potharaju Shiny Suvarna D/o. Potharaju.David kumar v. 1. The state of Telangana

Order

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Governmerrt f)leader for Serwices-ll for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Sri P.S.Rajashekar, learned Standing counsel for respondent No.3 ancl Sri G.Satish l?eddy, learned Standing counsel for respondent No.4 and perused the record.

2. The lear-r"red couttsel for the petitioner submits that the subject matter of thr: present rvrit petition is squarely covered by the comrnon order passed by this Court in W.p.No.34446 of 2024 and ba[c]r dated 14.10.2025 and requested to pass similar order in this writ petition also. The same is not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

3. In vievv of the above, follou,ing the above order passed in W.P.No.34446 of 2024 and batch dated L4.10.2025, this '*,rit petition is also disposed of in terms thereof. Miscellaneous petitions pending, i[ any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. \ To SD/.A. SRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //rRUE coPY// ,r' sEcnoSoFFrcER

1. The Principal Secretary, Department of General Administration, State of Telangana, Telangana Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

2. The Principal Secretary, Youth Advancement, Tourism and Culture (Sports) Department, State of Telangana, Telangana Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

3. The Secretary, Telangana Public Service Commission, Prathibha Bhavan, M.J. Road, Nampally, Hyderabad-sOO OO1.

4. The Vice Chairman and Managing Director, Sports Authority of Telangana \

5. One CC to SRI K. AN/ARENDER RAJU, Advocate IOPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP for Services-ll, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

7. One CC to SRI P.S, RAJASHEKAR, S.C. for TSPCB IOPUCI 8. One CC to SRI G. SATISH REDDY, S.C. for TS Sports Authority TOPUCI 9. Two CD Copies Along with a copy of the Common Order dated 14.1O.2025 in W.P.No.34446 of 2024 and Batch t\4P BS w f ( HIGH COURT DATED :1711012025 I t ORDER WP.No.31 423 ot 2024 .J () t 't 1FIE S: 1? liil1, ?[75 ,1 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS @ rl v -::-:-,:i'.--' ...--,--t:---_:i-:. :-:u-:::::::t-ar:r-r: -iff.*r 3 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.34446, 14675, L668+, L67t5, 241L9, 25028, 26477, 2590,9, 27175,28035, 28046, 28969, 28978, 3O74L, 32!96, 325L9, 3.2687, 34147, 34408, 35,677 and 36422 of 2or24 AND WRIT PETITION Nos. 4995,9198, 9202, AND 9704 of 2o25 COMMON ORDER: All these Writ Petitions are hereby disposed of by this Common Order, as the issue involved in these Writ petitions is identical. These Writ Petitions are filed questioning the Sports Policy of the State of Telangana with regard to interpretation and implementation of 2o/o Sports quota in all the recruitments to various posts.

2. Heard learned counsel for respective parties:

Sri E. Madhan Mohan Rao, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri M. Srinivas, Sri J. Sudheer, Sri Ramesh Challa, Sri P.V. Krishnaiah, Sri Kongara Raj Kumar, Sri Chikkudu Prabhakar, Sri Allika Suresh, Smt. Uma Devi Nama, Sri V. Ravi Chandran, learned counsel for the respective petitioners 4 Sri P.S. Rajasekhar, learned Standing Counsel for TGPSC, learned Additional Advocate General, Learned Government Pleader for Services-I, Sri G. Satish Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Sports Authority of Telangana, learned counsel appearing for the respective official respondents. Sri B.S. Prasad, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri S. Goutham, in W.P.No.28O35 of 2024 and Smt. Rachana Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri Mohammed Baseer Riyaz in W.P.No.344O8 of 2024, appearing for the respective unofficial respondents, and perused the material available on record.

3. For convenience, the facts stated in W.P.No.25028 of 2024 are discussed here under: Learned counsel for the petitioners submits as foliows: That the petitioners are sportspersons who participated in Senior Nationals, Junior Nationals and A11 India University competitions. The third respondent invited online applications from the qualified candidates for various posts in Group-I services in the state of Telangana vide Notification No.2 /2024, dated 19.02.2024 in respect of 563 posts to be filled as per 5 Rules 22 and 22A of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 and Special Rules relating to the posts.

4. Petitioners applied for Group-I Services under 2%o sports quota, where four vacancies were notified out of 563 posts, in the Notification itself in terms of G.O.Ms. No. lO7, General Administration (Ser.D) Department,

27.O7.2O18(hereinafter referred to as G.O.Ms.No.1O7) and G.O.Ms.No.5, Youth Advancement, Tourism Culture (Sports) Department, dated 14.05.2018 (hereinafter referred to as G.O.Ms.No.5). Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in excluding them on the misconception with reference to Form-I in Annexure-lll of G.O.Ms.No.74, Youth Advancement, Tourism and Culture (Sports) Department, dated 09.OB.2Ol2 (hereinafter referred to as G.O.Ms.No.74) and not considering them in terms of the said G.O.Ms.No.74, read with G.O.Ms.No.S, and G.O.Ms.No.IO7. Hence, this Writ Petition

5. Paragraph No.4 of the Notification, dated 19.02.2024 deals with 'Reseryations.' Clause 4.7 of the said paragraph stipulates that the reservation to "Meritorious Sportsperson" is applicable as per the amendments made to the State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as Rules). As per G.O.Ms.No.LO7, that is in Rule-2, for sub-Rule 6 (20) and in Rule-22(i) in sub-Rule (21, for Class-D. In implementing the reservation to Meritorious Sports Person, G.O.Ms.No.OS will be followed. In the event of non-availabilit5r of eligible "Meritorious Sportspersons", two percent (27o) reservation of posts for them stand lapsed.

