Allowed

Shribhan Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC22 Aug 2023CW/17678/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed three writ petitions challenging the rejection of petitioner candidates as outstanding sports persons. The Court held that residence determines eligibility, not the state represented, and quashed a circular attempting to restrict the notification.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the rejection orders and directed respondents to appoint petitioners if eligible.

Shribhan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

(1) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17693/2019

¶3

Imran Khan S/o Sh. Bodu Khan, Aged About 31 Years, R/o VPO Doudsar, Tehsil Didwana, District Nagaur.

¶4

Versus

¶5

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Secondary Education Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶6

Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner. 3. Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner.

¶7

Zila Parishad Barmer through its Chief Executive Officer. (2) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1879/2020

¶8

Deepak Kumar Gurjar S/o Sh. Ramesh Chandra Gurjar, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Gram Post Roshi, Tehsil Nadoti District Karoli.

¶9

----Petitioner

¶10

Versus

¶11

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Secondary Education Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan Jaipur.

¶12

Director, Secondary Education Bikaner. 3. Director, Elementary Education Bikaner.

¶13

District Education Officer, (Head Quarter) Elementary Education Pali.

¶14

Zila Parishad Pali, Through Its Chief Executive Officer, Dist. Pali.

¶15

----Respondents

¶16

(3) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17678/2019

¶17

Shribhan Singh S/o Sh. Radhe Shyam Gurjar, Aged About 34 Years, R/o VPO Talai, Tehsil Masalpur, District Karauli.

¶18

----Petitioner

¶19

Versus

¶20

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Secondary Education Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶21

Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner. 3. Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner.

¶22

Zila Parishad Barmer, Through Its Chief Executive Officer.

¶23

----Respondents

¶24

(2 of 8) [CW-17693/2019]

¶25

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Mr.	Kailash Jangid M.S. Shakhawat
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Mr.	Pankaj Sharma, AAG with Dhairaditya Singh,
	Mr.	Rishi Soni &
	Mr.	Deepak Chandak

¶26

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶27

Order

¶28

22/08/2023

¶29

All the captioned writ petitions involve common question of facts and law, hence, they are being disposed of co-jointly by this common order.

¶30

The facts from S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17693/2019: Imran Khan Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. are taken into consideration for the sake of clarity and brevity.

¶31

The petitioner – Imran Khan having requisite educational qualification vied for the post of Teacher Grade – III, level – II (Hindi) for non -TSP area, pursuant to recruitment notification dated 31.07.2018, issued by the respondent – State.

¶32

While submitting the application form on 23.08.2018, the petitioner chose to stake his claim towards the seats earmarked for the category of outstanding sports person, for which he indicated that he is an outstanding sports person.

¶33

The petitioner having secured more marks than the cut off marks in his category (outstanding sportsman), was called for documents verification. During the document verification, he produced a certificate issued by the Tennis Ball Cricket Federation

¶34

(3 of 8)

¶35

[CW-17693/2019]

¶36

of India, certifying that the petitioner having participated in 24^th Federation Cup Tennis Ball Cricket Championship, 2015-16 has represented the State of Uttar Pradesh and his team stood 2^nd runner up.

¶37

The respondents rejected petitioner’s claim of being outstanding sports person, as he had represented the State of Uttar Pradesh and not the State of Rajasthan.

¶38

Mr. Jangid, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that not only the terms of the advertisement, even the notification dated 15.03.2013, issued by the State Government providing reservation for the outstanding sports persons, does not require that a candidate has to play for the State of Rajasthan to claim reservation.

¶39

He argued that the language of Rule 2 of the notification is very clear and the same uses the expression - “sports persons belonging to the State”, which cannot be read in the manner as attempted by the respondents.

¶40

While submitting that the petitioner’s case falls under clause (iii) of the Rule 2 of the notification dated 15.03.2013, he argued that condition ( स ) under point ( ख ) of Para No.11.2 of the terms of the advertisement also suggests that all the candidates belonging to the State of Rajasthan participating individually or representing their team who have won medal are eligible to be considered as outstanding sports persons.

¶41

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though not applicable but even the subsequent notification dated 21.11.2019,

¶42

[CW-17693/2019]

¶43

(4 of 8)

¶44

issued by the State Government does not create any embargo on petitioner’s right of being considered as an outstanding sports person.

¶45

Learned counsel emphasised that the petitioners are bonafide residents of the State of Rajasthan, which is evident from their bonafide resident certificates, which they have filed with the additional affidavits dated 18.08.2023 in each case.

¶46

Mr. Pankaj Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the intention of the notification dated 15.03.2013 is to encourage the candidates or players who have represented the State of Rajasthan, while stressing upon the expression “belonging to the State”, used in the explanation defining outstanding sports persons.

¶47

Mr. Sharma invited Court’s attention towards the clarificatory circular issued by the State Government on 08.01.2020 and submitted that in light of the circular dated 08.01.2020, issued by the State Government, the petitioner’s candidature as outstanding sports person has rightly been rejected.

