Allowed

Rajasthan State Sports Council v. Manini Kaushik D/O Shri Anil Kaushik

Rajasthan HC11 Nov 2021SAW/567/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court reversed the Single Judge's order allowing a world record junior category shooter for out-of-turn appointment. The Court held that the Rules prioritize open category events defined by _ejusdem generis_, and accepting junior events would logically disrupt the seniority hierarchy.

What did the court decide?

The judgment of the learned Single Judge was reversed, dismissing the petitioner's claim for out-of-turn appointment based on junior category medals.

Rajasthan State Sports Council Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

¶2

BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 696/2021

¶4

The State of Rajasthan, through its Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶5

The Addl. Chief Secretary, Department of Personnel, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶6

The Addl. Chief Secretary, Department of Home, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶7

The Addl. Chief Secretary, Department of Youth Affairs and Sports, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶8

----Appellants

¶9

Versus

¶10

Ali Aman Elahi S/o Abdul Malik, aged about 21 years, R/o 101, Allah Buksh Building, M.I. Road, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶11

Rajasthan State Sports Council, through its Secretary, Sawai Man Singh Stadium, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

Connected With

¶14

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 567/2021

¶15

Rajasthan State Sports Council, through its Secretary, Sawai Man Singh Stadium, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶16

----Appellant

¶17

Versus

¶18

Manini Kaushik D/o Shri Anil Kaushik, aged about 20 years, R/o F-4, 187, Modi Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶19

The State of Rajasthan, through its Chief Secretary, Govt. of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶20

The Addl. Chief Secretary, Department of Personnel, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶21

The Addl. Chief Secretary, Department of Forest, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶22

The Addl. Chief Secretary, Department of Youth Affairs and Sports, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶23

----Respondents

¶24

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 580/2021

¶25

Rajasthan State Sports Council, through its Secretary, Sawai Man

¶26

(2 of 15)

¶27

[SAW-696/2021]

¶28

Singh Stadium, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶29

----Appellant

¶30

Versus

¶31

Ali Aman Elahi Son Of Abdul Malik, aged about 21 years, R/o 101, Allah Buksh Building, M.I. Road, Jaipur.

¶32

The State of Rajasthan, through its Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. (Raj.).

¶33

The Addl. Chief Secretary, Department of Personnel, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶34

The Addl. Chief Secretary, Department of Home, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶35

The Addl. Chief Secretary, Department of Youth Affairs and Sports, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶36

----Respondents

¶37

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 697/2021

¶38

The State of Rajasthan, through its Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).

¶39

The Addl. Chief Secretary, Department of Personnel, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶40

The Addl. Chief Secretary, Department of Forest, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶41

The Addl. Chief Secretary, Department of Youth Affairs and Sports, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶42

----Appellants

¶43

Versus

¶44

Manini Kaushik D/o Shri Anil Kaushik, aged about 20 years, R/o F-4, 187, Modi Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶45

Rajasthan State Sports Council, through its Secretary, Sawai Man Singh Stadium, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶46

----Respondents

¶47

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. R.P. Singh, AAG with Mr. Jaivardhan Singh Shekhawat Mr. Jai Raj Tantia
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Vigyan Shah with Mr. Akshit Gupta
	Mr. Harendra Neel and
	Ms. Sarah Sharma

¶48

(3 of 15)

¶49

[SAW-696/2021]

¶50

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

¶51

Judgment

¶52

11/11/2021

¶53

These appeals arise out of the common judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 15/03/2021 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12343/2020 and connected petitions. Since facts are substantially similar, we may note them from the original writ petition in the case of Manini Kaushik. The petitioner Manini Kaushik had filed the above mentioned writ petition seeking a direction that the respondent State authorities should consider her candidature for out of turn appointment on a State Government post as a medal winner under the Medal Winner Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules of 2017”). The petitioner had participated in a team event of 10 Meter Air Riffle Women Junior Team in ISSF World Championship, Chanangwon held at South Korea in the year 2018 winning a Gold medal in the event. The petitioner also claimed that in the process of winning Gold medal the team had broken the world record in the junior category. Besides, she had also won a Bronze medal in the Asian Championship 2017 (junior category) in the same event. Since the State authorities did not consider the petitioner eligible for appointment under the said Rules of 2017, she has approached this Court.

