CWP-8633 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT Reserved on 19.05.2026 SIMRANDEEP SINGH BRAR THE GREATER MOHALI AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ORS CORAM: Present: 8633-2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved Pronounced on Uploaded on .2026 03.07.2026 06.07.2026 SIMRANDEEP SINGH BRAR VERSUS THE GREATER MOHALI AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI Mr. K.S. Khehar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.S. Khosla, Senior Advocate with Ms. Mankreet Sangar, Advocate, Mr. Yogender Verma, Advocate and Ms. Abadhya Singh, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 5. Mr. A.S. Khara, Sr. DAG, Punjab for respondents No.2 to 4. Mr. V.K. Sachdeva, Advocate and Mr. Pulkit Sachdeva, Advocate for respondent No.6. None for respondent No.7. Mr. Ranjit Singh Kalra, Advocate, for respondent No.8. *** -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-8633-2014 Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced Whether the full judgment is pronounced Yes/No Yes/No ...PETITIONER VERSUS THE GREATER MOHALI AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ...RESPONDENTS SUVIR SEHGAL VIKAS SURI Mr. R.S. Khosla, Senior Advocate with Ms. Mankreet Sangar, Advocate, Mr. Yogender Verma, Advocate and Ms. Abadhya Singh, Advocate Mr. A.S. Khara, Sr. DAG, Punjab, Mr. V.K. Sachdeva, Advocate and Mr. Pulkit Sachdeva, Advocate Mr. Ranjit Singh Kalra, Advocate, the full judgment pronounced PETITIONER AND S SHEETAL 2026.07.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh CWP-8633 SUVIR SEHGAL 1. a writ of certiorari for whereby he was declared ineligible under the sportsperson category for allotment of a 400 sq Development Authority challenged sought a consequential direction for allotment of a sportsperson category 2. Games in the game of Grade ‘A’ S Directorate denied consideration under the sportsperson category despite his sporting achievements. Counsel has also made a reference to 10.12.1997 a uniform gradation policy should be framed for grant of benefits to sportspersons in contravention of the A strong judgement in Finder Doc to petitioner has been recognised by Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, Government of India and on its basis, petitioner has been appointed Officer (E 8633-2014 SUVIR SEHGAL, J. Petitioner has approached this Court, a writ of certiorari for quashing order dated 24 whereby he was declared ineligible under the sportsperson category for allotment of a 400 square yard residential plot in Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA), Ae d to notification dated 11.04.2013, sought a consequential direction for allotment of a sportsperson category. Petitioner claims that he represented India in the Asian ames in the game of Cricket during the year 2001 ‘A’ Sports Gradation Certificate Directorate, Punjab. It has been contended that petitioner has been wrongly denied consideration under the sportsperson category despite his sporting achievements. Counsel has also made a reference to 10.12.1997 as well as subsequent instructions dated 18 a uniform gradation policy should be framed for grant of benefits to sportspersons. It is his argument that as im in contravention of the Government instructions reliance has been placed by counsel for the petitioner upon judgement in Alamdeep Singh Versus Finder Doc ID #1561131, to urge that certificate to petitioner has been recognised by Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, overnment of India and on its basis, petitioner has been appointed (Executive Branch) in the sportsperson categor -2- Petitioner has approached this Court, inter alia, for issuance of order dated 24.02.2011, Annexure P-4/T whereby he was declared ineligible under the sportsperson category for yard residential plot in Greater Mohali Area , Aero City, Mohali. He has also 2013, Annexure P-12, as well as sought a consequential direction for allotment of a residential plot under the Petitioner claims that he represented India in the Asian School ricket during the year 2001-02 and was issued ertificate, Annexure P-2/T, by the Sports t has been contended that petitioner has been wrongly denied consideration under the sportsperson category despite his sporting achievements. Counsel has also made a reference to policy instructions dated as well as subsequent instructions dated 18.08.2008 to assert that a uniform gradation policy should be framed for grant of benefits to It is his argument that as impugned policy, Annexure P-12 instructions, it deserves to be set aside reliance has been placed by counsel for the petitioner upon ersus State of Punjab and others Law to urge that certificate, Annexure P-2/T, granted to petitioner has been recognised by Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, overnment of India and on its basis, petitioner has been appointed to PCS the sportsperson category. , for issuance of 4/T, whereby he was declared ineligible under the sportsperson category for yard residential plot in Greater Mohali Area o City, Mohali. He has also as well as residential plot under the chool was issued a ports t has been contended that petitioner has been wrongly denied consideration under the sportsperson category despite his sporting dated 2008 to assert that a uniform gradation policy should be framed for grant of benefits to 2, is deserves to be set aside. reliance has been placed by counsel for the petitioner upon Law granted to petitioner has been recognised by Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, PCS SHEETAL 2026.07.