264 State of Haryana and others Sachin CORAM: Present: ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA 1. passed by the learned Single Judge dated 18.04.2022, in CWP No.7873 of 2022, whereby a direction has been issued to the appellant case of the writ consideration his outstanding achievement in the field of sports at international level in accordance with Sportspersons (Recruitment & Conditions of Service) Rules, 2018 (for short ‘the Rules of 2. framed by the appellant sportspersons in the State of Haryana. The policy contemplated such appointments to be offered in Class the nature of sporting achievement. 3. the subsequent policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA-839 Date of Decision: State of Haryana and others Vs. HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR Mr. Pankaj Mulwani, Sr. DAG, Haryana for the appellants. Ms. Vibhuti Naraina, Advocate for the respondent. *** ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J. (Oral) This appeal is by the State of Haryana assailing the orders passed by the learned Single Judge dated 18.04.2022, in CWP No.7873 of 2022, whereby a direction has been issued to the appellant case of the writ-petitioner and offer him appointment by taking into consideration his outstanding achievement in the field of sports at international level in accordance with Sportspersons (Recruitment & Conditions of Service) Rules, 2018 (for short ‘the Rules of 2018’). Undisputed facts of the case are that there existed a policy framed by the appellant-State for grant of government employment to sportspersons in the State of Haryana. The policy contemplated such appointments to be offered in Class-B and Clas the nature of sporting achievement. The first policy brought on record is of the subsequent policy is of the year 2014. The policy clearly contemplated IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 839-2022 (O&M) ate of Decision: 24.09.2025 …Appellants …Respondent ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA ROHIT KAPOOR Sr. DAG, Haryana for the appellants. Ms. Vibhuti Naraina, Advocate for the respondent. of Haryana assailing the orders passed by the learned Single Judge dated 18.04.2022, in CWP No.7873 of 2022, whereby a direction has been issued to the appellants to consider the offer him appointment by taking into consideration his outstanding achievement in the field of sports at international level in accordance with the Haryana Outstanding Sportspersons (Recruitment & Conditions of Service) Rules, 2018 (for Undisputed facts of the case are that there existed a policy State for grant of government employment to sportspersons in the State of Haryana. The policy contemplated such B and Class-C posts dependent upon The first policy brought on record is of 20.08.2013, whereas of the year 2014. The policy clearly contemplated RAJESH KUMAR 2025.09.29 13:02 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. LPA-839-2022 (O&M) [2] offering of appointment to those who won silver and bronze medals in Olympic Games and gold medals in Asian Games and Commonwealth Games for Group-B appointment, whereas silver and bronze in Asian and Commonwealth Games were entitled to Group-C posts. Undisputedly, the writ petitioner had won a silver medal in wrestling event in ‘98 Kg. weight category Greco-Roman Wrestling in Commonwealth Championship held in 2016 at Singapore. In terms of policy, the petitioner was entitled to government employment on a Class-C post. 4. It transpires that the State of Haryana published advertisement on 12.04.2017 inviting applications for appointment under outstanding sportsperson category as per policy then in force. The writ petitioner applied for the said post and the Committee constituted by the State examined the application of the writ petitioner and found him eligible for appointment to the post of Group-C. Thereafter, the authorities returned the application received from the outstanding sportspersons and directed submission of fresh applications. It is thereafter that the writ petitioner submitted a fresh application on 20.09.2018. This application, however, came to be rejected by the State of Haryana vide order dated 04.12.2018 and 20.01.2019. These two orders were put to challenge in the writ petition on various grounds. One of the grounds taken to assail the orders was that the order of rejection does not contain any reasons for denying the claim of government employment to the writ petitioner. 5. It transpires that the only reason on which claim of the writ petitioner has not been considered is the introduction of subsequent policy contained in the Rules of 2018 formalized on 05.09.2018. The policy was RAJESH KUMAR 2025.09.29 13:02 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. LPA-839-2022 (O&M) [3] further amended on 09.03.2019 retrospectively w.e.f. 05.09.2018. Rule 3 of the Rules 2018, as amended, contained following provisions. “3. Sports events to be considered :- (1) Sports events to be considered for appointment in the case of World Championship, Asian Championship, Commonwealth Championship and World University Games shall be provided under sub-rule (2) and (3). (2) Sport events included in the immediate next Olympic Games only shall be considered for appointment under category numbers 2, 5A, 6A or 7A of either Schedule-I or Schedule-II. (3) Sport events not included in the immediate next Olympic Games, but included in either the immediate next Asian Games or the immediate next Commonwealth Games, shall be considered for appointment under category numbers 5B, 6B or 7B of either Schedule-I or Schedule-II.” 6. The appellants rely upon Rule 3.2 to submit that petitioner is ineligible for employment under the policy as immediate next Olympic Games did not contain any category for 98 kg Greco-Roman Wrestling Event. As per the appellants, the next category was 97 kg Greco-Roman in 2020 games and, therefore, the writ petitioner having secured medal in 98 Kg Greco-Roman Wrestling was ineligible. 