SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 50324

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N. NAGARESH, J
ANJANAY VENUGOPAL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 33722 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR, SMT.P.R.REENA
For the Respondents: SRI. RAJEEV JYOTHISH GEORGE

Reservations in sports quota for government posts must adhere to constitutional equality, permitting all curricula.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 14 - Discrimination in appointment under Sports Quota based on the educational syllabus - Petitioner, a meritorious swimmer studying CBSE syllabus, challenged the exclusion by State - As per the court, alternate remedy exists under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, making the writ petition not maintainable. (Paras 3-6)

(B) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Highlighted the need for petitioners to approach the competent authority for grievances regarding recruitment by State services. (Paras 5-6)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, an accomplished swimmer, faced denial of sports quota appointment on grounds of educational curriculum, which he argued constituted discrimination under Article 14.

Findings of Court:
Citing the necessity for an alternate dispute resolution, the court concluded the writ petition was not maintainable.

Issues: The main issue revolved around whether restricting sports quota appointments to Kerala syllabus students was discriminatory and unconstitutional.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the system of appointment was bound by legislation under the Administrative Tribunals Act, thus compelling petitioners to seek redress through designated channels.

Result: The writ petition is dismissed.

Table of Content
1. exclusion based on educational background violates equality. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. court heard both sides before coming to a conclusion. (Para 4)
3. writ petition dismissed due to alternative remedy. (Para 6)

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 15th day of September, 2025 The petitioner completed his 12th standard under the Central Board of Secondary Education and SSLC under the Kerala State Syllabus. The petitioner is a meritorious sportsman in swimming.

2. This writ petition is filed since the 1st respondent is taking a stand that the reservation for appointment in the Sports Quota for the posts in the Government of Kerala as well as authorities under the Government of Kerala is exclusively reserved for students studying in the Schools following the Kerala Education Rules syllabus.

3. Thus, persons like the petitioner, who are excellent sportsmen having won large number of recognitions in sports especially aquatic and swimming at State, South India levels and have participated in the National Competition, are denied the sports quota appointment in the State Government Sector. This is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, contends the petitioner.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents.

5. The petitioner is seeking the following reliefs:- “i) Declare that the stand of the respondents that sports quota appointment in State Government Service and Government Control Institution of 1st respondent will be given only to persons who had studied in the schools under Kerala Education Act and Rules is illegal and unconstitutional.

ii. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent to consider for appointment in the sports quota of 1st respondent and Institutions controlled by 1st respondent to persons who are qualified and had studied in CBSE and other related category curriculums along with persons who had qualified and studied in KER schools.

iii. Issue writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents 1 to 3 to reconsider the petitioner’s application for appointment under the Sports Quota, by duly taking into account his achievements as proved by Exhibits P5 to P11.”

6. The relief sought for by the petitioner would make it clear that the matter is concerning recruitment to the State Service and other Service under State Government. Therefore, the issue raised by the petitioner will squarely fall under the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act , 1985 and the petitioner has to approach the concerned Tribunal constituted under the , 1985. Since there is an alternate remedy, the writ petition is not maintainable.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent Tribunal.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top