6. Vide Notification, in G.O.Ms.No. 107, sub-rule (20) of Rule 2 of the llules, was amended with regard to "meritorious sportspersons." In fact, prior to that, as per the Government policy of the then Andhra Pradesh Government, followed by the Telangana Government, G.O.Ms.No.74 was issued providing reservation of 2o/o for meritorious sportspersons in direct recruitment in Government Departments / Undertakings / grant-in-aicl Institutions at all levels.

7. In par:agraph No.2, clause (ii) of the Notificu.tion provides that the performance of the individual in having obtained Medals/participation in disciplines for deciding a meritorious sportsperson, against two percent l2%"l sports quota as mentioned in Annexure-Il to the G.O.Ms.No.74, shall be the criterion, keeping in view the participation in recognized sports disciplines as per Annexure-l to the said G.O.Ms.No.74, or as may be revised by the Government from time to time. Clause (ix) of the Notification issued there under in paragraph No.2, 7 provides that in the quota of two percent (2o/ol set apart for sports reservation for meritorious sportspersons; individual events have to be given performance over team events within a priority.

8. After petitioners successfully qualified the preliminary examination, a Web Note was issued. on 22.07.2024 for certificate verification by the 3'a respondent in respect of sports quota, in which it is stated that as per G.O.Ms.No.74, only the candidates who have represented India in an International Competition/Multinational Competition in one of the recognized Games/Sports (Form-I), are eligible for claiming sports reservation for Group-I posts. The Commission decided to call 36 candidates only as per the Original Form-I submitted by them, for verification. Out of the 36 candidates, three candidates were already picked up for mains as per their merit /community reservation irrespective of their sports certificates. The remaining 33 candidates were exclusively picked up under sports quota, who secured qualiffing marks and claimed International / Multinational Certificates while submitting Group-I application forms.

9. The said Web Note calling candidates, who have represented India in an International Competition I 8 Multinatiorral competitions in one of the reco gnized games / sports on11', is contrary to G.O.Ms.No.74 and G.O.Ms.No.1O7. The 3.a respondent issued another Web Note, dated 2O.O8.2O24 calling for only two candidates, out of which one candidate had already qualified for Mains exam as per his rneritf category published on O7.AT .2024 and another candidate only was picked up under sports quota and provisionallS, permitted to appear for Group-l mains exam.

10. The respondents misconstrued G.O.Ms.No.74, G.O.Ms.No LO7 and the Notification No.2 of 2024, dated

19.02.2024-. As referred above, clause 4.7 of the Notification, dated 19.02.2024 provided 2o/o reservation to Meritorious Sportspers(rn of the notified vacancies of 563 posts, and 4 posts have to be filled as per the clause 4.7 of the Notification dated 79.O2.2024, as provided in the reservations to meritorious sportspersons in terms of the amendments made to the State and Subordinate Service Rules as per G.O.Ms.No.1O7 and G.O.Ms.No.74. Paragraph 12 of the Notification dated tg.O2.2O24 issued by the 3.d respondent deals with procedure for selection. According to paragraph No.12 {ll (B) of the said Notification, the number of candidates to be admitted to the written (Main) Examination (Conventional 9 Type) would be Fifty (50) times to the total number of vacancies available in each Multi-Zone. The proviso to that paragraph makes it clear that in case of any shortfall in respect of the candidates in reserved categories as laid down in Rules 22 and 22A of the Rules, action shall be taken to include such number of candidates from the merit list beyond 1:50 ratio as required to meet the shortfall in the respective categories. 1 1. Therefore, according to the aforesaid clauses of the Notification, 200 candidates have to be permitted to appear for Written (Mains) Examination in sports quota. But, as submitted above, only one candidate who is having Form-I has been provisionally permitted to appear for Written (Mains) Examination in sports quota vide Web Note dated 20.08.2024 Nowhere in the Notification, which governs the selection of candidates, it is stated that the Notification of Group-I posts under the sports quota is reserved for the participants in International competitions I Multinational competitions only. If that is the purport, the petitioners'applications ought not to have been entertained at all. L2. In paragraph No.2, clauses (ii) and (ix) of the Notification in G.O.Ms.No.74 clearly stipulate that 2o/o set apart for sports reservation for meritorious sportspersons, individual events 10 have to be given performance over team errents within a priority. The priority list is enclosed as Annexure-Il to the G.O.Ms.No.74 itself of 90 sports and games. Annexure-lll is only Forms I to IV and is a mere certificate to be enclosed of the participation in sports/games, issued by r e co gnize d,/ 4s11, orize d sports as sociatio n (s) .

13. In the Notification/Web note, Form-l is being misconstrued by the respondent-authorities. Vide Web Note dated 22.O7.2024 and 20.O8.2024, tt:e Certificate verifications were called from the candidates who represented India in International competition / Multinational competitions in one of the recognLzed games/sports, clauses (ii), (ix), (x) and (xii) of the Notification issued under G.O.Ms.No.74.

14. The G.O.Ms.No.1O7 was issued in exercise of the powers conferred under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, whi,:h prevails over the Notification. The Notification No.2 of 2024, dated L9.O2.2O24 does not exclude other sportspersons. Annexure-Il of G.O.Ms.No.7 4 specifies priorities for recruitment to the posts reserved under sports quota and it starts with a Gold Medal in Olympics games at item No.l and ends up with participation in the State / Inter-district Championship for School games at item No.9O. Thus, Form-I 11 cannot control the substantive portion of the Notification and the G.O. and the amendments made to the Rules, 1996 under G.O.Ms.No.LO7.

15. It is settled proposition that the Form cannot control the Rules. The substantive provisions under the Notifications in G.O.Ms.No.74 and G.O.Ms.No.107, Sports quota is a separate quota, created with 2o/o reservation for meritorious sportspersons and shall be applicable as per the Annexure-I and II of the priority provided under G.O.Ms.No.74. The very same G.O.Ms.No.74 has been considered by the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amavarati in W.P.No.11057 of 2O2L, dated 29.O7.2A21; W.P.No.16062 of 2020, dated

09.08.2024 and W.P.No.13979 of 2020, dated 24.OL.2022 and categorically held that sportspersons candidates shall be selected as per Annexures-I and II of G.O.Ms.No.74. In similar circumstances, by interpreting the very same G.Os., these anomalies have been brought to the notice of the 2nd respondent, but the same are not being corrected. The verification process only in respect of the candidates who have represented India in an International Competition I Multinational Competitions in one of the recognized 12 Games/Sports (Form-I), under sportspersons quota, is being taken up. L6. The authorities are calling for only the candidates who represented India International CompetitionlMultinational Competitions in one of the recognized Games/Sports (Form-l), under the sports quota, vide Web Notes were issued on 22.07.2024 and 20.08.2024 respectivelJr, 1S arbitrary, contrary to G.O.Ms. No.74, G.O.Ms.No.lO7 and the Notification No.2/2024, dated

19.02.2024 issued by the 3.d respondent, and are violative of Articles L4, 16 and 2L of the Constitution of India. Therefore, they filed the present Writ Petitions

17. When the matter was taken up for hearing, at the admission stage, after hearing both sides, this Court passed the following interim direction "There'fore, to balance the equities, os a/z intertm measure, pending the Writ Petition, the respondents are directed to allout the petitioners to participate in main examinatio n/ further s ele ctio n proce s s. Hout euer, the re sults of the petttioners stwll not be declared pending further orders of this Court." In other cases, also, interim orders were granted by this Court 13

18. Sri J. Sudheer, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no clarity in the policy and also proviso cannot eat away by way of Forms. He further submits that reservation is meant to encourage the sportspersons, and that we are concerned with G.O.Ms.No.74 and not 84. Executive order is G.O.Ms.No.74. The said Subordinate Rules say "all sports, all posts", it means each and every sport person has to be encouraged by maintaining reservation. He submitted that Annexures cannot go contrary to the policy. While giving response to the learned counsel for respondents, he submits that the G.O.Ms.No.74 has not been challenged as it is petitioners' favour. lg. He further submits that the policy makers are different from executives. The very purpose of giving 2o/o resewation for sportspersons is defeated. The re is no Clarity in G.O.us.No.74 as to, if Form-I candidates are not available, Form-II candidates can be considered or not. Though G.O.Ms.No.5 and G.O.Ms.No.lo7 were issued clarifying certain issues, in so far as the above issue is concerned, there is no clarit5r. That due to misinterpretation in this regard, the vacancies meant for sportspersons are being wasted and the policy is frustrated. L4

20. He further submits that when the policy is to give 2oh reservation for sportspersons and confirming the same at particular level, it would mean giving reservati-ons with one hand and taking it away with another hand. When the higher- level performers are not available, denying the next category candidates, 'nvould amount to underplaying their achievements and amounts to discouraging sportspersons. Annexures are contrary to the policy. Annexures cannot control the policy.

21. Sri P.V. Krishnaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the recmitment agency strictly follows the Rule 2, Sub-rule 20 of the Rules- The "Meritorious Sportsman", but the recruitrnent agency has not foliowed the same, means the individuals who have participated in the disciplines or obtained med.als mentioned in the Annexures I & II respectively. In the Rules, there is no reference with regard to Forrns. Once the Rule does not disclose any Forms, if any Notification discloses any Forms, the same are not valid.

