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

2021 Supreme(Jhk) 290

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RAVI RANJAN, SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, JJ.
Ms. Shilpa Dalmia - Petitioner
Versus
Jharkhand Public Service Commission through its Chairman having its office at Circular Road, Ahirtoli, Ranchi, P.O Ranchi, P.S. – Kotwali - Respondents
W.P. (S) No. 1954 of 2020
Decided On : 18-06-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For the Writ Petitioner:Md. Mokhtar Khan, Advocate
For The Respondent: Mr. Piyush Chitresh, Mr. Navin Kumar Pandey

The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of judicial review in the case of selection/appointment and the requirement to adhere to the conditions stipulated in the advertisement without relaxation.

Headnote:

Horizontal Reservation - Sports Quota - Advertisement No. 12/2018 - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - 1709 - Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court: The court discussed the eligibility criteria under 'Sports Quota' as per Clause 1(d) of Advertisement No. 12/2018 and the circular issued by the Government of Jharkhand vide Memo No. 1709 dated 12.09.2007. The court also referred to various certificates submitted by the petitioner and analyzed their compliance with the conditions stipulated in the advertisement. The court highlighted the legal principles of judicial review and the limitations of the court's intervention in the decision-making process.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner applied for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) under Jharkhand Judicial Service under the Horizontal Reservation of Sports Quota. She was declared successful in preliminary and main examinations but was not finally selected. The petitioner claimed that her candidature under Sports Quota was not considered despite having national and university level achievements in 'Lawn Tennis'.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner's certificates did not fulfill the conditions stipulated in the advertisement for Horizontal Reservation under Sports Quota. The court also emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in the case of selection/appointment and the requirement to adhere to the conditions stipulated in the advertisement.

Issues: The issues revolved around the eligibility of the petitioner for Horizontal Reservation under Sports Quota, the compliance of her certificates with the conditions stipulated in the advertisement, and the scope of judicial review in the decision-making process.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the petitioner's failure to establish her eligibility as per the conditions of the advertisement for consideration under Sports Quota. The court emphasized the limitations of judicial review and the requirement to adhere to the terms of the advertisement without relaxation.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as the petitioner failed to make out a case for interference or positive direction.

JUDGMENT :

With consent of the parties, hearing of the matter has been done through video conferencing and there is no complaint whatsoever regarding audio and visual quality.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs:

    (i). For issuance of writ, order(s), direction(s) in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ thereby directing the Respondents to issue the Appointment to Petitioner under the Horizontal Reservation of Sports Quota.

(ii). To stay the Issuance of Appointments letters to the Finally Selected Candidates and Reserve One (1) Seat for the Petitioner as the Final Result declares the selection of 107 Candidates in total, until the Final Disposal of the Writ and the Ascertainment of Petitioners Right.

(iii). To Quash Non-Acceptance or Rejection of Petitioner’s Candidature as an “Outstanding Sports Person”, pursuant to Horizontal Reservation of Sports Quota under the Advertisement – 12/2018, as claimed by the Petitioner and duly acknowledged by the Respondent no. 1 JPSC.

(iv).To direct the Respondents to Consider the Sports Certificate of the Petitioner, under the Point No. (ii) and Point No. (iii) of the Sports Standard Parameters of the Advertisement 12/18, published by Respondent No. 1 JPSC and the Sports Memo No. 1709 dated 12-09-2007 of the Government of Jharkhand.

(v).To Direct the Respondents to Engage the Sports Officials/Experts for the Correct/True Interpretation of the Certificates of the Petitioner in accordance with the parameters of discipline/sports of Lawn Tennis in the light of the Standards under Point No. (ii) and Point No. (iii) of Sports Quota Recruitment as given under the advertisement itself.

3. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleadings made in the writ petition, which are required to be enumerated herein, read under as:

In pursuance to the advertisement being Advertisement No. 12/2018 floated by Jharkhand Public Service Commission (in short ‘JPSC’), for direct appointment of Civil Judge (Junior Division) under Jharkhand Judicial Service, the writ petitioner applied for the said post and participated in the process of selection. She was declared successful in Preliminary Entrance Test and Main Examination (Written Test) and was provisionally selected for interview in which she appeared but was not finally selected.

It is the case of the writ petitioner that she applied for the said post claiming Horizontal Reservation of 3% under ‘Sports Quota’ , being a meritorious sports person for the sports of ‘Lawn Tennis’, as mentioned in Column 1(d) of the advertisement, but her candidature has not been considered by the JPSC under Sports Quota in spite of the fact that she has been awarded medal and certificate at national and university level for the sports of ‘Lawn Tennis’; hence the present writ petition.

4. Md. Mokhtar Khan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that even though as per the condition stipulated in the advertisement, i.e. Condition No. 1 (d), which speaks about the ‘level of competition’ and ‘achievement in sports’ in case of seeking reservation by the candidates under Sports Quota, the petitioner had submitted certificate showing that the writ petitioner had participated at national and university level for the sports of ‘Lawn Tennis’, which fulfills the condition nos. 1(d) (ii) and 1(d) (iii) for getting Horizontal Reservation of 3% under Sports Quota, but she was not declared successful on the ground that ‘sports certificate not produced as per advertisement’.

Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has further submitted that the respondent-JPSC has violated the terms of Horizontal Reservation against Sports Quota by denying the candidature of the petitioner as the petitioner had submitted all relevant sports certificates to establish her claim as per advertisement. Le

      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 telegram-icon
      whatsapp-icon Back to top