CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.11852 OF 2009 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: AUGUST 07, 2009 Satish Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. J. S. Mor, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. In the year 2007, the petitioner applied for appointment to the post of Conductor advertised by the Transport Department, Haryana, in the category of outstanding sports person (General). The petitioner claims that he had secured gold medal in the game/event of Wushu/Kung-Fu at State as well as National level. The petitioner appeared in the written exam and subsequently was called for interview on 18.2.2008. When the petitioner appeared before Committee on 8.3.2008, he was issued a slip for interview under the General Category. The petitioner brought this to the notice of the Interview Committee that he had applied in the category of Outstanding Sports Person. The petitioner, however, was told that there was no gradation certificate and as such, he could not be CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.11852 OF 2009 :{ 2 }: considered under the category of Outstanding Sports Person (General). When the petitioner told the Committee, that he had secured the position at the State and National level, he was assured by respondent No.3 that he would be informed after consultation with the concerned authorities. On 10.3.2008, the petitioner appeared before the District Sports Officer for obtaining gradation certificate. No gradation certificate, however, was issued. The result of the interview was declared on 22.6.2008. Good number of posts in the category of Outstanding Sport Persons remained unfilled due to non-availability of eligible candidates. The petitioner had at that time also approached the authorities by pointing out that his representation given on 8.3.2008 was still pending consideration. Ultimately, he was informed that his request was declined as game of Wushu/Kung-Fu is not in the list of recognized games issued by Sports Department. Another advertisement was issued on 7.8.2008 for filling up 258 posts of Conductors in the Transport Department. The petitioner has a grievance that posts of Conductor in the category of Outstanding Sports Person (General), as advertised in the said advertisement, are illegal because the petitioner, being a fully eligible candidate, is very much available having applied pursuant to earlier advertisement. On 12.12.2008, the petitioner claims to have sought information in regard to sports policy from respondent No.4. The petitioner relies upon a response received to this communication annexed with the petition as Annexure P-15. The counsel would point out to point No.7 wherein it is stated that there is no specific rule/policy available and if a sports person who had won the medal at CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.11852 OF 2009 :{ 3 }: State or National level and who participated at International level, then he would be considered as sports person. The petitioner has applied for the post of Conductor pursuant to the subsequent advertisement in the category of Outstanding Sports Person. The petitioner has been interviewed and result is likely to be issued. He has accordingly filed this writ petition, seeking direction to appoint him on the post of Conductor in Outstanding Sports Person (General category) for which he is fully eligible. It is also prayed that the result of the selection pursuant to the advertisement in the year 2008 be not announced. Apparently, the petitioner has raised more than one challenge in the present writ petition. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the result declared on 22.6.2008 of those candidates who had applied on the basis of advertisement in the year 2007. He has also sought direction for his appointment to the post of Conductor in the category of Outstanding Sports Person (General) against the advertisement issued in the year 2007 for which his request was declined. Finally he has prayed that final selection of candidates in Outstanding Sports Person category pursuant to the advertisement issued in the year 2008 be not announced. The prayers made by the petitioner flow on the basis of his submissions that he is wrongly not being considered in the category of Outstanding Sports Person. Annexure P-18 is the policy issued by the Chief Secretary, giving out the names of the games on which sports gradation certificate is to be issued. Wushu/Kung-Fu is not the game in which the gradation certificate can be so issued in terms of this policy. It is in this background that the petitioner has not CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.11852 OF 2009 :{ 4 }: been issued any gradation certificate. The reliance by the petitioner on some information supplied to him by the Public Information Officer under the Right of Information Act is being read by him in isolation. Reading of the entire reply (Annexure P-15) would also show that no gradation certificate has ever been issued in this game. The answer to point 7 highlighted by the petitioner in support of his claim can not be read in isolation. Once this game is not recognized as the one where the gradation certificate as per the policy is to be issued, the petitioner can not stake a claim for being considered in the category of Outstanding Sports Person. The petitioner, otherwise also never challenged the order whereby he was not considered in the category of Outstanding Sports Person pursuant to the earlier advertisement in the year 2007. The petitioner has now applied for appointment pursuant to the advertisement issued in the year 2008, for which he has been interviewed in the year 2009. The petitioner has not been able to substantiate his challenge for non-selection in the category of Outstanding Sports Person (General) and for direction not to announce the candidates in this category, for which he has now applied. The prayer as made in the petition, without even awaiting for the result of the interview now held, can, thus, not be granted. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. August 07 ,2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE