Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 3441
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
K. Manmadha Rao, J
Guntupalli H G K Murthy – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Ap and Others – Respondent
Writ Petition No.26347 of 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri Meka Rahul Chowdary
For the Respondents: G.P for Services-I Sri G. Seena Kumar, Standing Counsel
The court ruled that the prior recruitment guideline was unconstitutional, allowing reconsideration based on amended criteria for sports quota candidates.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ of Mandamus - Sports Quota - Petitioner's participation unfairly evaluated due to clause X of G.O.Ms.No.74 - Amended guidelines issued to consider participation at higher levels irrespective of winning - Court held clause X as illegal and arbitrary. (Paras 23, 24)
(B) Writ Proceedings - Court directed to consider the petitioner's candidature without reference to G.O.Ms.No.74, rectifying priorities based on new government orders. (Paras 24 i, ii)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner disputed his ranking in recruitment under the sports quota due to clause X of G.O.Ms.No.74; he participated in high-level sports events and claimed improper evaluation. The Government amended rules to protect team event players' rights during recruitment.
Findings of Court:
Court ruled that the prior clause X was unconstitutional, recommended prioritizing candidates based on amended rules, and directed the authorities to resolve the issue quickly.
Issues: Addressed were the legitimacy of recruitment criteria under the sports quota and adherence to new guidelines by the respondents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the reinterpretation of recruitment guidelines was necessary to ensure fairness and meritocracy, particularly for sports team participants.
Result: Writ petition allowed with specific directives for recruitment.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's recruitment criteria under scrutiny. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding clause x's application. (Para 4 , 6 , 9) |
| 3. court views on amended guidelines' implementation. (Para 5 , 7 , 12 , 14 , 15 , 19 , 21) |
| 4. estoppel principles discussed related to selection. (Para 22) |
| 5. conclusion and directives regarding petitioner's case. (Para 23 , 24 , 25) |
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:
“….to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in trying to consider the candidature of the petitioner as per clause X of G.O.Ms.No.74 YAT&C (Sports) Department dated 09.08.2012 for recruitment to Group I Services Notification No.27/2018 dated 31.12.2018 as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequentially: (1)direct the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner without reference to clause X of G.O.Ms.No.74 YAT&C (Sports) Department dated 09.08.2012 for recruitment to Group I Services Notification No.27/2018 dated 31.12.2018; or in the alternative (2)to consider the candidature of the petitioner by implementing Memo No.SAAP(MISC)/133/Sps.,&YS/2022 dated 13.06.2022 issued by the Government and Memo No.536/GROUP-I/2018, dated 28.05.2022 issued by the 2ndrespondent and to pass orders...…
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is an Engineering (Mechanical) graduate from R.V.R & J.C. Engineering College, Guntur and when the notification No.27/2018 dated 31.12.2018 was released by the APPSC for Group-1 services, to fill up 125 fresh vacancies and 44 carried forward vacancies, he applied for the same. He appeared in the exam and qualified in it and he is among the 48 candidates who were shortlisted under Sports Quota for verification of eligibility and priority (Register No.270708340). In the tentative priority list, his name was included at serial No.11 as he was given priority of 87 under Annexure II of G.O.Ms.No.74, instead of priority of 27. It is further stated that ever since he was in school, he had great interest in sports and accordingly, he participated in several competitions, especially in Basketball. More particularly, he participated in A.P.Inter District Basketball Championship in 2010, got selected and subsequently participated in National Basketball Championship in 2011. As per (Guideline) item No.X of G.O.Ms.No.74, dated 09.08.2012, participation at higher level would be considered only when it is supported by winning medals at the lower level. Therefore, participation in National Championship – National Games – Inter State – Inter Zonal – Open Nationals for Seniors – Federation Cup will have priority 27 and if no medal is won in corresponding Inter – District Championship, the candidate will be considered for participation in State/Inter District Championship for seniors which has priority 87. As the said condition was unfair for persons playing in team events, several representations were submitted by several individuals as well as several associations seeking amendment of the Rule. The petitioner has filed W.P.No.8747 of 2020 before this Court seeking for a direction to consider his case under Group-II (Sports quota) without referring to guideline No.X.
While the matter stood thus, during the pendency of the said writ petition, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.8 YAT&C(Sports) Department, dated 23.11.2020, which amended item No.X of the earlier G.O.Ms.No.74. The amendment read as: “participation at a higher level shall be considered only when it is supported by winning medals at the lower level for individual events only. For team games, participation at a higher level shall be considered at least when it is supported by participation (not winning medal) at a lower level”. Therefore, participation in the lower level is now sufficient for the purpose of considering the participation at the higher