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh CWP-8633 3. respondents for filing separate responses. It has been submitted that brochure, Annexure P that in case of sportsperson, applicants should be a medal winner international has been argued is not entitled for the allotment of a plot. 4. Committee examined petitioner's case and found that participation in the Asian School in the brochure and therefore, petitioner's case has been rightly rejected. 5. Kumar and others 451; The Doc ID # another ( Singh’s case pending. 6. submission 7. conditions contained in brochure criteria for allotment of residential plots plots have Olympics, Commonwealth or Asian Games, mountaineers who have scaled 8633-2014 Writ petition has been contested by respondents for filing separate responses. It has been submitted that , Annexure P-1, governing allotment of plots specifically provides that in case of sportsperson, applicants should be a medal winner international games or a mountaineer fulfilling the prescribed conditions. argued that petitioner does not satisfy the eligibility criteria and is not entitled for the allotment of a plot. Counsel for GMADA has specifically pointed out that ommittee examined petitioner's case and found that participation in the chool Games in Cricket does not fall within the brochure and therefore, petitioner's case has been rightly rejected. Counsel for respondents have placed reliance upon Kumar and others Versus Om Prakash Sharma and others he State of Kerala Versus M. Vijay #2880837 and Harbilas Rai Bansal (1996) 1 SCC 1. It has been stated Singh’s case, relied upon by petitioner, is under challenge in LPA, We have heard counsel for the parties and considered their submissions besides examining the record relied upon by them. The controversy lies in a narrow compass conditions contained in brochure, Annexure P criteria for allotment of residential plots have been reserved for “sports persons who are medal winners of Olympics, Commonwealth or Asian Games, mountaineers who have scaled -3- etition has been contested by official as well as private respondents for filing separate responses. It has been submitted that governing allotment of plots specifically provides that in case of sportsperson, applicants should be a medal winner games or a mountaineer fulfilling the prescribed conditions. that petitioner does not satisfy the eligibility criteria and has specifically pointed out that Scrutiny ommittee examined petitioner's case and found that participation in the not fall within the categories prescribed brochure and therefore, petitioner's case has been rightly rejected. for respondents have placed reliance upon Rohitash ersus Om Prakash Sharma and others, (2013) 11 SCC Vijayakumar and others, Law Finder s Rai Bansal Versus State of Punjab and stated that judgment in Alamdeep is under challenge in LPA, which is l for the parties and considered their besides examining the record relied upon by them. The controversy lies in a narrow compass. The terms and , Annexure P-1, constitute the governing criteria for allotment of residential plots. As per the brochure, 2% of the sports persons who are medal winners of Olympics, Commonwealth or Asian Games, mountaineers who have scaled official as well as private respondents for filing separate responses. It has been submitted that governing allotment of plots specifically provides that in case of sportsperson, applicants should be a medal winner in games or a mountaineer fulfilling the prescribed conditions. It that petitioner does not satisfy the eligibility criteria and he crutiny ommittee examined petitioner's case and found that participation in the prescribed ash SCC inder and Alamdeep which is l for the parties and considered their he terms and constitute the governing 2% of the sports persons who are medal winners of Olympics, Commonwealth or Asian Games, mountaineers who have scaled SHEETAL 2026.07.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh CWP-8633 Mount Everest authority” as under:- 8. restricted the eligibility under the sportsperson category to medal winner of Olympics, Commonwealth Games or Asian Games and certain mountaineers specified events in Cricket and possession of a Annexure P does not i allotment is required to be tested strictly in accordance with the brochure is well settled participants and cannot be altered after t 9. Scrutiny C did not satisfy the eligibility condition prescribed for the person category demonstrate that illegality, warranting interference under India. 