Non-inclusion of sportsmen preference in job advertisement does not inherently prejudice an applicant's chances against higher-scoring candidates.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjeev Prakash Sharma J.

Present appeal has been filed assailing the judgment dated 31.05.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby CWP No. 6025 of 2014, preferred by the writ-petitioner/appellant, was dismissed.

2. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the appellant, after having completed his +2 qualification and Graduation, did his LLB and participated in the selection process for appointment as Assistant Superintendent Jails in pursuance of advertisement issued on 14.08.2010 by the Haryana Public Service Commission. He submitted that out of 29 posts, 12 posts were kept for General Category and 17 posts were reserved for SC/BC/Ex-Servicemen. The appellant was from General Category. The criteria of selection was laid down in the advertisement, providing for marks under the various heads. In the writ petition, the appellant had taken a specific ground regarding the conduct of interview/viva-voce by single member of the Commission.

3. Learned Senior counsel limited his arguments to the aspect relating to Rule 7 of the Punjab Jails Department State Service (Class-III Executive) Rules, 1963 (for short, 'the Rules), which governs the mode of appointment. As per Note 2 under Rule 7, appointment to the post in service in case of Assistant Superintendents would be by direct appointment or by transfer or deputation from any other service of the State or by promotion from amongst Sub-Assistant Superintendent and Assistant Probation Officers. Further as per Note 2 preference was to be given to those persons who are sportsmen and are otherwise eligible for appointment in accordance with the provisions of the rules.

4. Learned counsel further submits that so far as the appellant is concerned, since he possesses the eligibility for the post and had participated in the selection, he was to be given preference over others. Learned counsel has taken this Court to various order-sheets of the learned Single Judge when the writ petition was pending to highlight that the learned Single Judge had asked time and again the reasons for deviation from the Rule as the advertisement did not refer to the preference to be given to the Sportsman and the marks awarded for the sports activities. He submits that the State was asked to produce the record to show that if any person got extra marks being a sports person at the time of interview.

5. Learned Senior counsel further submits that the respondents were asked to got instructions regarding claim of the appellant for appointment to the post of Assistant Superintendent of Jails, an order was passed on 20.05.2016 wherein upon examination of his case it was noticed that an error had crept in the advertisement, as the advertisement did not mention note 2 of the Rule 7 of the Rules of 1963. The advertisement did not refer to the preference to be given to those persons who were sportsmen and otherwise eligible for appointment in accordance with the provisions of the Rules. Resultantly, the appellant was not given any marks for the sports activities. Learned counsel submits upon having obtained information under the RTI Act, it is apparent that the candidates who were selected were given 10 marks more than the appellant in viva-voce.

6. Learned senior counsel submits that a person who is outstanding sportsman cannot be expected to be academically also outstanding as he has to devote more time towards his sports activities. It is for this reason that note 2 was appended to the 1963 Rules giving special preference to a sportsman. The post of Assistant Superintendent of Jails was, therefore, essentiall