2024, the Respondent converted the parallel categories into social categories, except, ex-servicemen parallel category and again sought preferences from the candid