Once an applicant accepts appointment under the Jammu and Kashmir Appointment of Outstanding Sports Persons Rules, 1998, their right under the Rules stands exhausted and they cannot subsequently seek appointment to a different post on the same basis.

Headnote:(A) Jammu and Kashmir Appointment of Outstanding Sports Persons Rules, 1998 (SRO 349 of 1998) - Rule 2 - Jammu and Kashmir Appointment of Outstanding Sports Persons (Amendment) Rules, 2004 (SRO 376 of 2004) - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14 and 16 - Appointment of sportsperson - Once an applicant accepts appointment under the Rules, his right stands exhausted and he cannot seek a second or repeated consideration for another post on the same basis - Expression "may be considered for appointment against a higher post in non-gazetted service" does not confer a right to be appointed to a particular post of choice, but only enables consideration subject to availability of vacancy, suitability, eligibility and administrative decision - Principle of negative equality: Articles 14 and 16 do not create a right to claim benefit on the basis of a benefit wrongly or differently extended to another - A candidate cannot approbate and reprobate by accepting appointment and later challenging it to seek a more favourable post. (Paras 12-16, 18, 21-24)

(B) Service Law - Judicial Review - Scope - Court in judicial review examines whether decision-making process is arbitrary, mala fide, discriminatory or contrary to statutory rules - Court does not sit as appellate authority over administrative decision of Selection Committee to decide which particular post should have been offered - Power is confined to review of process, not substitution of opinion. (Para 24)

Facts of the case:
The applicant, an outstanding sportsperson, was considered under SRO 349 of 1998 and appointed as Teacher in the School Education Department in 2014, which he accepted and joined. After joining, he made a representation seeking change of cadre/post to a higher grade, alleging that similarly situated sportspersons were appointed to higher posts. The representation was rejected on the ground that he had already been considered and appointed under the Rules and his right stood exhausted. The applicant challenged the rejection before the High Court, which was transferred to the Tribunal.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal held that the applicant's right under SRO 349 of 1998 stood exhausted upon acceptance of appointment; the expression "may be considered" does not confer a right to a particular post; the plea of discrimination was not established as the applicant failed to demonstrate complete identity of circumstances with the persons he relied upon; and the impugned order was based on valid reasons not warranting interference.

Issues: (i) Whether an applicant who has accepted appointment under SRO 349 of 1998 can later claim appointment to a different higher post on the same basis. (ii) Whether denial of such claim amounts to discrimination violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. (iii) Whether the expression "may be considered for appointment against a higher post" creates a vested right to be appointed to a particular post.

Ratio Decidendi: (i) Once an appointee under the special sports quota rules accepts the benefit of appointment and joins, the purpose of consideration under the Rules stands fulfilled and he cannot seek a second or repeated consideration. (ii) The Rules do not create a vested right to any particular post; they provide for consideration only, subject to availability and eligibility. (iii) Articles 14 and 16 do not confer negative equality and each appointment under the Rules depends on multiple variables; the applicant failed to establish identity of circumstances with the persons he cited.

Result: Transfer Application dismissed. No order as to costs. (Para 28-29)

ORDER

Per: - Ram Mohan Johri, Administrative Member

1. The SWP No.3029/2017 was transferred from the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A No.3519/2020 by the Registry of this Tribunal.

2. The present matter was filed before the Hon’ble High Court seeking following relief: -

a) It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that keeping in view the submissions made hereinabove and those to be urged at the time of hearing, the Hon’ble Court may very kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction including in the nature of: -

CERTIORARI: -

b) Quashing order No.GAD/Mtg/ Sports/02/2013 dated 14-12-2016 issued by office of respondent No.1 whereby the representation of the petitioner dated 06-01-2016 was rejected illegally, arbitrarily and the same is in violation of Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India.

MANDAMUS:

c) Commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioner in true spirit of SRO 349/1998 to a higher grade as had been done in case of other selectees who were similarly situated.

d) Any other relief, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.”

3. The facts of the case as pleaded by the petitioner in his pleadings are as follows: -

a) The present Transfer Application arises out of SWP No. 3029/2017, which was transferred from the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu to this Tribunal and registered as T.A. No. 3519/2020.

b) The applicant, Romit Kumar, claims to be an outstanding sportsperson within the meaning of the Jammu and Kashmir Appointment of Outstanding Sports Persons Rules, 1998, notified vide SRO 349 of 1998 and amended vide SRO 376 of 2004. The applicant possesses the qualification of BCA along with Diploma in Business Management. He has participated in State, Inter-Zonal and National level sports events and secured second position in the 16^th Senior National Wushu Championship held at Godwin Public School, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, from 24.01.2008 to 29.01.2008.

c) The applicant was included in the list of eligible outstanding sportspersons and was shown at Serial No. 22 in the notification dated 08.01.2013, published in the newspaper on 10.01.2013. On the basis of his sports achievement and educational qualification, his case was considered by the respondents under SRO 349 of 1998 read with SRO 376 of 2004.

d) The applicant was recommended and thereafter appointed as Teacher in the School Education Department, District Cadre Jammu, in the pay scale of Rs. 5200-20200 with Grade Pay of Rs. 2800/-, vide Government Order No. 1110-GAD of 2014 dated 24.10.2014. According to the applicant, though he accepted the said appointment and joined as Teacher, his grievance is that he ought to have been appointed against a higher non-gazetted post in some other department, as had allegedly been done in the case of similarly situated outstanding sportspersons.

e) The applicant has pleaded that Rule 2 of SRO 349 of 1998 provides that persons possessing 10+2 qualification may be considered for appointment against non-gazetted service, persons possessing lesser qualification may be considered for Class-IV posts, and persons possessing graduation or above may be considered for appointment against a higher post in non-gazetted service, provided they are otherwise eligible under the relevant recruitment rules and possess the certificate of outstanding sportsperson issued by the Secretary, J&K Sports Council.

f) The applicant submits that the object of SRO 349 of 1998 is to provide preferential appointment to outstanding sportspersons commensurate with their educational qualification and sports achievements. According to him, being a graduate and having additional qualification, he was entitled to consideration for a higher non-gazetted post and not merely the post of Teacher.

g) The applicant has placed reliance on various instances where, according to him, oth

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 5787

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL6213/2020T.A./3519/2020

Once an applicant accepts appointment under the Jammu and Kashmir Appointment of Outstanding Sports Persons Rules, 1998, their right under the Rules stands exhausted and they cannot subsequently seek appointment to a different post on the same basis.

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
6213/2020
T.A./3519/2020