IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP.NO.7517 of 2007 DATE OF ORDER: 04.3.2008 Khushvinder ....Petitioner(s) Versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. R.K. Malik, Sr. Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana, for the respondents. JASWANT SINGH,J The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition praying for quashing of a letter dated 7.2.2007 (Annexure P-5) vide which this case for relaxation in age for recruitment to the post of constable under the Sports Quota has been rejected. He has further prayed for quashing of the instructions dated 22.2.2001 (Annexure P-1) issued by the Government of Haryana laying down the guidelines for recruitment of sports persons against 3% quota being contrary to the statutory rules. The brief facts of the case are that the date of birth of the petitioner is 5.4.1984 and he is a Basket Ball player of national level. He has highlighted his achievements in para No.2 of the writ petition. On 2.5.2006 respondent-Police Department advertised 3700 posts of male constables (General Duty). Out of these, 450 seats were allotted to District Kaithal, and further out of these 450, 14 seats were earmarked for sports quota. The age prescribed in the advertisement was as under: “(1) For general category candidate, he should be within age of 18 to 25 as on 1.5.2006. For SC/ST & BC category candidates, the relaxation of 5 years shall be given. The Ex-servicemen should CWP No.7517 of 2007 #2# be discharged/retired before 1.5.2002. (II) For sportsmen category candidates, the age should be 18 to 21 years. The DGP can grant relaxation of two years in special cases. (III) Ex-Constable of HSISF will be granted age relaxation so that they can participate in the said selection.” The petitioner submitted an application for recruitment as Constable against seats allotted for District Kaithal under the sports category and he being over aged as per the advertisement (above 21 years), filed an application for relaxation in age addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Kaithal, being Chairman of the Selection Board. His application along with 20 other candidates seeking similar relaxation was forwarded to Director General of Police, Haryana for necessary action, being the competent authority under the provisions of Punjab Police Rules, 1934. All the 21 said candidates were permitted to appear before the Selection Board, pending the decision for relaxation in age. The petitioner along with Jitender Kumar passed the physical efficiency test and also qualified the subsequent trial conducted at the Police Complex, Madhuban subject to the condition of relaxation in age. The Director General of Police vide his impugned letter dated 7.2.2007 (Annexure P-5) conveyed that the matter had been considered and it had been decided that no relaxation in age was to be given for recruitment under the sports quota. The petitioner, thereafter, was considered on 15.2.2007 by the Selection Board. The name of the petitioner was considered under the General Category and was allowed to appear in interview. He was not selected as he secured 22 marks whereas the last candidate selected under General Category secured 26 marks. It is an admitted fact that out of the 14 posts meant for sports quota for District Kaithal, only 7 candidates including the petitioner qualified the physical efficiency test and after rejection of the case of the peitioner and Jitender Kumar for relaxation in age, only five candidates have been appointed under the sports quota. It has further been stated that the Government of Haryana vide notification dated 6.3.2006 has amended Rule 12.15(1) vide which the maximum age for recruitment as Constable under the Punjab Police Rules, CWP No.7517 of 2007 #3# 1934 has been reduced from 27 years to 25 years. In accordance with these amended rules, the recruitment age for constable under the statutory rules has been fixed between 18 years to 25 years besides other qualifications. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that in view of fact that there were 9 vacant posts under the sports quota available for Distt. Kaithal and the petitioner being fully qualified and being a player of the Basket Ball of the national level was entitled for being considered as a special case as provided for in the relaxation criteria. We are unable to accept this contention of the counsel for the petitioner. It is for the Director General of Police/competent authority to consider and decide the case which would fall in the category of a special case for relaxation in age keeping in view their own requirement. The court cannot substitute its own opinion in such like matters. It is not the case of the petitioner that he has been discriminated in any manner in grant or refusal of such relaxation in age. Counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the impugned condition 2(i) of the instruction dated 22.2.2001 which reduces the maximum recruitment age to 21 years extendable by 2 years by Director General of Police in special case being contrary to maximum age of 25 years prescribed in the statutory rules is thus illegal being against the settled principle of law that the executive instructions cannot supplant the statutory rules. This argument also is not accepted by us. Article 16 of the Constitution of India provides for equal opportunities in the matters of employment or appointment to any office under the State to all citizens of India. The posts under the sports quota/category have been reserved from the posts otherwise meant for all candidates as a special concession subject to certain guidelines as provided in Annexure P-1. It has been stated that the age for the sportsmen has been kept from 18 years to 21 years (as against 18 to 25 years provided in the statutory rules) with a view to give employment to only young and energetic sports persons so that they can be trained and deputed to participate in higher competitions. The classification is thus proper and reasonable and has a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved. The condition 2(i) of instruction dated 22.2.2001 (Annexure CWP No.7517 of 2007 #4# P-1) to the effect that the age for the recruitment of sportsmen be between 18 years to 21 years does not supplant the age condition provided in the statutory rules, it is only meant for the posts reserved under the sports quota. In view of the above, we find no merit in this writ petition and hence the same is dismissed, with no orders as to costs. ( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE March 04, 2008 ( JASBIR SINGH ) manoj JUDGE