Simarandeep Singh Brar Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

-1-

CWP-8633-2014 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP-8633-2014

Reserved	Pronounced	Uploaded	Whether	only	Whether t he
on	on	on	the oper	ative	full judgme nt
			part of	the	is
			judgment pronounce	is d	pronounced
19.05.202 6	03.07.2026	06.07.2026	Yes/No		Yes/No

¶5

SIMRA N DEEP SINGH BRAR

¶6

...PETITIONE R

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE GR E ATER MOHALI AREA DEV E LOPMENT AUTHORITY AN D ORS ...RESPONDENT S CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI

¶9

Present: Mr. K.S. Khehar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.S. Khosla, Senior Adv o cate with Ms. Mankreet Sangar, Advoc a te, Mr. Yogender Verma, Advoc a te and Ms. Abadhya Singh, Advocat e for respondents No.1 and 5. Mr. A.S. Khara, Sr. DAG, Pu n jab, for respondents No.2 to 4.

¶10

Mr. V.K. Sachdeva, Advocat e and Mr. Pulkit Sachdeva, Advoca t e for respondent No.6. None for respondent No.7.

¶11

Mr. Ranjit Singh Kalra, Advocate, for respondent No.8.

¶12

¶13

SHEETAL 2026.07.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh

¶14

CWP-8633-2014 -2-

¶15

SUVIR SEHGAL, J.

¶16

Petitioner has approached t h is Court, inter alia , for issuanc e of a writ of certiorari for quashing order d ated 24.02.2011, Annexure P- 4 /T, whereby he was declared ineligible u n der the sportsperson category for allotment of a 400 square yard reside n tial plot in Greater Mohali A rea Develop m ent Authority (GMADA), A ero City, Mohali. He has a lso challenged to notification dated 11.04. 2 013, Annexure P-12, as well as sought a c onsequential direction for allot m ent of a residential plot under the sportsper s on category.

¶17

Petitioner claims that he re p resented India in the Asian Sc h ool Games i n the game of Cricket during t h e year 2001-02 and was issu e d a Grade ‘ A ’ Sports Gradation Certificat e , Annexure P-2/T, by the Sp o rts Directora t e, Punjab. It has been contend e d that petitioner has been wro n gly denied c o nsideration under the sportsperson category despite his spor t ing achievements. Counsel has also made a r e ference to policy instructions d a ted 10.12.19 9 7 as well as subsequent instruc t ions dated 18.08.2008 to assert t hat a unifor m gradation policy should be framed for grant of benefits to sportsper s ons. It is his argument that as i m pugned policy, Annexure P-1 2 , is in contra v ention of the Government inst r uctions, it deserves to be set as i de. A strong reliance has been placed b y counsel for the petitioner u p on judgeme n t in Alamdeep Singh Versus State of Punjab and others Law Finder Doc ID #1561131 , to urge that certificate, Annexure P-2/T, gra n ted to petitio n er has been recognised by Mi n istry of Youth Affairs and Sp o rts, Governm e nt of India and on its basis, p e titioner has been appointed to P CS SHEETAL 2026.07.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy andauthenticity of this order/judgmentOfficer ( E xecutive Branch) in the sportsp e rson category. High Court, Chandigarh

¶18

CWP-8633-2014 -3-

¶19

Writ petition has been cont e sted by official as well as pri v ate responde n ts for filing separate respo n ses. It has been submitted t hat brochure, Annexure P-1, governing allot m ent of plots specifically prov i des that in c ase of sportsperson, applican t s should be a medal winne r in international games or a mountaineer fulfilling the prescribed condition s . It has been argued that petitioner does not s atisfy the eligibility criteria an d he is not ent i tled for the allotment of a plot.

¶20

Counsel for GMADA has s p ecifically pointed out that Scru t iny Committ e e examined petitioner's case a nd found that participation in the Asian Sc h ool Games in Cricket does not f all within the categories prescri b ed in the brochure and therefore, petitioner's case has been rightly rejected. 5. Counsel for respondents ha v e placed reliance upon Rohitash Kumar and others Versus Om Prakash Sharma and others , (2013) 11 SCC 451 ; The State of Kerala Versus M. Vijayakumar and others, Law Finder Doc ID #2880837 and Harbilas Rai Bansal Versus State of Punjab and another (1996) 1 SCC 1 . It has been s tated that judgment in Alamdeep Singh’s case , relied upon by petitioner, i s under challenge in LPA, whic h is pending.

¶21

We have heard counsel fo r the parties and considered t h eir submissi o ns besides examining the recor d relied upon by them.

¶22

The controversy lies in a narrow compass. The terms a nd condition s contained in brochure, Anne x ure P-1, constitute the gover n ing criteria f o r allotment of residential plot s . As per the brochure, 2% of the plots ha v e been reserved for “sports p e rsons who are medal winner s of SHEETAL 2026.07.06 17:33I attest to the accuracy andauthenticity of this order/judgmentOlympic s , Commonwealth or Asian Ga m es, mountaineers who have sc a led High Court, Chandigarh

¶23

CWP-8633-2014

¶24

-4-

¶25

Mount E v erest and possess the requis i te certificate from the compe t ent authority ” . Under the heading reserved c a tegories, brochure further prov i des as under: -

¶26

“xi. in case of S ports Persons, the applicant sh o uld be Medal Winner ( F or Gallantry Award Winner) of Olympics, Commonwe a lth or Asian Games, Mountain e ers who have scaled Mou n t Everest and possess the requ i site certificate awarded by the Indian Mountain e ers Foundation duly countersigned by the Ministry of Y o uth Affairs and Sports Gov e rnment of India.”

