Anupama Devi Vs State of Hp and Ors.

For the petitioner : Mr. Pankaj Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer, for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Anil K. God, Advocate, for respondents No.3.

¶10

Mr. Anil Kumar Jaswal, Advocate, for respondent No.4.

¶11

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral )

¶12

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has primarily prayed for the following reliefs:-

¶13

“(i) That a writ in the nature of Certiorari may very kindly be issued and the appointment of private respondent No.4 may very kindly be quashed and set aside in the interest of justice.

¶14

(ii) That a writ in the nature of Mandamus may

¶15

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶16

2

¶17

very kindly be issued directing the respondent directing the respondents to appoint the Petitioner on the post of Junior Office Assistant under the General Distinguished sports person category from the due date along with all consequential service benefits or in alternate the respondent No.2 be directed to sponsor the name of the petitioner for the post commensurate with her educational qualification under the General Distinguished sports person category.”

¶18

The case of the petitioner is that she is a

¶19

distinguished sportsperson in the field of Kabaddi. She has represented the State of Himachal Pradesh in the said sport in events held at National level and has brought name and fame to the state of Himachal Pradesh. According to the petitioner, certain posts of Junior Office Assistant (IT), which were to be filled from amongst the quota of distinguished sportsperson on contract basis were lying vacant in the Health Department and in the H.P. State Electricity Board. Though the name of the private respondent was recommended for being considered for appointment against the said post, but the name of the petitioner was not sponsored despite the fact that she was

¶20

3

¶21

more meritorious than the private respondent. It is in this backdrop that the case has been filed, praying for the reliefs, already mentioned hereinabove.

¶22

The stand of the respondents is that the name of the petitioner as well as the private respondent, are registered in the live register of 3% cell maintained by the Department concerned under the sports quota. H.P.S.E.B sent requisitions

¶23

for sponsoring the name of sportsperson to fill up 5 posts of Junior Office Assistant, Information and Technology, on contract basis. The name of the private respondent was sponsored for the said post as she was fulfilling the eligibility criteria, whereas, the name of the petitioner could not be sponsored as she had not submitted her typing certificate with the Department at the time of sending the requisition.

¶24

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having carefully gone through the pleadings and documents on record, this Court is of the considered view that there is no merit in this petition.

¶25

It is a matter of record that the name of the petitioner was not recommended, was not sponsored to

¶26

4

¶27

H.P.S.E.B for consideration against the post of JOA (IT), as she had not submitted her Computer Typing English Certificate with respondent No.2 at the time of sponsoring of the name. A perusal of the advertisement, which is appended with the response filed by respondents No. 1 & 2, demonstrates that the requisition was sent to respondent No.2 by the Electricity Board, vide Annexure R2/A, dated 20.08.2018, for sponsoring the name of eligible candidates under the sports quota and the minimum educational and other qualifications required for the purpose of direct recruitment included computer typing speed of 30 words per minute in English or 25 words per minute in Hindi. Another requisition is appended with the reply as Annexure R-2/C and in terms thereof also eligibility criteria inter alia includes computer typing speed of 30 minutes per minute in English or 25 words per minute in Hindi.

¶28

Annexure R-2/E is the letter sent by the petitioner to Director Youth Service and Sports, dated 18.12.2019, which has been diarised on 01.01.2020 along with which the petitioner submitted her Computer Typing English Certificate with respondent No.2. This clearly demonstrates that at the

¶29

5

¶30

time when the requisitions were placed by the H.P.S.E.B with respondent No.2 both in the year 2018 as well as 2019, the petitioner was not possessing the requisite qualification of typing speed, as certificate to this effect was issued in her favour by Mandav Typing Institute, copy whereof is also appended with the reply of respondents No. 1 & 2, only on 20.11.2019.

¶31

This Court is of the considered view that in this factual backdrop, the non-sponsoring of the name of the petitioner by respondent No.2 cannot be faulted with. The petitioner in the absence of fulfilling the eligibility criteria cannot claim a right of consideration nor can it assail the nonsponsoring of her name or appointment of any other incumbent against the sports quota by the H.P. State Electricity Board.

¶32

Special quota which is prescribed for sportsperson renders a candidate eligible for appointment provided the candidate is fulfilling the educational and other eligibility criteria. The benefit of reservation or quota can be taken by a candidate who fulfills the eligibility criteria and in the absence of a candidate fulfilling the eligibility criteria, he or she cannot lay

¶33

6

¶34

claim upon a post simply on the ground that he or she is a distinguished sportsperson. Therefore as on the date when the requisitions were placed by H.P.S.E.B with respondent No.2 and as of the date when the names of candidates were sponsored by respondent No. 2 to H.P.S.E.B because the petitioner was not fulfilling the eligibility criteria, this court does not finds any illegality in the non-sponsoring of the name of the petitioner by respondent No.2 for consideration against the post of JOA (IT). Thus, as this court does not finds any merit in the petition, the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.

¶35

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge

¶36

July 05, 2024 (Shivank Thakur)

Anupama Devi v. State of Hp and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anupama Devi v. State of Hp and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagtamba Devi (Deceased through LRs Chander Pal) and Others Vs Desh Raj

Ram Singh Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Rajinder Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others

Basant Ram Thakur Vs State of Hp and Others

Vikram Singh Vs State of Hp and Others

Prem Chand Vs State of Hp