outstanding sports person, having won several medals in international and national sporting events, in the field of Wrestling. She was also awarded the Bhim award in the year 2005-2006 by the Haryana Government in recognition of her achievements as a sports person.

3. It is alleged by the appellant that on having learnt that the private respondents were offered appointments to the post of DSP despite the fact that they had not been awarded the Bhim award and were less meritorious than her, she filed representations before the official respondents to appoint her to the post of DSP under the quota reserved for outstanding sports persons of Haryana State who win a gold, silver or bronze medal in the Olympic Games, or those sports persons who bring extraordinary laurels to the country and the State of Haryana. Ignoring her superior claim, the official respondents rejected her application vide order dated 20.10.2009.

4. The appellant submitted a detailed representation dated 03.03.2010, protesting the alleged arbitrary and discriminatory treatment meted out to her. Aggrieved by the failure of the official respondents to consider her claim, she approached the Writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by filing the aforementioned writ petition with the prayers as mentioned hereinabove.

5. The learned Single Judge, vide its judgment and order dated 08.12.2010, dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant by, inter alia, making the following observations:-

“Appointment of sports person is made dehors merit. Should there be consideration of merit amongst this category, where appointment is made ignoring merit?

At the outset, counsel for the Petitioner was asked to explain as to how writ for seeking preference amongst preferred class would be justified. The appointment of an outstanding sports person is made in exercise of a discretionary power. Once the Petitioner pleads for her appointment as DSP, she is asking for exercise of that discretion in her favor. She is, thus, complaining of discrimination but at the same time, is seeking preferential treatment, which in a way would lead to discrimination only. Plea of equality in such cases in itself sounds contradictory.

The appointments in this category are not made on the basis of open competition. There is no competition amongst this preferred class while making appointments, which are offered to outstanding sports persons as a class in itself. There may be a policy framed by the State to regulate such appointments in police but that alone is not the field where the State is empowered to make appointment. Apparently, there may not be a right to such appointment as sports person. There may still be many in the State who have excelled in their respective sports and may be better placed than the Petitioner. They then can come forward to challenge her claim on that ground.

How, the Court can do a fair adjudication in such cases/Sporting event of the Petitioner and the private Respondents are different. There can not be a fair assessment of different events for determining merit. To seek an appointment in this preferred category, no open or fair assessment can be made. No allegations of any motive are made in the petition and it is only pleaded that the Petitioner has a preferential or better right in comparison to private Respondents, who concededly have excelled in their respective fields of sports. No doubt, that the power may have to be exercised legally, properly and reasonably. If it is not so done, the action may be held bad. No challenge is made to the power and authority to make such appointment. Rather, prayer is to make appointment in exercise of these very powers. It is being urged that power is not properly exercised. it is to be presumed, unless contrary is shown that the administration of a particular law would be done "not with an evil eye and unequal hand..." (See A. Thangal Kunju Musaliar vs. M. Venkitachalam Potti, 1955 (2) SCR 1196). There is nothing to ind