Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010202942025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5564/2025 AKASH CHAUDHURY S/O SHRI ANIL KUMAR, R/O RAILWAY QUARTER NO. 423/13, NAMBARI, MALIGAON, GUWAHATI-11, ASSAM VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, RAILWAY BOARD, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI-110006 2:THE RAILWAY BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS GOVERNMENT OF INDIA NEW DELHI-110006 3:THE GENERAL MANAGER N.F. RAILWAYS MALIGAON GUWAHATI-11 4:THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MAANAGER N.F. RAILWAY TINSUKIA RAILWAY DIVISION TINSUKIA ASSAM-786145 5:THE DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER N.F. RAILWAY TINSUKIA RAILWAY DIVISION TINSUKIA ASSAM-78614 Page No.# 2/3 For the petitioner : Mr. M. Ahmed, Advocate For the respondents : Mr. K. Gogoi, Advocate – B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY 25-09-2025 (Ashutosh Kumar, C.J.) We have heard Mr. M. Ahemd, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. Gogoi, learned Central Government Counsel for the respondents. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 20.06.2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter to be referred as ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. No.040/00022/2019, whereby the claim of the petitioner for being appointed on a Group-D post under Sports Quota has been rejected. The petitioner had applied for being empanelled and selected in the category of Pace Bowler in the game of Cricket against an advertisement for the year 2015-16 in the Sports Quota. The petitioner was put at Sl. No.1 in the select list and was also put to medical examination which he had cleared. However, no appointment order was given to him on the ground that he did not actually participate in the field of play which was the prescription in the advertisement. The petitioner was found to have been drafted as the 12th man in the team which had won a trophy. Though the petitioner was given a certificate of having actually participated in the game but on a vigilance enquiry, the certificate was found to have been irregularly given to him. Page No.# 3/3 The learned Tribunal therefore rejected the claim of the petitioner on two grounds; one being that he did not fulfil the prescription in the advertisement of having actually played in the field and the other being that the empanelment was for one year and the petitioner approached the Tribunal after three years. The life of the penal was only for one year. We do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. The writ petition stands dismissed. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant