IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 4-12-2009 Coram The Honourable Mr.H.L.GOKHALE, CHIEF JUSTICE and The Honourable Mr.Justice N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR W.A.Nos.988 of 2009 M.P.No.1 of 2009 The Director General of Police, Special Sports Recruitment Board, Kamarajar Salai, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. ... Appellant Vs. S.Mahesh Kumar ... Respondent This writ appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of the learned single Judge dated 15.10.2008 made in W.P.No.25483 of 2007. Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the Respondent relating to the order of rejection Na.Ka.SC.2 No.323/Rect/2006-Appn-Rejn. dated 15.6.2007 rejecting the Petitioner's application for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police under the Sports quota and quash the same and further direct the Respondent to allow the Petitioner to participate in the requirement of S.I of Police. For Appellant : Mr.J.Raja Kalifulla, Government Pleader For Respondent : Mr.V.Prakash, Senior Counsel for Mr.P.S.Thiruneelakandan JUDGMENT N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR, J. This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge made in W.P.No.25483 of 2007, dated 15.10.2008, allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent herein with a direction to appoint him as Sub-Inspector of Police in 2006 batch and place him as junior most in 2006 batch and to give him requisite training along with next batch. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The case of the respondent is that he applied for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police pursuant to the notification issued on 26.10.2006 inviting applications for filling up the post of 63 men Sub-Inspector of Police along with 10 women Sub-Inspector of Police under 10% Sports Quota for the year 2002-2004. In the said notification it is stated that the applicant must have completed 18 years of age as on 1.7.2006 and not more than 24 years of age i.e, he/she must have born before 1.7.1988 or after 1.7.1982. It is further stated that the candidates should have participated in any one of the game/sports in the College/University/District/State/National/International level as per the approved list given thereunder, within two years preceding the date of notification. The notification also contained a clause that for outstanding candidates, who possess excellent performance records in sports and games, relaxation would be given if necessary, by the Chairman of the Special Committee, subject to the condition that the meritorious person so selected by the Sports Committee for relaxation of age, education and specific standards, are appointed only after obtaining orders from the Government, relaxing relevant rules in their favour. The mode of selection stated is, there must be an endurance test and those who are successful in the endurance test will be subjected to the approval by the Special Committee assisted by the Sports Experts of the respective fields and thereafter medical examination and police verification will be made before issuing the selection order. The respondent's application was considered and on 15.6.2007 it was stated that the respondent was over aged i.e, born before 1.7.1982 and he has not played the game within two years preceding the date of notification i.e., 26.10.2006, published in the dailies. The said order was challenged in the writ petition by contending that he has completed the college education before two years of the advertisement and he also played in December, 2005, for State level Championship. 3. The appellant herein filed counter affidavit stating that the respondent was over aged for more than one year and one month and he neither played nor enclosed any certificate as proof for sports achievements representing any level prescribed in the Government order, within two years prior to the notification dated 26.10.2006 and the game played by him in December, 2005 on behalf of the Income Tax Recreation Club, is not coming under the norms prescribed by the Government for considering his application. It is further stated that totally 812 candidates applied and 323 candidates were found eligible as per the norms fixed. Since there was sufficient number of eligible candidates, the appellant thought fit not to seek relaxation in favour of any candidate. 4. The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition by stating the reason that the vacancies notified are for the year 2003-2004 and therefore the respondent having played during the relevant period, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the rejection order stating that two years prior to notification he has not played, cannot be accepted and the rejection of the writ petitioner's claim on the ground of over age is also not appropriate, particularly when there is provision for the grant of relaxation as per the notification. 5. The learned Government Pleader submitted that even though the vacancies were for the year 2002-2004, the notification having been issued on 26.10.2006 with a specific eligibility criteria fixing the upper age limit as well as participation in game within two years preceding the date of notification, the appellant was justified in rejecting the claim of the respondent and several other similarly placed candidates' applications were also rejected. The learned Government Pleader also submitted that sufficient number of eligible candidates having been available for the total 73 vacancies, there was no need to grant relaxation to any candidate. 6. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent on the other hand submitted that the vacancies/quota to be filled up being for the year 2002-2004, the delay in calling for applications cannot be put against the respondent as the respondent has played during the relevant period when vacancy arose. The learned Senior Counsel also submitted that even though the respondent is age barred, the appellant should have selected the respondent and ought to have sent proposal for relaxing the age in terms of the notification issued. 7. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the notification dated 26.10.2006 issued inviting applications for the post. 8. The notification clearly states that the candidates applying for the post should have participated in any one of the games in the College/University/District/State/National/International level within two years prior to the date of notification and the candidates must not have completed more than 24 years of age i.e, must not have born prior to 1.7.1982. Admittedly, the respondent has not satisfied the above two norms, particularly age as well as participation in games within two years before the date of notification. When number of eligible candidates are available, the respondent is not justified in expecting the appellant to seek for relaxation in favour of the respondent in any respect. The relaxation can be sought only in exceptional cases, that too if sufficient number of eligible candidates are not available. 9. In this case, 323 eligible candidates are available for total 73 vacancies. Hence, respondent cannot claim relaxation as a matter of right. The respondent having applied under the notification dated 26.10.2006, is bound to satisfy the norms prescribed in the notification. The notification clearly states that a candidate must https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ have participated in the games/sports prior to the date of notification. Further the respondent's application having been rejected, he has not appeared for any test viz., endurance test, sports efficiency test, etc., and therefore the respondent cannot be appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police, when admittedly he has not been subjected to any process of selection. 10. The learned single Judge, in any event, ought not to have issued mandamus to the appellant to appoint the respondent to the post of Sub Inspector of Police 2006 batch with direction to place him as junior-most by giving requisite training in the next batch. When the respondent is found unqualified for participating in the selection, this Court cannot issue any direction contrary to the notification issued. 11. The appeal deserves to be allowed and accordingly allowed. The order of the learned single Judge dated 15.10.2008 made in W.P.No.25483 of 2007 is set aside. There is no order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. vr Sd/- Asst. Registrar //True Copy// Sub Asst. Registrar To The Director General of Police, Special Sports Recruitment Board, Kamarajar Salai, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. + 1 cc to Government Pleader, SR No.66161 Judgment in W.A.Nos.988 of 2009 AKR(CO) SR/10.12.2009 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/