¶27

A perusal of the above re p roduced clause shows that it has restricted the eligibility under the sports p erson category to medal winne r of Olympic s , Commonwealth Games o r Asian Games and cer t ain mountain e ers. Petitioner does not claim t o be a medal winner in any of the specified events. His claim rests upon p a rticipation in Asian School Ga m es in Crick e t and possession of a Grade ‘A’ Sports Gradation Certificate, Annexur e P-2/T. Merely because he poss e sses a Sports Gradation Certifi c ate does not i pso facto confer a right to allo t ment upon him. The eligibility for allotment is required to be tested strictly in accordance with the brochur e . It is well s e ttled that terms of a scheme or advertisement are binding on all participa n ts and cannot be altered after th e process has commenced.

¶28

Record shows that petition e r's application was examined b y a Scrutiny C ommittee and he was found t o be ineligible as his sporting e v ent did not satisfy the eligibility condition prescribed for the reserved sp o rts person category. No material has b e en placed before this Court to demonstr a te that this decision suffers fro m arbitrariness, mala fides or pa t ent illegality, warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitutio n of

¶29

India.

¶30

SHEETAL 2026.07.06 17:33 India. I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh

¶31

CWP-8633-2014 -5-

¶32

Reliance placed by petitione r upon the judgment in Alamdeep's

¶33

case (supra) is misconceived. This judg e ment is clearly distinguishabl e on facts as w ell as in law. In Alamdeep's case (supra) , a Single Bench of t his Court wa s dealing with appointments ma d e under the Punjab Recruitment of Sportsme n Rules, 1988 (for short “1988 R ules”). The issue before the C o urt was wh e ther certain candidates sati s fied the statutory definition of “sportsm a n” contained in aforesaid rules for purpose to civil service a nd connecte d posts. This Court examine d the scope of 1988 Rules a nd eligibilit y of selected candidates with reference to statutory regula t ory framewo r k.

¶34

In the present case, dispute does not arise from recruitmen t to civil serv i ce under 1988 Rules. Rather, it concerns allotment of a reside n tial plot und e r a housing scheme gover n ed by an independent broc h ure prescribi n g separate eligibility condition s . This Court is not concerned w ith the broad e r concept of sportsman under s tatutory recruitment rules, but w ith the com p liance of the express condi t ions contained in the broch u re. Therefor e , the ratio of Alamdeep's case (supra) cannot be mechanic a lly extended to override the eligibility crit e ria expressly incorporated in the brochure g overning the present allotment . 12. Petitioner participated in A sian School Games whereas the brochure specifically contemplates medal winners of international se n ior events su c h as Olympics, Commonwealt h Games or Asian Games. Once the eligibilit y condition is clear and unambi g uous, the Court cannot rewrite the scheme by enlarging the category of eli g ible candidates nor can the C o urt SHEETAL 2026.07.06 17:33I attest to the accuracy andauthenticity of this order/judgmentdirect th e official respondents to refra m e the scheme to suit a partic u lar High Court, Chandigarh

¶35

CWP-8633-2014 -6-

¶36

applicant . Doing so would amount to substituting judicial wisdom for po l icy choices c o nsciously made by the compet e nt authority.

¶37

Challenge to notification d ated 11.04.2013, Annexure P - 12, also doe s not merit acceptance. This n o tification was issued pursuan t to deliberati o ns undertaken by the gove r nment and no ground has been establish e d to hold that the policy decision suffers from mani f est arbitrarin e ss or constitutional infirmity w a rranting judicial review. Reference made to the policy instructions dated 1 0.12.1997 as well as 18.08.2 0 08 would n o t advance the petitioner's cas e as these instructions specific a lly provide fo r reservation of seats for spor t spersons in technical and med i cal institutes as well as preferential tre a tment in services of the S t ate Governm e nt. These policy instructions c annot be extended to apply to the policy fr a med by the government for r eservation of residential plots for sportsper s on. Challenge to notification, A nnexure P-12, is therefore repel l ed. 14. For the afore-going reasons, this Court does not find any m erit in the writ petition, which is dismissed. 15. Pending miscellaneous app l ication(s), if any, shall also st a nd disposed o f.

¶38

(SUVIR SEHGAL) JUDGE

¶39

(VIKAS SURI) 03.07.20 2 6 JUDGE sheetal

¶40

Whether Speaking/reasoned	Ye s/No
Whether Reportable	Ye s/No

¶41

SHEETAL 2026.07.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh

Simarandeep Singh Brar v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

Simarandeep Singh Brar v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Moksh Raj and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Gurdeep Singh and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others

Mohinder Singh Vs Chandigarh Administration and Others

Baljinder Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

M/S Rawat Trading Company Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

M/S Rama Sales Corp Vs State of Haryana & Ors.