IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 7866 of 2008. Decided on: 25.5.2009. ___________________________________________________________ Shri Narender Thapa … Petitioner. Versus The State of H.P. and others. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Verma, Advocate vice Mr. R.S. Dogra, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. and Mr. Ramesh Sharma, A.A.G. __________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge. The petitioner has passed his Matriculation Examination in the year 1986. He obtained his Post Graduate Degree in the year 1995. His is a player of Karate. He has given the list of his achievements in the field of Karate vide Annexure A-1. He sought appointment against one per cent posts reserved for Sportsmen prior to 1999. The further case of the petitioner is that on 28.5.1999, the Government had decided to provide three per cent reservation to the Sportsmen and his case was required to be considered against these posts. Mr. Rajesh Verma has strenuously argued that his client is entitled for recruitment either in the Police Department or in the Education Department on the basis of instructions issued by the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 State Government whereby reservation has been provided for ‘outstanding’ sportsman. He then contended that he became eligible to be considered for the post of Sub Inspector in the year 1996. However, one Shri Shiv Ram Chaudhary was appointed as Sub Inspector against one per cent post reserved for sportsmen. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General has argued that Shri Shiv Ram Chaudhary was appointed on the basis of recommendations made by the Departmental Promotion Committee on 29.7.1998 on the basis of achievements in sports (boxing). He then contended that the Education Department had sent requisition to fill up the posts of School Lecturers under the Sportsmen quota in various subjects. However, there was no post ear-marked for the subject of Public Administration by the Education Department under the sports quota. His case was sponsored to the Forest Department for the post of Forest Guard under the sportsmen quota on 7.8.2000. I have heard the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. There was one per cent reservation for sportsmen as per the instructions issued by the State of Himachal Pradesh. The case of Shri Shiv Ram Chaudhary was considered on 29.7.1998. His achievements have been given in paragraph five of the reply filed by respondents No. 1 to 3. The achievements of the petitioner in the sports of Karate are given as per Annexure A-1. The Selection Committee after comparing the merits of the petitioner vis-à-vis Shri Shiv Ram Chaudhary has recommended the name of Shri Shiv Ram Chaudhary to the post of Inspector. The petitioner had not 3 made Shri Shiv Ram Chaudhary as party-respondent. The State has taken a policy decision to fill up three per cent posts from ‘outstanding’ sportsmen on the basis of revised instructions issued on 28.5.1999. It has come in the reply of respondent No.4 that the Education Department has not sent any requisition for filling up the post of Lecturer in Public Administration under the Sportsmen quota. The post of Inspector is filled up by way of promotion. The post of Sub Inspector is filled up by direct recruitment. The maximum age prescribed for filling up the post of Sub Inspector is 30 years. The petitioner as of date has attained the age of 38 years. The respondents cannot be directed to consider him being over aged for recruitment in the Police Department. This petition was filed in 2001. The petitioner could be considered for appointment as Lecturer in Public Administration if this post was reserved for sportsman. According to the reply filed by respondent No.4, no requisition was received by the Sports Department to this effect. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no force in this writ petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. May 25, 2009. (cr)