22. Sri Chikkudu Prabhakar, learned counsel for petitioner submits that the writ Petitions pertain to Junior Lecturers Multi Zonal-L. Zonal posts are reserved for Sports euota. Zonal verification of certificates also over, due to non- availability of the sportspersons, the said authority should not 15 carry forward the vacancies to the next Notification and in his case, there is no sportsperson except the petitioner. Even then, the petitioner's case was rejected.

23. Sri Chilla Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the priority structure is not correct. The priority list mentioned under Annexure-Il has not been structured in alignment with the Form categories outlined in Annexure-Ill Instead, the prioritization appears to have been based on the level of effort and complexity of the games or events in which the participants competed, rather than the following the proper categorvation.

24. Learned counsel for respondent No.3/Telangana Public Service Commission, filed counter and vacate stay petition vide I.A. No.2 of 2024.

25. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that in the Online application form, pertaining to Group-I Services Notification No.O2 /2024, the cand.idates who are claiming sports reservation, were required to give details about the sports/games in which the5r had participated and also the level of participation/tournaments in which they had participated/won med.als. As per G.O.Ms.No.lOT and 16 G.O.Ms.No.74, the candidates who are claiming sports reservation for Group-I Services, must possess Form-I i.e. they should hzrve represented India in an International or Multinational tournament. The contention of respondents No.1 to 6 that nowhere in the Notification, it is mentioned that only the can<lidates who have represented India Internation.allMultinational Tournaments, are eligible for Sports Reservation in Group-I Services, is false and denied. Para 4.7 of the Group-I Services Recruitment Notification No.02/2024 reads as follows: "The reseruation to Meritorious Sportsperson is applicable as per tLrc amendments made to the State and Subordinate Seruice Rules, as per G-O.Ms.No.107, General Admin.ktration (Ser.D) Dept., Dt.27-O7-2018 that is in Rule- 2, for sub-Rule (2O) and in Rule-22(i) in sub-Rule (2), for Class-D. In implementing the reseruation to Meritoious Sporfs Persort, G.O.Ms.No.Os YAT&C (Sports) Department, Dt.14/ 05/ 20 1B will be followed. In the euent of non-auailability of eligible Meitorious Sporfs persons, two percent (2o/o) reseruation of posts for them stand lapsed."

26. He further submits that the G.O.Ms.No.OS is a continuation of Government Order for G.O.Ms.No.74, through which, the G.O.Ms.No.74 has been amended making the sports reservation horizontal. In the same w&y, G.O.Ms.No.1O7 was 77 issued b5r the General Administration Department (GAD), making amendment to the said Rules incorporating reservation for meritorious sportspersons as per the guidelines stipulated in the G.O.Ms.No.74.

27. He further submits that from the above, it is clear that the Government orders issued by General Administration Department making amendments in the said Rules incorporating reservation for meritorious sportspersons as per the guidelines stipulated in the G.O.Ms.No.74, has been incorporated in the Group-I Services Notification No.0212A24, dated L9 .02.2024. 28- He further submits that the results of Preliminary Test and Final Key of Group-I Services Prelims was hosted by the Commission on 07.O7.2024. Regarding the Meritorious Sports Persons who are claiming Sports Reservation, the following was informed in the Web Note/Press Note: "The slwrtfall in respect of Meitorious Sports Persons sha.ll be notified. separatelg afier ueification of FORM - I (Candidates wlp lwue represented India in an International competition / Multinational competition in tlw recognized Games/Sports) of tle candidates uho haue claimed Sporfs Reseruation if found eligible as per tlrc G.O.Ms No.74 Youth Aduancement, Tourism & Culture (sports) Department Dt.Og/08/2012 & G.O.Ms.No.S. Youth Aduancement, Tourism & Culture (Sports) Department Doted: 14- 05-2018 & G.O.Ms.No.1O7 General Administration (Ser.D) Department Dated: 2 7-O 7-20 1 8" 18

29. He further submits that the Online applications of all the candidates who have claimed sports reservation by declaring they have represented India in Multi- National/International Sports/Games, were verified by the officials of Sports Authority of Telangana (SAT) and the officials of Sports Authority of Telangana have submitted a report stating that 36 candidates have claimed in their Online application Form of Group-I that they have Form-l and have represented India in an International Competition/ Multinational Competitions in one of the recognized Games/Sports. Accordingly, 36 candidates were shortlisted for verification of sports certificates and were called to attend the certificate rrerification of Form-I. Respondent No.5 has claimed that she has represented India in an International and Multi National Competition and was aiso shortlisted for Sports certificate verification.

30. He further submits that the Government had issued clear instructions in G.O.Ms.No.lO7 that for implementing the reservations to Meritorious Sportspersons, the guidelines issued in the G.O.Ms.No. 74, read with G.O.Ms.No.5 shall be followed. In this regard, in Para XII in G.O.Ms.No.74 19

31. He further submits that the above para mentioned in G.O.Ms.No. 74, clearly establishes the fact that all these three annexures are to be considered as part and parcel of the G.O.Ms. No.74. All the three Annexures have to be seen as a modality to take forward the policy of reservation in Government jobs for meritorious sportspersons. From the above para, it is clear that the Sports Certificates shall submit in Form-I, Form-II, Form-lII and Form-IV as the case may be and the said Forms shall be forwarded to the Committee at Government Level and the said Committee shall issue Eligibility Certificate.

32. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 brought to the notice of this Court clause (xiv) and clause (xv) of Para 2 of G.O.Ms.No.74, which reads as follows (xiu) Ttrc eligibilitg certtficate issued bg the Committee shnll be fonaarded to the Recruitirug/ Agencg Appointing Autlnritg for appointment under spods quota in uarious categoies of posfs in different Departments on the basis of Merit-Cum- Sports Eligibilitg Certificate against the notifi.cations issued bg them. (xu) Eligibilitg Certtficates issued bg the Committee shall be the notification issued bg Recruiting uqlid for Agencg/Appointing Authoritg, which shall be mentioned in the certificate. 20

33. He further submits that the Writ Petitioners No.1 to 6 have not participated in the required International I Multinational events / tournaments. Except, respondent No.5, all other respondents have claimed in their Online application that they have participated only in the Senior Nationais/Junior National/All India Inter University Participation etc. However, respondent No.S has claimed to have represented India in Multinationalllnternational Tournaments in the Online application form.

34. He further submits that since respondents No.1 to 4 and 6 have not represented India in International/Multi-National Sports & Games & does not have Form-I, they were not shortlisted for Sports Certificate verification. Further it is submitted that except Respondent No. 6 all oth.er Respondent have qualified for Mains examinations in Merit I Category without reference to their sports achievement as per the results hosted by the Commission on A7 I 07 I 2024.

35. He further submits that the respondent No.5 was also admitted to Mains Examinations as per merit/category and was also shortlisted under Sports category along with 36 candidates who were called for Sports Certificate verification. As per the report received from the Sports Authority of 21 Telangana, her application under Sports category was rejected by the Committee of Secretaries at the Govt. level. As per the certificate submitted by her, she had participated in South Asian Amateur Chess Championship 2OL6 held at Gurjar Desh Charitable Trust, Jammu, J&K which available/mentioned in the G.O Ms. No. 74. Petitioner No. O5 is also qualified for Group- 1 Mains as per merit/category without reference to her sports achievements as per the results hosted by the Commission on 07.O7.2024.

36. He further submits that the sports certificates of all the candidates who have come for certificate verification, were verified by the officers of the Sports Authority of Telangana and all the details of candidates who have attended sports certificates verification, were sent to the Committee of Secretaries at Govt. level for taking further necessary action. Out of 36 candidates, only 2 candidates were found eligible (possessing Form-I) by the Committee constituted in term of clause (x11i). As per the above report, two candidates'claim on sports quota, has been provisionally accepted by TGPSC.

37. He further submits that vide GO.Ms.No.74, the Government has notified the instructions and detailed guidelines for extending the benefit of 2'/o reservation in 22 Governmerrt Jobs for meritorious sports persons. In the same G.O. there are three Annexures which are as follows: Annexure-1 (List of Recognized Sports) Annexure-ll (Priorities of Sports and Games) Annexure-lll (Form I to IV) All these three annexures are to be considered as part and parcel of G.O.Ms.No.74 and all the three Annexures have to be seen as a rnodality to take forward the policy of reservation in Government jobs for meritorious sportspersons. Basing on the level of performance of an individual in the recognized Sports/Games, eligibility for reservation in Government Job has been decided in the said G.O.Ms.No.74.

38. In the Government Sectors broadly the jobs are to be categorized into 5 Groups: Group-I Services (Dy. Collector, DSP, Asst. Director Cadre Post etc.) Group-II Services (Dy. Tahsildar, EO PR&RD etc.) Group-lll Services (Clerical Posts in the HoD offices) Group-IV Services (Clerical Posts in the Dist. / Sub Ordinate Offices) Last Grade Service (Class - IV posts like Office subordinate etc.) As per the above grading, provision has been made in the G.O.Ms. No.74 through Annexure-Ill, clearly speci$ring the level of achievement in Sports which can be considered for the above categories ofjobs. 23

39. He further submits that this arrangement has been made to ensure that less meritorious sportspersons do not occupy higher scale posts and also to ensure that higher scale posts are occupied by more meritorious sportspersons. Evident from the above that depending on the merit achieved in the Sports/Games, precedence has been given in the type of employment. The above policy has been devised to protect the merit amongst the sportspersons. The above policy would ensure that the most meritorious sportspersons get the highest scale post in the State. By introducing Annexure-ll, priorities have been assigned to all the sports events in which sportspersons would participate and basing on this Annexure- II, the inter-se merit amongst the sportspersons can be easily quantified. By the above policy, the sportspersons would be eligible for the reservation in Government Jobs based on their performance in the sports field. The above policy also ensures that there is a match between the level of participation in the Sports/Games and the job for which the sportsperson can claim sports reservation