¶48

Heard learned counsel appearing for the rival parties and perused the relevant material.

¶49

The fact that petitioner’s candidature as an outstanding sports person has been rejected by the respondents for having played for the team of the State of Uttar Pradesh is not in dispute. 16. The question which has cropped up for consideration of this Court is as to whether a candidate who is a bonafide resident of the State of Rajasthan can be considered or treated as an outstanding sports person for claiming appointment in State of

¶50

[CW-17693/2019]

¶51

(5 of 8)

¶52

Rajasthan, if he has represented any State other than the State of Rajasthan.

¶53

So far as the fact that the petitioners are the bonafide residents of the State of Rajasthan is concerned, it is not in dispute.

¶54

If the notification dated 15.03.2013 which is applicable to the subject recruitment is taken into consideration, it is apparent that by virtue of explanation, the term ‘outstanding sports person’ has been defined to mean all the sports persons belonging to the State or all the players of the State of Rajasthan. Rule 2 prescribes 4 different contingencies, out of which petitioners claim to fall under clause (iii) of Rule 2, which reads thus:-

¶55

“ (iii) Medal Winner in the individual or in Team event in any National Tournament of any Sports and Games, recognized by the Indian Olympic Association or concerned recognized National Sports Federation;”

¶56

Similarly clause (l) of Para No.11.2 of the advertisement runs as under:-

¶57

" ¼l½ bf.M;u vksyfEid ,lksfl,”ku ;k lacaf/kr ekU;rk izkIr us”kuy LiksV~lZ QsMjs”ku }kjk ekU;rk izkIr fdlh [ksydwn ds dksbZ jk’Vªh; VwukZesaV esa O;fDr”k% ;k Vhe Li/kkZ esa esMy thrk gks] ;k ”

¶58

So far as the notification or conditions of the advertisement are concerned, it simply provides that a person must have won a medal in individual or team event in a National tournament of

¶59

[CW-17693/2019]

¶60

(6 of 8)

¶61

recognized sport held by any National Sports Federation affiliated to Indian Olympic Association.

¶62

The order impugned so also stand of the State is confined to the fact that the petitioner has represented the State of Uttar Pradesh and not the State of Rajasthan.

¶63

In the opinion of this Court, the fact that whether a candidate has represented the State of Rajasthan or any other State is of hardly any significance. So far as clause (iii) of Rule 2 of the notification is concerned, it hardly makes a reference of the State.

¶64

The explanation defining “outstanding sports person” uses an expression ‘State’, but that too in a limited sense that a sports person should be a resident of the State of Rajasthan. Such intention of the State is evident from the clear language used in following four clauses. Clause (i) and (ii) uses the words ‘represented Indian Team’, whereas in clause (iii) and (iv) such expression is conspicuously absent. The reasons are not far to seek; clause (iii) and (iv) mandates a medal winner, while clause (i) and (ii) requires representation simplicitor. Presenting Indian Team in an International Tournament is comparable to winning a medal in National Tournament. If the intention of the Rule making authority was to confine the reservation for the persons representing the State of Rajasthan, then the expression ‘represented Rajasthan’ would have been used, as has been done in clause (i) and (ii).

¶65

Apart from what has been discussed hereinabove, in the opinion of this Court as long as a candidate is a resident of the

¶66

[CW-17693/2019]

¶67

(7 of 8)

¶68

State of Rajasthan and has won medal in any team event or individual event, he cannot be pushed out of ambit of State of Rajasthan, simply because he has chosen to or got an opportunity to represent a State other than the State of Rajasthan.

¶69

The purpose of the notification is to encourage or incentivise the residents of the State, who have excelled in the sports so that sports activities and talents of the State of Rajasthan are encouraged and such persons after being recruited can help the State in winning medals or performing better.

¶70

So far as reliance of the learned Additional Advocate General upon the circular dated 08.01.2020 is concerned, this Court hastens to hold that the notification dated 15.03.2013 and notification dated 21.11.2019 were issued by the Department of Personnel, the State of Rajasthan in exercise of power conferred under Article 309 of the Constitution having statutory force, whereas the clarificatory circular dated 08.01.2020 has been issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government, Elementary Education Department. Such circular cannot over-ride the express provisions of Rules or the notification issued by the State of Rajasthan. It is settled position of law that a circular issued against the mandate of a notification has to concede.

¶71

As an upshot of the discussion foregoing, these writ petitions are allowed.

¶72

The impugned order(s) rejecting petitioners’ candidature as outstanding sports persons are hereby quashed.

¶73

The respondents are hereby directed to accord appointment to the petitioners, if they are otherwise eligible.

¶74

(8 of 8) [CW-17693/2019]

¶75

Needful be done within a period of eight weeks from today.

¶76

Stay petitions also stand disposed of.

¶77

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶78

325-Ramesh/-

Shribhan Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shribhan Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Manish Goyal Vs State of Rajasthan

Salim Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

Arvind Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Bahadur Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Seema Kanwat Vs State of Rajasthan