The court upheld the discretion of the Department in selecting sports categories for recruitment, affirming that the Online Application format was adequate for participation.

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE) The words, “an Online Application” appearing in last line of para-3.2 and the words, “an Online Application format”

appearing in second and fifth lines of para-3.3 of order dated 18.06.2024 are hereby deleted, to be replaced by the word “Notification”.

The Speaking to Minutes note stands disposed of accordingly. Registry is directed to issue fresh writ.

2.Original challenge is to the alleged arbitrary action of the respondent No.2 in publishing the Recruitment Advertisement / Notification of 2023-2024 dated 30-09-2023 for appointment of Meritorious Sports persons in the Income Tax Department on the basis of their merits in sporting activity, however, in such Advertisement, several Sports which are required to be included in the Notification of Advertisement, where missed. As a result of which, the petitioners, who are having merits in their respective Sporting activity, were precluded from making an application.

3.Learned Advocate for the petitioners has taken this Court through the pleadings and submitted that the Department of Personnel and Training have issued the Office Memorandum specifically to encourage inclusion of Sporting persons in the various Central Government Department. This Office Memorandum have been amended from time to time for including more and more category of sports and as on date, total 65 categories of sports are made part of the Office Memorandum issued by the D.O.P.T., which categories are required to be included for the purpose of recruitment in sports quota.

3.1Learned Advocate for the petitioners has submitted that Advertisement published only included 16 categories and therefore, only those Sports persons of the aforesaid 16 categories become eligible for making an application, whereas the petitioners, who are Sportsmen in categories other than in the impugned Notification / Advertisement, but are part of the Office Memorandum issued by the D.O.P.T. and therefore, the Advertisement / Notification for recruitment was against the Guidelines of the D.O.P.T. 3.2Second argument advanced by the learned Advocate for the petitioners is with regard to inability of the petitioners to participate in the Recruitment process on account of the faulty procedure adopted by the Department in making an Online Application.

3.3Learned Advocate for the petitioners has submitted that an option is required to be made available in an Online Application format so as to enable any person to participate in the Recruitment process, even if he is not Sportsman of 16 specified categories, but is Sports person in any other categories. It is submitted that in an Online Application format, there was no option of “Others” categories and therefore also, the petitioners were prevented from participating in the Recruitment process.

4.As against this, learned Advocate for the respondents has submitted that Advertisement is issued in consonance with the Guidelines of the D.O.P.T. and has included only those sports, which are mentioned in the Office Memorandum. It is submitted that Office Memorandum with regard to the Recruitment process does not provide for mentioning of all the categories of sports mentioned in the Office Memorandum. List merely indicates categories of games and sports, which are eligible for the quota in the Recruitment process. It is therefore, submitted that all the 16 sports categories mentioned in the Notification are amongst 65 sports categories mentioned by the D.O.P.T. in its Office Memorandum and therefore, the Department has not deviated.

4.1Learned Advocate for the respondents has submitted that with regard to second contention that in the Recruitment process, Application form did contain table of sports related information and in the Notification itself, there was 17th Option “Others”, wherein individuals following sports categories other than 16 specified have also participated in the Recruitment. The petitioners missed out an opportunity, now cannot claim to set a