40. He further submits that the policy of providing reservation to Meritorious Sportspersons has been incorporated in the said Rules through the above 24 G.O.Ms.No. 107. Vide G.O.Ms.No.05, it has ber:n notified that reservations to Meritorious Sportspersons is a horizontal reservation and it has also been clearly notified that in the event of non-availability of eligible sportspersons, the posts reserved for them, should be deemed to be ceast:d and allotted to open competition in the same recruitment. The sequence mentioned in the Annexure-Il of the G.O.Ms.No.74 "Priorities of Sports & Games for recruitment of two percent (2%o) reservation under Sports Quota" determines the inter-se spo::ts merit of the candidates claiming sports reservation. 4I. He further submits that the respond<:nt No. 1, Sri Gollapalli Raju, has earlier filed W.P.No.22643 of 2024 with similar grounds and the same was disposed ol' by this Court vide orders, dated 20.08.2024 directing the respondent No.2- TGSPSC to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated

25.07.2024 for appointment in terms of G.O.Ms. No.74 dated O9.O8.2O72 and in terms of the conditions mentioned in the notification and also subject to the petitioner passing the Group-I main examination.

42. He further submits that, regarding the contention of the Writ Petitioners No. 1 to 6 that their applications ought not to have been entertained if they had no Form-I. It is submitted 25 that even if they do not have Form-I, they were eligible to write Group-I Prelims and compete against OC Posts/relevant Community Posts. Group-I Services Notification No. 0212024, dated L9.02.2O24 was issued for all the 563 vacancies in one Notification and the candidates who applied for the recruitment, may compete not only for four vacancies notified under Sports category but also for all the posts in their Community /Category.

43. He further submits that the Telangana Public Service Commission is a formal party in this matter as this matter pertains to Sports Reservation Policy and the same is not in the purview of TGPSC. TGPSC follows the Rules / Acts / Government Orders relating to the direct recruitments as on the date of issuance of Notifications. Permitting the candidates who -dodt ha;e FORMj and-wh.o have pOnM:lt, III and IV to write the Group-I Mains, would be contrary to G.O.Ms.No.74, dated 09.08.2012 and all the candidates who have Form II, III and IV would put forth their claim to consider them also for writing the Group-I Mains, which would totally eliminate the relative merit amongst the sportspersons, which has been prescribed in the Annexu.re II in GO.Ms.No. 74. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 26 44 Learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf Learne<I Additional Advocate General filed counter in W.P.No.32].96 of 2024 and submitted that the same counter is adopted in all the cases.

45. He firrther submits that G.O.Ms.No.74, had notified instructions and detailed guidelines for extending the benefit of 2o/o reservation in Government jobs for meritorious sportspersons at all levels in all posts of state Government Departments, Educational Institutions, Locai bodies, corporations and other establishments referred thereunder, which are funded or aid,ed. by the State Government, where direct recmitment is one of the methods of appointment. The said G.o. includes Annexure-I and Annexure-Il referred to in clause (ii), Annexure-Ill and Forms referred thereunder in clause (xii) of the notification. The annexures in the said G.o. are as follo'ws:- Annexure-I (list of recognized posts) Annexure-Il (priorities of sports and games) Annexure-lll (Form I to Form IV)

46. He further submits that the above three Annexures forms part and parcel of the G.O.Ms.No.74, and they are to be scrupulously followed to ensure that meritorious sportspersons, based on their level of performance, will have 27 eligibility to the respective Governrnent jobs as specified in Clause (xi| to (>rv) of the Notification, read with the posts specified in the respective Form-I to Form-IV under Annexure- III. The procedure for calling of applications from the meritorious sportspersons along with certificates applicable to the post referable in the respective forms and the said certificates in Form-I to Form-IV, as the case may be, shall be scrutinized by the Sports Authority of the State. After verification of the same by the Sports Authority, the applications along with the Forms as scrutinized by the Sports Authority of the State, will be forwarded to a Committee constituted at Government level in Youth Advancement, Tourism and Culture (Sports) Department who shall frnalize the proposals.

47. He further submits --th-at the Committee shatt be constituted with the members as specified in Clause (xiii) of the notification under G.O.Ms.No.74. The said Committee shall issue eligibility certificate for appointment under sports quota. The said eligibility certificate issued by the Committee shall be forwarded to the recruiting agency / appointing authority for consideration of appointment of such persons eligible to be appointed against such posts notified by them on the basis of 28 merit cunl sports eligibility certificate. Thc Committee's decision as to whether a particular person with a particular sports certificate fulfils the criteria of eligibility for the post applied, shall be linal and the same shall be valid for that Notification only issued by the recruiting agency.