¶54

While granting ad interim relief, the learned Single Judge had directed the authorities to consider the candidature of the petitioner as a medal winner at world championship under category ‘A’ of the said Rules as amended in the year 2020. In compliance of the directions, the respondent constituted a

¶55

(4 of 15)

¶56

[SAW-696/2021]

¶57

committee, which considered the case of the petitioner in the meeting held on 16/10/2020 and found that she was ineligible because she had won a medal in junior category and that there is a clear distinction between junior and senior category in the regulations framed by the International Shooting Sports Federation (ISSF), the Federation which controls the game of rifle shooting.

¶58

While finally disposing of the writ petition, the learned Single Judge referred to the provisions contained in the Rules of 2017 and Regulations framed by ISSF and came to the conclusion that the petitioner was wrongly held ineligible for appointment in terms of the said Rules. Perusal of the judgment of the learned Single Judge would show that the petition was allowed primarily on two grounds:-

¶59

(i) Firstly the learned single Judge was of the opinion that the ISSF had not drawn distinction between Junior and Senior World Championship. Though not specifically so stated, it would appear that the learned Single Judge was of the opinion that petitioner had won a Gold medal in a team event of open category World Championship.

¶60

(ii) Secondly, the learned Single Judge was of the opinion that no such distinction as is sought to be made by the authorities, is to be found in the Rules. Learned Judge has therefore opined that such distinction to deprive a rightful candidate such as the petitioner, is discriminatory.

¶61

The State Government had challenged that decision in these appeals. The learned Additional Advocate General raised the following contentions:-

¶62

(5 of 15)

¶63

[SAW-696/2021]

¶64

(i) That the Rules of 2017 are clear and would cover only those sports persons who had won the medals in specified open category championship. This would not include junior or sub junior events.

¶65

(ii) The leaned Single Judge committed serious error in holding that the petitioner had participated in open category events when clearly they had won medals in junior category.

¶66

(iii) Counsel pointed out that under the Rules of 2017, there is no upper limit of number of persons who can be appointed on government posts. Recognizing the junior level events for such appointments would open flood gates and large number of candidates would come forward seeking government jobs out of turn. He therefore submitted that the interpretation adopted by the authorities being reasonable, should have been upheld by the learned Single Judge.

¶67

On the other hand, learned counsel for the original petitioner opposed these appeals. His contentions were:-

¶68

(i) The rules are clear and permit no ambiguity. By way of cardinal principle of statutory interpretation, no words can be added or subtracted.

¶69

(ii) The Rules of 2017 make no distinction between championships, which are open category vis-a-vis those who are of junior level.

¶70

(iii) The petitioner had won medals at an event which was meant for all age groups and on facts also, therefore, the learned Single Judge was correct in holding that no distinction of Open vs. Junior level championship, could be applied in this case.

¶71

(iv) Counsel submitted that the Rules of 2017 are in the nature of benevolent legislation and such legislation must be interpreted

¶72

(6 of 15)

¶73

[SAW-696/2021]

¶74

liberally so as to give the benefit flowing from the statute to the eligible persons.

¶75

(v) Counsel submitted that in certain Central Government organizations such as Railways and Indian Air Force, no such distinction as junior level and open category championship events is made. It would therefore be logical that no such distinction be made in the Rules in question.

¶76

In support of his contentions regarding the interpretation of the Rules, counsel relied upon the following judgments:1. Rohitash Kumar and Others vs. Om Prakash Sharma and Others : (2013) 11 Supreme Court Cases 451.

¶77

Nasiruddin and Others vs. Sita Ram Agarwal : (2003) 2 Supreme Court Cases 577.

¶78

Brahampal Alias Sammay and Another vs. National Insurance Company : (2021) 6 Supreme Court Cases 512.

¶79

Parvaiz Ahmad Parry vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others : (2015) 17 Supreme Court Cases 709.