8633-2014 Mount Everest and possess the requisite certificate from the competent ”. Under the heading reserved categories, brochure further provides - “xi. in case of S be Medal Winner (F Olympics, Commonwealth or Asian Games who have scaled Mount certificate awarded by the Indian Foundation duly counter Affairs and Sports Government of India A perusal of the above reproduced clause shows that it has restricted the eligibility under the sportsperson category to medal winner of Olympics, Commonwealth Games or Asian Games and certain mountaineers. Petitioner does not claim to be a medal winner in specified events. His claim rests upon participation in Asian ricket and possession of a Grade Annexure P-2/T. Merely because he possesses a ipso facto confer a right to allotment upon him allotment is required to be tested strictly in accordance with the brochure settled that terms of a scheme or advertisement are binding on all participants and cannot be altered after the process has commenced Record shows that petitioner's application was Committee and he was found to be did not satisfy the eligibility condition prescribed for the category. No material has been placed before this demonstrate that this decision suffers from arbitrariness, illegality, warranting interference under -4- and possess the requisite certificate from the competent the heading reserved categories, brochure further provides Sports Persons, the applicant should For Gallantry Award Winner) Commonwealth or Asian Games, Mountaineers Mount Everest and possess the requisite certificate awarded by the Indian Mountaineers untersigned by the Ministry of Youth Government of India.” perusal of the above reproduced clause shows that it has restricted the eligibility under the sportsperson category to medal winner of Olympics, Commonwealth Games or Asian Games and certain etitioner does not claim to be a medal winner in any of the is claim rests upon participation in Asian School Games rade ‘A’ Sports Gradation Certificate because he possesses a Sports Gradation Certificate a right to allotment upon him. The eligibility allotment is required to be tested strictly in accordance with the brochure that terms of a scheme or advertisement are binding on all he process has commenced. ecord shows that petitioner's application was examined by to be ineligible as his sporting event did not satisfy the eligibility condition prescribed for the reserved sports o material has been placed before this Court to this decision suffers from arbitrariness, mala fides or patent illegality, warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of and possess the requisite certificate from the competent the heading reserved categories, brochure further provides the applicant should ) of ountaineers Everest and possess the requisite ountaineers by the Ministry of Youth perusal of the above reproduced clause shows that it has restricted the eligibility under the sportsperson category to medal winner of Olympics, Commonwealth Games or Asian Games and certain any of the ames ertificate, rtificate he eligibility for allotment is required to be tested strictly in accordance with the brochure. It that terms of a scheme or advertisement are binding on all by a ineligible as his sporting event ports ourt to or patent 6 of the Constitution of SHEETAL 2026.07.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh CWP-8633 10. case (supra facts as well as Court was dealing with appointments made under the Sportsmen was whether certain candidates satisfied the statutory definition of “sportsman connected eligibility of selected candidates with reference to statutory regulatory framework 11. civil service under 1988 plot under a housing prescribing the broader concept of sportsman under statutory recruitment rules the compliance of the express conditions contained in the Therefore, the ratio of extended to override the eligibility criteria expressly incorporated brochure governing the present 12. brochure specifically contemplate events such as Olympics, Commonwealth Games or Asian Games eligibility condition is clear and unambiguous, the scheme by enlarging the category of eligible candidates nor can the direct the official respondents to reframe the scheme t 8633-2014 Reliance placed by petitioner upon the judgment in upra) is misconceived. This judgement is clearly distinguishable on facts as well as in law. In Alamdeep's case ourt was dealing with appointments made under the n Rules, 1988 (for short “1988 Rules”) was whether certain candidates satisfied the statutory definition of sportsman” contained in aforesaid rules for purpose to nnected posts. This Court examined the scope of eligibility of selected candidates with reference to statutory regulatory framework. In the present case, dispute does not arise from recruitment to service under 1988 Rules. Rather, it concerns allotment of a residential plot under a housing scheme governed by an independent brochure prescribing separate eligibility conditions the broader concept of sportsman under statutory recruitment rules the compliance of the express conditions contained in the herefore, the ratio of Alamdeep's case extended to override the eligibility criteria expressly incorporated brochure governing the present allotment. Petitioner participated in Asian brochure specifically contemplates medal events such as Olympics, Commonwealth Games or Asian Games eligibility condition is clear and unambiguous, the scheme by enlarging the category of eligible candidates nor can the direct the official respondents to reframe the scheme t -5- placed by petitioner upon the judgment in Alamdeep's his judgement is clearly distinguishable on