Punjab-Haryana High Court
Neha Rathi vs State Of Haryana And Others on 8 December, 2010
Author: Ranjit Singh
Bench: Ranjit Singh
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.21872 OF 2010 :{ 1 }:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
DATE OF DECISION: DECEMBER 08,2010
Neha Rathi
.....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. S. P. Laler, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
****
RANJIT SINGH, J.
The petitioner, who has excelled in the sport of wrestling and is appointed as Sub Inspector in Police, has approached this Court, seeking appointment as D.S.P. Claiming herself to be meritorious, compared to respondent Nos.4 and 5, she has sought quashing of their out of turn appointment as D.S.P. Plea is that even for preferential appointment due to performance in sports should be on the basis of criterion of achievement and these appointments can not be made on pick and choose basis to avoid arbitrariness.
The petitioner is M.A. in English and is also having a qualification of Master of Physical Education. She came to learn that CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.21872 OF 2010 :{ 2 }:
Joginder Sharma (respondent No.4), a Cricketer, was offered appointment to the post of D.S.P on 4.9.2007. The petitioner complains that he is neither having Bhim Award nor has secured Ist position in any international championship/games and has only participated in T-20 Cricket International Match but still has been appointed as D.S.P. Petitioner, thus, pleads that she has a superior claim and is better qualified for appointment as DSP, being a Bhim Awardee and as such, would have a preferential claim for appointment on the said post, compared to respondent No.4.
The petitioner was appointed as Sub Inspector and she had already joined as such on 11.11.2008 and is undergoing training. Prayer is for preference within the preferred one on the basis of better merit. The petitioner has submitted a representation on 1.12.2008 for being appointed as D.S.P on the basis of her achievement in the field of sports and considering her academic qualification. Subsequently, the petitioner has won a gold medal in 46th International Free Style Greco Roman Style Female Wrestling Tournament. Thereafter, she has repeated her prayer for considering her case for appointment to the post of D.S.P under Sports Quota.
She has now filed this writ petition to seek a writ of mandamus for her appointment and also for quashing order dated 20.10.2009, whereby her earlier representation was rejected.
Appointment of sports person is made dehors merit. Should there be consideration of merit amongst this category, where appointment is made ignoring merit?
At the outset, counsel for the petitioner was asked to CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.21872 OF 2010 :{ 3 }:
explain as to how writ for seeking preference amongst preferred class would be justified. The appointment of an outstanding sports person is made in exercise of a discretionary power. Once the petitioner pleads for her appointment as DSP, she is asking for exercise of that discretion in her favour. She is, thus, complaining of discrimination but at the same time, is seeking preferential treatment, which in a way would lead to discrimination only. Plea of equality in such cases in itself sounds contradictory.
The appointments in this category are not made on the basis of open competition. There is no competition amongst this preferred class while making appointments, which are offered to outstanding sports persons as a class in itself. There may be a policy framed by the State to regulate such appointments in police but that alone is not the field where the State is empowered to make appointment. Apparently, there may not be a right to such appointment as sports person. There may still be many in the State who have excelled in their respective sports and may be better placed than the petitioner. They then can come forward to challenge her claim on that ground.
How, the Court can do a fair adjudication in such cases? Sporting event of the petitioner and the private respondents are different. There can not be a fair assessment of different events for determining merit. To seek an appointment in this preferred category, no open or fair assessment can be made. No allegations of any motive are made in the petition and it is only pleaded that the petitioner has a preferential or better right in comparison to private CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.21872 OF 2010 :{ 4 }:
respondents, who concededly have excelled in their respective fields of sports. No doubt, that the power may have to be exercised legally, properly and reasonably. If it is not so done, the action may be held bad. No challenge is made to the power and authority to make such appointment. Rather, prayer is to make appointment in exercise of these very powers. It is being urged that power is not properly exercised. It is to be presumed, unless contrary is shown that the administration of a particular law would be done "not with an evil eye and unequal hand....." [See A.Thangal Kunju Musaliar Vs. M.Venkitachalam Potti, 1955(2) SCR 1196]. There is nothing to indicate that administration of these powers is done with an `evil eye and unequal hand' and that the action is discriminatory. Long ago, it was observed in State of Rajasthan and others Vs. Union of India and others, (1977) 3 SCC 592 that it must be remembered that merely because power may sometime be abused, it is no ground for denying the existence of the power. It is observed that the wisdom of man has not yet been able to conceive of a Government with power sufficient to answer all its legitimate needs and at the same time incapable of mischief. Courts of law can not be unmindful of hard realities of life. It is worth remembering that sometimes a little wrong would be tolerable if aim is to do or achieve something good. Courts have to adopt a pragmatic realistic, functional and practical approach.
Since the existence of power is not disputed, the same would not call for interference that it is capable of some mischief. It is for the State to see the achievement and make appointment to CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.21872 OF 2010 :{ 5 }:
recognize the achievement of a particular sports person and Court will have hardly any role.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
December 08, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE