Kuljeet Kaur v. State Of Punjab And Others
CWP27762019 (O&M) Date of decision: 04.04.2019 Kuljeet Kaur
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
Present: Mr. Ashok Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner.
* * * *
By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following main reliefs: (a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing section 2(d)(a) of the Punjab Recruitment of Sportsmen Rules, 1988 as the same is ultravires the Constitution of India and quashing the final merit list of Junior Engineer (Civil), qua the 6 posts of sportspersons (General Category), uploaded on 02.11.2018 by the respondent No. 2, since, no sportsperson has been selected in the said category, despite the fact that petitioner has requisite eligibility and qualification in the Sports Category. (b) One post in the sportsperson (General Category), may kindly be directed to be kept vacant during the pendency of the present petition.
(c) Any other order or direction may kindly be issued, which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2.
Undisputed facts are that an advertisement was issued by the respondents for making appointment on 199 posts of Junior Engineer (Civil) out of which 06 posts were reserved for sportspersons (General). The petitioner was one of the applicants for the post reserved for sportsperson (General). She accordingly appeared in the written examination which was scheduled for 29.07.2018 and in the merit list for the sports category her name found place at serial No. 6. Accordingly, she was called for counselling and documentation. Since her sports gradation certificate was in the process of being prepared, on a request made by her, she was permitted to appear in the second counselling which was held on 25.09.2018. The petitioner participated in the second counselling alongwith all the relevant documents.
However, her name did not find place in the final selection list.
!
"
#
$%& & % '
"("
(
# '&'
$
&'
(
(
$" $"
)
$
' &$(
"'
'
"
*"
)%&$ +
$!
'
#
$%& & %
"("
(
#$ ' ',"
)
*"
)%&$ +
$!
'
#
'
-
$"
'
'"
& % '
"("
(
"
'
# ."
'
('
'
/',
"
*'
&'
% -
$" $"
)
*' 0"'
"
*'
)%&$ %% '
) *'
)%&$ %%
Admittedly, the petitioner applied for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil), which is a Class II post and in view of the requirement of the Rules, she was not qualified for being appointed and, thus, was rightly not selected being ineligible.
4.
It is well settled that Article 14 of the Constitution does not prohibit reasonable classification subject to the condition that classification on which it is founded must be based on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes the persons or things group together from other left out of the group and the differentia in question must have a reasonable classification to the object sought to be achieved by the Rules or statutory provisions in question. 5.
In other words, there must be a rational nexus between the basis of classification and the object sought to be achieved by the rule or statutory provision in question.
Articles 14 and 16 form part of the same constitutional code of guarantees and supplement each other. It can be said that Article 16 is only an instance of the application of the general rule of equality laid down in Article 14. Thus, unless the person, who complains of discrimination is identically situated with the person or persons, who are alleged to have been favoured, it cannot be said that there is denial of equality or opportunity. Even Article 16(1) does not bar a reasonable classification of employees or reasonable tests for their selection. Hon'ble Apex Court in
while considering the issue has held as under:
!
"
#
# $ #
#
6.
In the case in hand the different prescription/gradation of sports as eligibility criteria for appointment on a reserved vacancy for sports person on ClassI & II and ClassIII & IV posts cannot be said to be hit by the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as ClassI & II
cadre and ClassIII & IV cadre posts constitute different class and the person seeking appointment in ClassI & II and Class III & IV posts cannot be said to belong to the same class so that prescription of a different sports gradation as qualification for appointment on reserved vacancy in different cadre can be said to be discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 7.
Admittedly the nature of responsibilities and duties attached to the different posts being different from each other, the classification is based on intelligible differentia and there is a nexus with the object sought to be achieved. Thus the rule cannot be said to be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India so as to declare them ultra vires.
8.
The challenge made by the petitioner must further fail on the ground that the same has been made after she participated in the process of selection knowing fully well about the qualification which was clearly indicated in the advertisement. Having participated in the selection process and after being unsuccessful, it is not open to challenge the selection criteria as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in !""#$% " &'
(
wherein it has been observed as under:
%
!
!
%
#
$
% The same view was reiterated by the Apex Court in another decision in the case of ) * +
, - .//'
(
0 In view of the above facts and discussion, we do not find any merits in the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner.
The petition thus fails and stands dismissed.
!" #$%&'()*+,%-( Whether speaking/reasoned √Yes/No Whether reportable √Yes/No