Alamdeep's case (supra), a Single Bench of this ourt was dealing with appointments made under the Punjab Recruitment of (for short “1988 Rules”). The issue before the Court was whether certain candidates satisfied the statutory definition of n aforesaid rules for purpose to civil service and ourt examined the scope of 1988 Rules and eligibility of selected candidates with reference to statutory regulatory n the present case, dispute does not arise from recruitment to it concerns allotment of a residential scheme governed by an independent brochure eligibility conditions. This Court is not concerned with the broader concept of sportsman under statutory recruitment rules, but wi the compliance of the express conditions contained in the brochure Alamdeep's case (supra) cannot be mechanically extended to override the eligibility criteria expressly incorporated in . etitioner participated in Asian School Games whereas the medal winners of international senior events such as Olympics, Commonwealth Games or Asian Games. Once the eligibility condition is clear and unambiguous, the Court cannot rewrite scheme by enlarging the category of eligible candidates nor can the Court direct the official respondents to reframe the scheme to suit a particular Alamdeep's his judgement is clearly distinguishable on ench of this ecruitment of ourt was whether certain candidates satisfied the statutory definition of ervice and ules and eligibility of selected candidates with reference to statutory regulatory n the present case, dispute does not arise from recruitment to it concerns allotment of a residential scheme governed by an independent brochure ourt is not concerned with but with brochure. cannot be mechanically in the ames whereas the winners of international senior nce the the ourt a particular SHEETAL 2026.07.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh CWP-8633 applicant. choices consciously made by the competent authority 13. also does not merit acceptance deliberations undertaken by the government and no ground has been established to hold that the policy decision suffers from manifest arbitrariness or constitutional infirmity warranting judicial review made to the policy instructions dated 10 would not advance the petitioner's case as these instructions specifically provide for reservation of seats for sportspersons in technical and medical institutes as well as preferential treatment in services of the Government policy framed by the government for reservation sportsperson 14. in the writ petition 15. disposed of 03.07.2026 sheetal 8633-2014 . Doing so would amount to substituting judicial wisdom for policy choices consciously made by the competent authority Challenge to notification dated also does not merit acceptance. This notification was issued pursuant to deliberations undertaken by the government and no ground has been established to hold that the policy decision suffers from manifest arbitrariness or constitutional infirmity warranting judicial review made to the policy instructions dated 10 would not advance the petitioner's case as these instructions specifically provide for reservation of seats for sportspersons in technical and medical institutes as well as preferential treatment in services of the ent. These policy instructions cannot be extended to apply to the policy framed by the government for reservation sportsperson. Challenge to notification, A For the afore-going reasons, this in the writ petition, which is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application disposed of. 2026 Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No -6- t to substituting judicial wisdom for policy choices consciously made by the competent authority. hallenge to notification dated 11.04.2013, Annexure P- his notification was issued pursuant to deliberations undertaken by the government and no ground has been established to hold that the policy decision suffers from manifest arbitrariness or constitutional infirmity warranting judicial review. Reference made to the policy instructions dated 10.12.1997 as well as 18.08.2008 would not advance the petitioner's case as these instructions specifically provide for reservation of seats for sportspersons in technical and medical institutes as well as preferential treatment in services of the State hese policy instructions cannot be extended to apply to the policy framed by the government for reservation of residential plots for , Annexure P-12, is therefore repelled going reasons, this Court does not find any merit ending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand (SUVIR SEHGAL) JUDGE (VIKAS SURI) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No t to substituting judicial wisdom for policy -12, his notification was issued pursuant to deliberations undertaken by the government and no ground has been established to hold that the policy decision suffers from manifest eference 2008 would not advance the petitioner's case as these instructions specifically provide for reservation of seats for sportspersons in technical and medical tate hese policy instructions cannot be extended to apply to the plots for pelled. ourt does not find any merit shall also stand SHEETAL 2026.07.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh