The court established that the burden of proof for communication delivery lies with the respondent, and a distinguished sports person is entitled to appointment under relevant state policies despite procedural lapses.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Mohan Goel, J.

1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has primarily prayed for the following reliefs:-

“i) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may very kindly be issued directing the respondents to appoint the Petitioner on the post of Physical Education Teacher under the General distinguished sports person category from the due date along with all consequential service benefits.”

2. The case of the petitioner is that after completing her 10+2, she obtained her Bachelor’s degree in Physical Education course as also her Masters Degree in Physical Education course. She has also done Masters in Philosophy. The petitioner has remained a distinguished Sports Person throughout. She secured third place in All India Inter- University Championship, participated in 46th Senior National Games Championship, Amrawati, participated in National Senior Games Championship Rewa and remained runner-up at Annual Inter-College Tournament held during the year1997-98 in the sport of Kabaddi.

3. As per the petitioner, respondent-State has formulated a policy Annexure P-1, for providing reservation to the distinguished Sports Persons in various services under the Government. The sport of Kabaddi finds mention at Sr. No. 21, of Annexure–A of Policy Annexure P-1. In terms of her qualifications and achievements, the petitioner falls in category III and IV of the distinguished Sports Persons as mentioned in Annexure B of the Policy Annexure P-1. It is further the case of the petitioner that in the year 2017, certain posts of Physical Education Teachers were vacant of the quota of distinguished Sports Persons. The posts were lying vacant in the Elementary Education Department.

4. Vide letter dated 14.07.2016, respondent No. 4 was called upon by the employer to sponsor the names of eligible candidates who could be offered appointment against the post of Physical Education Teacher under the 3% quota reserved for distinguished Sports Persons.

5. In response thereto, respondent No. 4 sponsored the name of two candidates, i.e., one of Shri Vipin Kumar and that of the petitioner. This is evident from Annexure P-3, which is the information obtained by the petitioner in the year2021 under the Right to Information Act.

6. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No. 3 allegedly issued a letter to the petitioner on 17.06.2017, calling upon her to submit her testimonials and certificates in the office of respondent No. 3 so that appointment could be offered to her but she never received this letter, as otherwise there was no occasion for her to have had not responded thereto. On account of non-receipt of this letter dated 17.06.2017, the petitioner has been denied appointment arbitrarily and one Smt. Seema Devi, daughter of Sh. Jagat Ram, was appointed in her place. According to the petitioner, it is on account of lapse on the part of the respondents that she could not be appointed as Physical Education Teacher despite being fully eligible to be appointed on the post in issue and after she came to know about this injustice having been done to her, she obtained information under the Right to Information Act and filed this petition, praying for the relief already quoted hereinabove.

7. The petition is opposed by the respondents inter alia on the ground that no doubt the name of the petitioner was sponsored by respondent No. 4 for the post in issue but as she did not respond to the communication of respondent No. 3 and she did not submit her testimonials, therefore, offer was made to next eligible candidate.

8. In the backdrop of the controversy involved in the matter, this Court on 12.10.2023, passed the following order:-

“CMP No. 14230 of 2023

For the reasons stated therein, present application, seeking early hearing of the petition is allowed and disposed of.

CWP No.4081 of 2021

Heard for some time. Without prejudice to the respective contentions of the parties, learned Additional Advocate General to have instructions, as to whether the petitio