¶80

It is undisputed that the State Government has two separate schemes for supporting and encouraging sports persons of outstanding merit and achievements. An independent scheme is provided under the Rajasthan Service Rules, where by virtue of Amendment of 2013, 2% of the total vacancies are reserved for sports persons. Since we are not primarily concerned with this reservation, it is not necessary to take note of the provisions contained in these Rules. For our purpose, what is of significant is the Rules of 2017. These Rules were promulgated under a notification dated 03/07/2017. Rule 2 of the Rules provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Service Rules regulating recruitment of persons in various services of the State, the sports medal winner of Rajasthan shall be eligible for appointment on the

¶81

(7 of 15)

¶82

[SAW-696/2021]

¶83

posts specified in Schedules I, II & III appended to the Rules. Rule 3 of the said Rules pertains to the criteria and manner for out of turn appointment to sports medal winners, relevant portion of which reads as under:-

¶84

“ 3.Criteria and manner for out of turn appointment to Sports Medal Winners.- (1) The appointment to Sports Medal Winners shall be made in accordance with the following criteria :-

¶85

(i) Category A

¶86

(a) Medal Winners of Olympic Games,

¶87

(b) Gold medal Winners of Asian games (Asiad)/ Commonwealth Games, shall be considered for appointment to the posts specified in Schedule I

¶88

(ii) Category B

¶89

(a) Silver and Bronze Medal Winners of Asian games (Asiad)/ Commonwealth Games.

¶90

(b) Winners and runners up of World cup/ World championship in sports which are recognized in Rajasthan sports act or are included in Olympics/ Asian games (Asiad),

¶91

(c) Medal Winners or Winners / runners up in Asian Athletics Championship / Commonwealth Games in sports mentioned above,

¶92

(d) Medal Winners of Para Olympics,

¶93

shall be considered for appointment to the posts in grade pay 3600/- or above specified in Schedule II.

¶94

(iii) Category C

¶95

(a) Medal Winners (Senior) in National games,

¶96

(b) Medal Winners or Winners/ runners up in above sports in National Championship (Senior), shall be considered for appointment to the posts in grade pay less than Rs. 3600/- specified in Schedule II and to the posts specified in Schedule III.

¶97

Explanation: The above Games/ Championships/ Cups should be recognized by the concerned International Association/ Body/ Federation for the games.

¶98

(2) For the purpose of appointment under these rules, only sports achievements obtained by the players after 01/01/2016 shall be considered. For appointment under these rules, Medal Winner sports persons shall have to apply to the Secretary, Sports and Youth Affairs, Department within three years from the date of winning the medal.

¶99

(3) Appointment under these rules shall be given to eligible sports persons of the State of Rajasthan only.

¶100

(4) Medal Winners who are appointed under these rules shall be encouraged and provided enabling environment to continue playing and achieving high goals in their respective sports for at least five years and during this period their performance assessment will be linked to their sporting achievements. These players will also be made

¶101

(8 of 15)

¶102

[SAW-696/2021]

¶103

available to the Sports and Youth Affairs Department for participation, training or supervision of tournaments as required

¶104

(5) The eligible Medal Winners shall be appointed on different category posts which are vacant or by deemed creation of new posts in the required category by the concerned department. These new posts shall be in addition to the regular cadre strength. The eligible Medal Winners who join a department on a particular category of posts shall be exempted from the requisite professional qualifications and shall be required to complete special courses/Professional courses prescribed by the department in a given time frame.

¶105

(6) The educational qualifications required for the post under the relevant service rules shall not be insisted upon at the time of appointment and in such cases, conditional appointment may be given but the sportsperson shall have to acquire the requisite qualification within the period of five years failing which the appointment shall be terminated.

¶106

(7) The minimum age limit will be according to the concerned service rules but there will be no maximum age limit.

¶107

(10) The seniority of the persons appointed under these shall be determined from the date of their appointment on the post after regular selection in accordance with the provisions of these rules. The inter-se seniority of the persons appointed under these rules on the same date shall be determined in the following order:-

¶108

(a) Gold Medal Winners of Olympic Games.

¶109

(b) Silver Medal Winners of Olympic Games.

¶110

¶111

(d) Gold Medal Winners of World cum/World Championship.

¶112

(e) Silver Medal Winners of World cum/World Championship.

¶113

(f) Bronze Medal Winners of World cum/World Championship.

¶114

(g) Gold Medal Winners of Asian Games.

¶115

(h) Gold Medal Winners of Commonwealth Games.

¶116

If two or more Medal Winners have the same medal in the same championship, the seniority shall be determined on the basis of their age and the older shall be considered to be senior. In case of same age, seniority shall be determined according to the alphabetical order of their names."

¶117

By notification dated 18/03/2020, the Rules of 2017 were amended. These amendments do not change the complexion of the case. Suffice it to record by virtue of these amendments, besides other changes, the category of the winners and World Cup

¶118

(9 of 15)

¶119

[SAW-696/2021]

¶120

championship, was moved from Category B to Category A in the original Rules.

¶121

The central issue revolving around these Rules is whether a sports person winning a medal in Junior Level World championship, is eligible for appointment. Before addressing the central issue a side issue arising may be disposed of. As noted, the view of the learned Single Judge was that the ISSF (the Federation which controls the riffle shooting events) makes no distinction between a junior and a senior world cup event. Learned counsel for the original petitioner also tried to support this contention by arguing that the petitioner had won medals in the Riffle Shooting event, which was common for all participants and not confined only to a certain age group of sports persons.

¶122

In our opinion, this issue needs a summary conclusion. The petitioner Manini Kaushik herself in her petition in the very beginning portion has stated that the petitioner is an outstanding sports person who is a medal winner in various national and international sporting events in the sport of shooting, wherein she has brought laurels for the country and her one of the highest achievements is winning a Gold medal in a team event of 10 Meter Air Riffle Women Junior Team in 52^nd ISSF World Championship, Changwon, South Korea in 2018 wherein her team while winning the Gold medal also made a world record in junior category. Besides the aforesaid achievement, she has also won the Bronze medal in Asian Championship, 2017 (junior category) in the same event.

¶123

Thus, according to the petitioner herself her participation in the World Cup Championship in South Korea and Asian Championship in the year 2017 were in Junior categories. Even as

¶124

(10 of 15)

¶125

[SAW-696/2021]

¶126

per the result sheets produced by the petitioner for 52^nd ISSF World Championship, Changwon, South Korea held in 2018, she won a Gold medal in a team event, which was for “ 10 meter rifle

¶127

women junior team”.

¶128

Under the circumstances, there is no getting away from the fact that petitioner had won medals in the World Championship events which took place in Junior World Cup Championships.

¶129

This brings us to the central issue of the interpretation of the Rules of 2017. As noted, Rule 2 of the said Rules of 2017 enables the State Government to give appointment to the sports medal winners of Rajasthan ignoring the normal service rules which appointment would be grated as per the criteria provided in the Rules. Rule 3 in particular refers to the criteria and manner for out of turn appointment to such medal winners. Category ‘A’ as amended by the Amending Rules of 2020 includes medal winners in Olympic Games (Summer), Paralympic Games; or medal winners in World Cup, World Championship, Para World Cup, Para World Championship; or medal winners in Asian Games, Asian Para Games; or medal winners in Commonwealth Games, Commonwealth Games Para Events; or winner, runners up of Cricket World Cup/Championship; or winner/runners up of Polo World Cup/ Championship. These sports achievers will be considered for appointment on the posts specified in Schedule-I.

¶130

Likewise, Category B includes Silver and Bronze medal winners of Asian games (Asiad)/ Commonwealth Games, winners and runners up of World cup/ World championship in sports which are recognized in Rajasthan Sports Act or are included in Olympics/ Asian games (Asiad), medal winners or winners / runners up in Asian Athletics Championship / Commonwealth

¶131

(11 of 15)

¶132

[SAW-696/2021]

¶133

Games in sports mentioned above and finally, medal winners of Para Olympics. These sports achievers would be considered for appointment to Schedule II post.

¶134

Last is the Category C, which includes medal winners in national games and medal winners or winners/runners up in above sports in National Championship. These sports persons would be considered for appointment to Schedule-III posts.

¶135

Sub Rule (10) of Rule 3 makes the provision for deciding the inter se seniority of the persons appointed under these rules on the same date. These categories are divided priority wise where Gold medal winners of the Olympic games are placed at the highest priority followed by Silver medal of the Olympic Games, followed by Bronze winner of World Cup and followed by Gold winner of Asian Games and so on.

¶136

Perusal of the Rules of 2017 would show that special provisions are made in favour of medal winners and sports persons at the highest level by ensuring recruitment on government posts by waiving several essential qualifications and requirements and without competing with other eligible candidates. For example, as per sub-Rule (6) of Rule 3, the educational qualifications required for the post in question shall not be insisted upon at the time of appointment. As per sub-Rule (7), the minimum age limit will be according to service rules but there will be no maximum age limit. Sub Rule (4) of Rule 3 provides that the medal winner, who is appointed under the said Rules shall be encouraged and provided enabling environment to continue playing and achieving high goals in their respective sports for at least five years.