7. The stand of the appellants has been challenged by the writ- petitioner relying upon a communication received from the Sports Authority of India dated 01.01.2019, as well as communication dated 14.12.2018, received from the Wrestling Federation of India, both of which are reproduced hereinafter:- “Letter issued by the Sports Authority of India: To The Director, Department of Sports & Youth Affairs, Haryana, Panchkula. RAJESH KUMAR 2025.09.29 13:02 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. LPA-839-2022 (O&M) [4] Subject: Haryana Outstanding Sportsperson (Recruitment & Conditions of Service) Rules, 2018-Application regarding. This Federation has received a request from the Wrestler Mr. Sachin s/o Sh. Ranbir requesting to clarify the weight category in which he participated in the 2016 Commonwealth Wrestling Championship held at Singapore on 4th to 6th November 2016. In this context, it is clarified that the United World Wrestling [UWW) in its General Council eeting has modified the weight categories in Free Style, Greco Roman Style and Women Wrestling which were applicable from 1st January 2018. A copy of the notification dated 10th November 2017 is enclosed herewith for your reference. It is further clarified that in 2016, it was 98 Kg. weight category in Greco Roman Style which was later modified as 97 Kg. weight category. Hence, the application of Mr. Sachin is valid and may be considered for recruitment as Outstanding Sportsperson in Haryana Government. Thanking you, Yours sincerely, Sd/- [Vinod Tomar] Asstt. Secretary Letter issued by Wrestling Federation of India: To: The Director, Haryana Department of Sports & Youth Affairs, Panchkula Subject: Haryana Outstanding Sportsperson (Recruitment & Condition) Rules, 2018 – Application Reg. Respected Sir, Reference is made to the request of Shri. Sachin son of Shri Ranbir Singh for clarification regarding modification made by the United World Wrestling (UWW) in the Weight RAJESH KUMAR 2025.09.29 13:02 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. LPA-839-2022 (O&M) [5] Category for Greco Roman and his participation in the 2016 Commonwealth Wrestling Championship, Singapore. It is to mention that in the General Council meeting of UWW, modification in the Weight Category for Free style, Greco Roman and Women Category was made in the year 2017, which has come in to effect from 1st January, 2018. A copy of the Notification both prior. and modified is enclosed herewith for your reference. It is further clarified that in 2016, it was 98kg. weight category in Greco Roman Style which was later modified as 97 Kg Weight Category. This is for your information. Thanking You Your Sincerely Sd/- (P.C. Makholia) Project Officer (TEAMS)” 8. In both the communications, the Sports Authority of India as also Wrestling Federation of India have held the writ petitioner entitled to appointment against a Group-C post in the State of Haryana. This entitlement has been recognized under 2018 Rules. 9. Learned Single Judge after having examined the contentions of the parties found the writ petitioner entitled to appointment against Group-C post and its denial was held to be arbitrary. 10. Learned Single Judge also took note of the fact that under the Sports Policy of 2013-2014, at-least 41 persons were appointed to Group-B and Group-C posts even without publishing any advertisement etc. but same treatment has not been meted out to the writ petitioner. Learned Single Judge further observed that Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India stands violated. The writ petition was accordingly allowed by observing as under:- RAJESH KUMAR 2025.09.29 13:02 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. LPA-839-2022 (O&M) [6] “26. In the aforesaid premise, there will also be a serious denial/violation of the Fundamental Rights of the petitioner envisaged under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India. 27. A perusal of the RTI information (Annexure P-12) reveals that under the Sports Policy of the Government 2013-2014, at least 41 sportspersons were appointed on Group ‘B’ and Group ‘C’ posts and that too without publishing any advertisement and no decision had been taken to appoint other distinguished sportspersons. Therefore, rejecting the candidature of one and accepting the candidature of other, for the persons who are equally placed, does smack of an element of red-tapism, perhaps nepotism and most certainly discrimination. 