264 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 24.09.2025 State of Haryana and others …Appellants Vs.

Sachin …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR Present: Mr. Pankaj Mulwani, Sr. DAG, Haryana for the appellants.

Ms. Vibhuti Naraina, Advocate for the respondent.

***

ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J. (Oral)

1. This appeal is by the State of Haryana assailing the orders passed by the learned Single Judge dated 18.04.2022, in CWP No.7873 of 2022, whereby a direction has been issued to the appellants to consider the case of the writ-petitioner and offer him appointment by taking into consideration his outstanding achievement in the field of sports at international level in accordance with the Haryana Outstanding Sportspersons (Recruitment & Conditions of Service) Rules, 2018 (for short ‘the Rules of 2018’).

2. Undisputed facts of the case are that there existed a policy framed by the appellant-State for grant of government employment to sportspersons in the State of Haryana. The policy contemplated such appointments to be offered in Class-B and Class-C posts dependent upon the nature of sporting achievement.

3. The first policy brought on record is of 20.08.2013, whereas the subsequent policy is of the year 2014. The policy clearly contemplated offering of appointment to those who won silver and bronze medals in Olympic Games and gold medals in Asian Games and Commonwealth Games for Group-B appointment, whereas silver and bronze in Asian and Commonwealth Games were entitled to Group-C posts. Undisputedly, the writ petitioner had won a silver medal in wrestling event in ‘98 Kg. weight category Greco-Roman Wrestling in Commonwealth Championship held in 2016 at Singapore. In terms of policy, the petitioner was entitled to government employment on a Class-C post.

4. It transpires that the State of Haryana published advertisement on 12.04.2017 inviting applications for appointment under outstanding sportsperson category as per policy then in force. The writ petitioner applied for the said post and the Committee constituted by the State examined the application of the writ petitioner and found him eligible for appointment to the post of Group-C. Thereafter, the authorities returned the application received from the outstanding sportspersons and directed submission of fresh applications. It is thereafter that the writ petitioner submitted a fresh application on 20.09.2018. This application, however, came to be rejected by the State of Haryana vide order dated 04.12.2018 and 20.01.2019. These two orders were put to challenge in the writ petition on various grounds. One of the grounds taken to assail the orders was that the order of rejection does not contain any reasons for denying the claim of government employment to the writ petitioner.

5. It transpires that the only reason on which claim of the writ petitioner has not been considered is the introduction of subsequent policy contained in the Rules of 2018 formalized on 05.09.2018. The policy was further amended on 09.03.2019 retrospectively w.e.f. 05.09.2018. Rule 3 of the Rules 2018, as amended, contained following provisions.

“3. Sports events to be considered :-

(1) Sports events to be considered for appointment in the case of World Championship, Asian Championship, Commonwealth Championship and World University Games shall be provided under sub-rule (2) and (3).

(2) Sport events included in the immediate next Olympic Games only shall be considered for appointment under category numbers 2, 5A, 6A or 7A of either Schedule-I or Schedule-II.

(3) Sport events not included in the immediate next Olympic Games, but included in either the immediate next Asian Games or the immediate next Commonwealth Games, shall be considered for appointment under category numbers 5B, 6B or 7B of either Schedule-I or Schedule-II.”

6. The appellants rely upon Rule 3.2 to submit that petitioner is ineligible for employment under the policy as imme