48. He further submits that as per the provisions in G.O.Ms.No 74, t!-:.e Forms under Annexure-Ill clearly specify the level of participation in competitions and eligibility of such meritorious sportspersons for employment to the post mentioned in the respective Forms as shown below:. Group-l Services (Form-I Representing India in an International or multinational event) Group-ll Services (Form-I Representing India in an International or multinational event) Group-lll Services (Form-II Representing State in a National Competition) Group-lV Services (Form-III Representing a University in recognized Last Grade Service (Form-IV Representing a State School Team in the National Games for School Chiidren) The said procedure is being followed since 2O12. +9. He further submits that the said G.O. also refers to two roster points i.e. 48 and 98 may be earmarked for reservation under sports quota and till such time, amendment is carried out to the State and Sub-ordinate Service Rules. The 29 authorities were requested to follow the guidelines issued under G.O.Ms.No.74 in all future direct recruitments for appointing meritorious sportspersons under 2oh quota.

50. He further submits that further, amending the sports reservation in G.O.Ms. No.74, the State of Telangana has issued G.O.Ms.No.S dated 14.05.2OL8, causing amendment to Clause No.(xviii) under para 2 of the Notification that the said reservation shall be }:orizontal and in the event of non- availability of sportspersons, the point reserved for them should be deemed to be seized and allotted to open competition in the same recruitment.

51. He further submits that the State of Telangana 1n exercise of powers under Article 309 of the Constitution of lndia, has amended the said Rules vide G.O.Ms.No.LO7 substituting Rule 2(2O) and amending Rule 22(i1l(dl earmarking the roster points 48 and 98 in favour of meritorious sportspersons under horizontal reservation. In the event of non-availability of eligible sportspersons, such roster point reserved for meritorious sportsperson, shall be allotted to open competition in the same recruitment. It is also further made clear in the said amendment to the RuIe that while implementing the resenration of meritorious sportspersons, the 30 guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.74 read with G.O.Ms.No.S dated 14.05.2018 shall be followed. In effect, G.O.Ms.No.74 and G.O.Ms.No.S is made part of the Rules. The Clauses (ii, xii, xiii, xiv & xv) of the Notification under G.O.Ms.No.74, are extracted as under:- (ii) The perfonnance of the indiuidual in hauing obtained Medals / participation in disciplines fo, deading a meritorious sportsperson, against two percent (29,,) sports quota as mentioned in Annexure-Il to this order, shail be tlrc citeion, keeping in uieut the participation in recognbed sports disciplines as per Annextre-I to this order, or os maA be reuised by the Gouernment from time to time. (xii) I'he appointing authorities slnll call for appli.cations bg publisling in leading news papers in English/ Telugu/ Urdu languages from meritoious sportspersons along with the certificates in Fonn-[ FonnJ[ Form-III and Form-N as the case m.aA be, uide Annentre III enclosed to this notification ancl shall submit the same to the Sports Authoitg of Andhra Pradesh. After scrutinA by the Sports Authoritg of Andhra Pradesh, like genuineness of the certiJicates, uefifAing medals/ ranks etc., the applications utill be foruarded to a Committee at Couemment leuel in Youth Aduancem.ent, Tourisrn and Culture (Sports) Department qnd the said Committee shall finalise the proposals. TLe said Contmittee shall rssue eligibilitg certificate for appointment und.er Sports quota. (nil The recommendation of the Committee for issuing eligibilitg certificate shall be final. The Committee shall consist of the following members:- (1) Prl. Secy.,/ Secg., Youth Serubes & Sporfs - Chairman / Chairperson 31 (2) Prl. Secg.,/ Secg, Home Department Member ( 1 ) Prl. Secg., / Secy General Administration (Seruices) Department Member (2) Vice Chairman & Managing Director, Sports Authoritg of - Andhra Pradesh - Conuenor NOTE: A representatiue from tlrc Telangana Olgmpic Association and an eminent sportsperson of the concerned sports discipline mag be inuited as special inuitees for their aduice as and uhen required bg the Committee. (xiu) The eligibility certificate i"ssued bg the Committee shnll be foru;arded to the Recruiting/Agencg Appointing Autlaritg for appointment under sporfs quota in uarious categoies of posfs tn different Departments on the basis of Merit-Cum- Sports Eligibilitg Certificate against the notiftcations issued bg them. (xu) Eligibilitg Certiftcates issued bg the Committee shall be ualid for the notification issued bg Recruiting Agencg/Appointing Auttnritg, which shall be mentioned intlrc certificate. From the above clauses, it is noticed that clause-ii refers to Annexuie-I-And Annexure: the individuals in having obtained Medals / participation in disciplines, shall be criteria for deciding meritorious sportsperson.

52. He further submits that in respect of clauses (xii to xv), it is made clear that the recruiting agencies shall call applications from the meritorious sportsperson along with the certificates in the prescribed Form-I, Form-II, Form-III and 32 Form-IV, 2s the case may be, i.e. in the prescribed Form against the posts referred to in the respective Forms. The said certificates along with the respective Forms shall be forwarded to the Sports Authority to scrutinize the genuineness and the medals/ran.ks of the applicants. Thereafter, the said applications shall be forwarded to Committee al- Government level referable to Clause (xiii), which shall ftnalize the proposals and issue eligibility certificate for appointment under sports quota and the same shall be forwarded to the recruiting agencies for appointments under sports quota in various categories of posts against the Notification issued by them. It is made clear in Clause (>ru) that the recommendation of the Committee in the eligibility certificates shall be valid for the Notification which shall be mentioned in the certificate.