28. As an upshot of my discussion above, the impugned orders do not stand the judicial scrutiny and are accordingly set aside. A direction is issued to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner and offer the appointment to him, by taking into consideration his option, commensurate with his achievements at the International level in accordance with The 2018 Rules, as they were in force before issuance of instructions dated 16.11.2018 Annexure R-1 and notification of the Amendment Rules, 2019 on 09.03.2019. Necessary exercise be carried out within 60 days of receipt of the certified copy of instant order/judgment. 29. Petition stands allowed in above terms.” 11. Though the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge has been challenged but the State counsel does not dispute the fact that the writ petitioner had won a silver medal in 2016 Commonwealth Games held at Singapore in 98 kg. Greco-Roman Wrestling Event. It is also not disputed that in terms of the policy then in force, the writ petitioner was entitled to Government employment on Class-C post. 12. In the short reply filed by the Joint Director of Sports on behalf of State of Haryana, it is clearly recorded that the Committee constituted by the concerned department had examined the application of the writ petitioner and found him eligible for appointment to Group-C post. Once, the specific stand of the State is that in terms of the applicable RAJESH KUMAR 2025.09.29 13:02 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. LPA-839-2022 (O&M) [7] policy, the writ petitioner was entitled to appointment, we fail to understand as to why such appointment was not offered by the State to the writ petitioner. 13. Merely because the writ petitioner complied with the directions of the State and submitted a fresh application on 20.08.2019, it would not mean that his entitlement for appointment to Group-C post under the prevalent policy stood extinguished. Even otherwise, we find that the sporting event in which the petitioner had participated was Greco- Roman Wrestling of 98 kg category. Even in the 2020 Commonwealth Games, the sporting event was available with only change in the weight from 98 kg to 97 kg in Greco-Roman Wrestling Event. As per the Wrestling Federation of India and Sports Authority of India, it would make no effect. It is rather unfortunate that the State has taken such hyper technical approach in denying the claim of the writ petitioner, who has otherwise brought laurels for the State by winning a silver medal in the Commonwealth Games. Once, the State comes with a policy to provide for government employment to outstanding sportspersons, it does not behove on the part of the State to take such hyper technical approach which virtually frustrates the very object of the State Policy of encouraging sports activities in the State. 14. We also notice that the entitlement to Group-C post in favour of the writ petitioner had crystallized in terms of Policy of 2013-2014, itself and it is unfortunate that even after expiry of nine years such relief has been denied to the outstanding sportsperson, despite his entitlement in terms of the applicable policy. RAJESH KUMAR 2025.09.29 13:02 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. LPA-839-2022 (O&M) [8] 16. We are, therefore, of the view that the direction issued by the learned Single Judge for offering appointment to the writ petitioner merits no interference. 17. After the arguments were concluded in the matter yesterday, we were inclined to impose costs upon the State for having denied employment to the writ petitioner, for all these years, despite that claim of the writ petitioner was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide the impugned order and no stay was operating in favour of the State. 18. Today, written instructions have been produced from the State Govt. stating that the case of the writ petitioner will be considered in terms of the order of learned Single Judge dated 18.04.2022, subject to fulfillment of the other required conditions of recruitment, as would be applicable to him. 19. Since the appellant-State in the affidavit filed before the learned Single Judge has clearly stated the Committee constituted by the State has found the writ petitioner eligible for appointment, as such, we are of the view that the claim of respondent-petitioner for appointment will have to be accorded consideration in terms of the opinion already expressed by the Committee constituted for such purpose and claim of the writ petitioner shall not be overlooked only because he has become overage etc. An appropriate order in terms of the undertaking given by the State, would be passed, within a period of six weeks from today. 20. In such view of the matter and considering the undertaking given by State before the Court, we refrain from imposing any costs upon the State. RAJESH KUMAR 2025.09.29 13:02 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. LPA-839-2022 (O&M) [9] 21. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the State is found to be meritless and the same is accordingly dismissed. The appellants shall now comply with the directions issued by the learned Single Judge within four weeks from today. 22. All pending misc. application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA) JUDGE (ROHIT KAPOOR) JUDGE 24.09.2025 rajesh 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? : Yes/No 2. Whether reportable? : Yes/No RAJESH KUMAR 2025.09.29 13:02 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.