(ORDER)

Delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Anand Mathur, Member-A 1. Case of the applicant Gourav Gupta is that under the direct quota for outstanding sport persons, applicant was appointed to the post of Demonstrator in the Technical Education Department vide order dated 24.10.2014. However, he was not allowed to join the post of Demonstrator since he did not possess the requisite qualification. During this period, the General Administration Department obtained an undertaking from the applicant that he would not claim the pay scale having Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/-. Thereafter, applicant was appointed as Sub-Inspector in the Grade Pay of Rs. 2400/- in Divisional Cadre Jammu in J&K Excise and Commercial Taxes (Subordinate) Service and he joined the post on 02.02.2015. It is the case of the applicant that other persons appointed under the category of outstanding sports person have been appointed on posts having Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/-. In this regard, applicant has placed on record a list dated 16.11.2016 of the appointees of outstanding sports person which contains the names of the appointees who have been appointed to the posts having Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/- .

2. It is a case of applicant that on the strength of SRO-349/1998 dated 22.12.98, applicant was entitled to be appointed to a higher post in the Non-Gazetted post having a Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/-. It is the further case of the applicant that other outstanding sports persons have been given jobs having Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/- but he has been discriminated against in as much as he has been appointed to a post having Grade Pay of Rs. 2400/-.

3. In the objections filed by the respondents, while admitting the appointment of applicant to the post of Demonstrator and thereafter Sub-Inspector have taken the plea that the appointments are subject to availability of posts and that 25 posts in the non-gazetted cadre are identified every year, as per, rules for consideration of eligible candidates for appointment and that in any case, the present TA is barred by delay and laches. It is case of the respondents that applicant had given a representation regarding his willingness to be appointed against the post of Sub- Inspector in Excise and Taxation in the Grade Pay of Rs. 2400/- and that he will not make claim on the higher or equivalent grade of Demonstrator against which he was appointed. Therefore, there being no merit in the TA, it deserves to be dismissed.

4. We have heard and considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in terms of Rule 3 of Jammu and Kashmir (Appointment of Outstanding Sports Persons) Rules, 1998 promulgated by SRO 349 dated 22.12.1998, applicant is entitled to be appointed against a higher post in the Non-Gazetted service having a Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/- and that other persons under outstanding sportsman quota have been given posts having Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/-. Therefore, applicant being similarly situated to the said persons given Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/- is also entitled to the post having the same Grade Pay.

6. On the other hand, learned D.A.G. submitted that the impugned order has been passed in accordance with the Rules and that the respondents are under no obligation to appoint the applicant to the post having Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/-. It has been further submitted by learned D.A.G. that the list placed on record by the applicant reflecting the names of persons being given jobs having Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/- cannot in any manner confer a right upon the applicant to be considered for the post having Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/- and that the post to be given to the applicant is to be commensurate with his education qualification. In the present case, the outstanding sportsman have been appointed to the post as per their educational qualification and these posts have a Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/- and therefore, no question of discriminating against the applicant arises. The applicant h