DHANANJAY VERMA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question, which are called upon to answer, is whether Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India is exhaustive of all forms of reservation, or whether reservation for the sports category can be provided under Article 16(1) of the Constitution? In order to answer this question, it is necessary to briefly note the facts leading upto the reference being made to this Full Bench.

(2.) The Chief Secretary, Government of Uttarakhand issued order dated 06.10.2006 informing that the Governor was pleased to sanction 4% horizontal reservation, for players who were successful at the international/national level, for employment in the services of the State Government, Corporations, Councils, Universities and other Organizations. The benefit of reservation was made available thereby to sportsmen in four different categories which included a medal in the Olympics, Commonwealth Games, All India Inter-Universities Competition etc. The list of games, earmarked for horizontal reservation, were detailed in Annexure 1 of the said proceedings wherein Aatya/Paatya was included at Sl. No.3 and Karate-do at Sl. No.22. By proceedings dated 27.02.2009, the Secretary, Government of Uttarakhand informed that the 4% horizontal reservation, admissible to the specific sportspersons mentioned in the G.O. dated 06.10.2006, would be admissible only to domicile specific sportspersons of Uttarakhand for the purpose of employment in State Government/Semi-Government Departments and Educational Institutions.

(3.) Writ Petition (S/S) No.897 of 2012 was filed by three sportsmen, from the State of Uttar Pradesh, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint the petitioners under the sports category. A learned Single Judge of this Court, in his order in Writ Petition (S/S) No.897 of 2012 dated 18.03.2013, took note of the stand of the Government of Uttarakhand, in its counter-affidavit, that, in view of the Government Order dated 27.02.2009, horizontal reservation was not available to sports personalities, who did not have a permanent domicile in the State of Uttarakhand, and they could not be given appointment. The learned Single Judge, thereafter, observed that refusal to appoint the petitioners in the quota, reserved for sportsmen, was illegal as their candidature was entertained, and they were declared successful, even before the Government Order dated 27.02.2009 came into existence; at that time, it was only the Government Order dated 06.10.2006 which was operating in the field; and there was no embargo to appoint the petitioners as the said Government dated 06.10.2006 provided for appointment in the sports quota irrespective of the place of domicile. The respondents were directed to appoint the petitioners if the posts had not already been filled up. Aggrieved thereby, the Government of Uttarakhand carried the matter in appeal to the Division Bench in Special Appeal No.162 of 2013.