¶137

(12 of 15)

¶138

[SAW-696/2021]

¶139

These Rules thus serve several purposes and are framed to encourage achievements in sporting events while recognizing that those men and women who put enormous efforts, time and energy in achieving excellence at the highest level in face of fierce international competition, would not have enough time to devote for general studies or to equip themselves so as to be able to compete with other eligible candidates to secure government jobs. This scheme ensures government employment to sports persons who achieve certain standards at the international events and encourages them to continue to play sports which in turn would enhance the image of the State administration also.

¶140

These Rules are thus in the nature of exception to the general principle of equality in public employment flowing from Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and make several exceptions noted above in favour of special class or category of citizens. These rules therefore should be interpreted with this background in mind. We do not think that these rules can be seen as a benevolent legislation as sought to be canvased by the counsel for the original petitioner but are, as noted above, the special legislation making exceptions for specified categories of persons for appointment on government posts breaching the principle of equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

¶141

Whether under these rules sporting event even at the international level of junior category is recognized or not, must therefore be answered with the background noted above. If we analyze different categories recognized under the Rules, they are medal winners of Olympic Games, Gold medal winners of Asian Games and Commonwealth Games, medal winners at the World Cup and World Championships, medal winners in Asian Athletic

¶142

(13 of 15)

¶143

[SAW-696/2021]

¶144

Championship and medal winners in the National Games for Men and Women.

¶145

Almost all these categories without any further prescription relate to open events. For example, one can draw judicial notice of the fact that the Olympic Games, Asian Games (for better emphasis the word used is ‘Asiad’), Commonwealth Games are all open category events, which are not restricted to certain age groups. It is true that these Rules also refer to the World Cup and World Championships, which is possible for the petitioners to argue are organized according to age group categories also. However these expressions “World Cup” and “World Championships” must be interpreted ejusdem generis along with other expressions used in the Rules. If we take into account all categories specified under the Rules which give special treatment to the achievers and the medal winners for sports events, they all relate to the sporting events in general categories without restriction of age.

¶146

One more indication which is inbuilt in the Rules to adopt this interpretation is to be found in sub-rule (10) of Rule 3. Sub-rule (10) of Rule 3 provides for the seniority of persons appointed under the Rules on the same date. It provides that the seniority of such persons inter se shall be determined in the orders specified therein. We have also reproduced this sub-rule earlier. Perusal of sub-rule shows that for the purpose of inter se seniority, the order fixed is the Gold medal winners of the Olympic games at the top. This order is followed by Silver Medal winners of the Olympic Games and the same is followed by Bronze medal winners of Olympic Games and followed by Gold medal winners of World Cup

¶147

(14 of 15)

¶148

[SAW-696/2021]

¶149

and is followed by Gold medal winner of Asian Games and Gold medal winners of Commonwealth Games.

¶150

If we accept the contention of the petitioner that even Junior World Cup Championship is to be included in Rule 3, it would mean that a Bronze medal winner of a Junior Championship in the World Cup would rank senior to a Gold medal winner in the Asian Games which is open category game, which would be wholly illogical. It cannot be denied that by lifting the age restriction in any event, the completion of the event would certainly be much greater. Even at the Asian Games level, to win a Gold Medal, a sports person would have to put enormous efforts. This is not to mean that at junior or sub-junior level at international level the competition is not stiff. This is only to suggest that to rank a Bronze medal winner in a junior or sub-junior level event of the international tournament higher than a Gold medal winner in the Asian games would defy logic.

¶151

Learned counsel for the State Government was also correct in pointing out that these Rules recognize the right of the medal winner sports persons in the specified categories to be considered for appointment in government posts as per the scheme contained therein without any restriction or limiting number of persons who could be appointed. Unlike the Scheme of 2013, which makes reservation of 2% for sports achievers, under these rules, there is no ceiling of the number of persons who could be appointed. If the scheme is drawn up for all levels of competitions including the junior or sub-junior then many more claimants may seek appointments which the State Government has not envisaged.

¶152

In the result, the interpretation adopted by the learned Single Judge does not appeal to us.

¶153

(15 of 15)

¶154

[SAW-696/2021]

¶155

The appeals are accordingly allowed and judgment of the learned Single Judge is reversed.

¶156

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶157

(AKIL KURESHI),CJ