BHUPJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts in the instant case are few and simple. Through an advertisement issued on December 21,1987, applications were invited from Indian Nationals for filling up 40 posts of Naib Tehsildars in the State of Punjab in the scale of Rs. 700-1200/-. These appointments are governed by the statutory rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and known as the Punjab Naib Tehsildars (Class III) Service Rules, 1984 (hereinafter called 'the Rules'). Recruitment to the service is made (i) 50% by direct appointment and (ii) 50% by promotion from amongst different categories of officials. The advertised forty posts were to be filled up by direct appointment and it is the admitted case of the parties that one post out of these had been reserved for a 'sportsman'. The petitioner and respondent No. 4 were both candidates and had applied for the appointment in pursuance of the aforementioned advertisement. According to Rule 10 of the Rules, the recruiting authority held a competitive examination and also interviewed the candidates for selection who had to be brought on Register 'A' in accordance with the regulations. Both the petitioner as well as respondent No. 4 who has been selected applied for the solitary post meant for 'sportsman'. The petitioner who is a Grade-B sportsman having been adjudged as such by the Director of Sports, Chandigarh, which certificate has been countersigned by the competent authority of the sports Department in the State of Punjab claims appointment to this reserved post in preference to respondent No. 4 on the ground that the latter was only 'C'-Grade sportsman. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a sportsman of National Standing having participated and won credits in shooting event held from time to time at National and State level championships. Respondent No. 4, on the other hand, is a sportsman of State Standing and would fall in Grade 'C' as contemplated by the instructions issued by the State of Punjab on 6.8.1986. The stand of the petitioner has been controverted by the respondents in the written statement and their case as set out in para 13 of the written statement is as under :-

(2.) In order to appreciate the controversy between the parties, it is necessary to refer to the Government instructions issued from time to time in the matter of reservation of seats for sportsmen in technical/medical institutions and in the services of the State Government. The first set of instructions on the subject had been issued by the State Government on January 11,1962. (Annexure P12 with the writ petition) whereby the Chief Secretary to Government Punjab, notified the government policy in that regard. It was provided that with a view to encourage sports talent the Government had decided to reserve certain percentage of seats for sportsmen/sportswomen for admission to technical/medical institutions in the State and recruitment to services under the State, through Punjab Public Service Commission/Subordinate Services Selection Board. The policy postulated that the sportsmen shall be graded as follows :-

(3.) These government instructions came up for consideration in some judgments of this Court. In Maninder Kaur and others vs. State of Punjab and others, 1985 AIR(P&H) 46, instructions of January 11, 1962 were considered and also the presidential order dated August 10, 1984 which in the admission test in respect of sportsmen/sportswomen based upto their sports gradation, as mentioned below:-