53. He further submits that in W.P. No.32196 of 2024 the petitioner has submitted certi{icate along with Form-III and he is eligible for appointment to a meritorious sportsperson for employment to Group-IV post/service under State Government/similar posts in Government Institution. The Committee constituted under Clause (xiii) after duly considering the certificate, forms submitted by the petitioner, has forwarded the eligibility certificate to the Public Service 33 Commission that he was not eligible to be appointed against Group-I & Group-ll posts under meritorious sportsperson quota. On the basis of the said eligibility certificate issued by the Committee, the petitioner's case could not have been considered under meritorious sportsperson against Group-l & Group-II posts.

54. He further submits that the argument being advanced by the petitioner that annexures and forms there under cannot take away the objective of the G.O.Ms.No.74 and that once petitioner is deemed to be a meritorious sportsperson, he would be entitled for all the posts under meritorious sportsperson quota, is untenable and specifically denied.

55. He further submits that Clause (xii) categorically refers to Annexure-ll[ and forms there under and the meritorious sportsperson shall submit their certificate along with appropriate form which refers to the posts. Clause (xv) makes it clear that it is the eligibility certificate issued by the Committee that determines whether the candidate is eligible to be appointed for the post notified and such eligibility certilicate shall be valid only for the Notification which shall be mentioned in the certificate as forwarded to the recruiting agency only. 34

56. He further submits that though the petitioner is aware and as has been the procedure for more than a decade, persons applying for posts under meritorious sportsperson quota, submit their certificates along with the form prescribed under Annexure-Ill. The Annexure which is part and parcel of the G.O., is clear and unambiguous to its application referred to in Clause (xii) i.e., "Application with certificates in Form-I, Form-ll, Form-lll and Form-IV, as the case may be, which r,vould mean respective forms to the respective posts referred to in the form

57. He further submits that the meritorious sportsperson quota is a horizontal reservation and the Ruie also clearly states that in the event of non-availability of eligible meritorious sportsperson for the post notified, the said post shall be filled up from the open category. In the instance case, only candidates with Form-I were eligible to participate against the Group- 1 post and allowing candidates with Form-III would not only bring an illegality of allowing inetigible persons but also taking away rights of open category persons, who would otherwise become eligible against such posts of such meritorious sportsperson post-left unfilled due to non- availability of eligible meritorious sportsperson with Form-I. 35

58. He further submits that the petitioner is not eligible to Group-I & Group-Il posts under meritorious sportsperson quota as he does not possess certificates of International representing India in as International Competition/Multi- National Competition as specified in Form-I & Form-ll of Annexure-Ill referred under Clause (xi| under Notification issued vide G.O.Ms.No.74, dated 09.OB.2OL2. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.

59. He further submits that the Andhra Pradesh High Court passed the orders in favour of the petitioners in W.P.No.252B of

2023. But the Andhra Pradesh High Court passed the said order before the amendment of G.O.Ms.No.74. There is no amendment in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Government Order is not correct. There are amendments 13 and 14. He also submitted that Government Order is not challenged and also from day one, the same process is going on in the policy of the State and interference in the selection process is unwarranted. He specifically contended that all the Writ Petitions are filed with abnormal delay. In the said circumstances, Writ Petitions cannot be entertained. He also submitted that, as per the contentions of the petitioners, every person is eligible for every post, is not tenable. 36

60. Sri B.S. Prasad, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri S. Goutham, in W.P.No.28035 of 2024, submitted that this Court passed an interim order on 04. LO.2O24 as under: "The respondents are directed to keep one post of Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector under Sporfs Quota in Multi Zone-II uacan| if not already filled." He further submitted that though the petitioner was issued Form-I certificate and also was provisionally selected to the post of Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector in the Transport Department under sports quota in Multi Zone-Il, but the petitioner was not called for finai selection due to interim order passed by this Court. He further submitted that the official respondents committed error in keeping the filled post vacant. Once a provisional selection notification is issued notifying petitioner's name for the post vacant under the sports quota-, it is deemed that the said post is filled. The Writ Petitioner being well aware of this petitioner's details, intentionally not made him as a party to th.e Writ Petition and in view of the interim order, the unofficial respondents are going to lose their posts. Accordingly, prayed to vacate the interim order. 37

61. Smt. Rachana Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, argued on behalf of Sri Mohammed Baseer Riyaz in W.P.No.344O8 of 2024 that the unofficial respondents are going to lose their post because of lnterim Orders. Due to Interim Orders of this Court, the post was not allotted to the respondents. She further submitted that no rules were challenged in the Writ Petition.

62. Learned Standing Counsel for Telangana Public Service Commission submits that policy was evolved prior to G.O.Ms.No.74, an.d 25 years old policy is G.O.Ms.No.84. He also submitted with regard to A.P. judgment clause (xvii) that there is no amendment in Andhra Pradesh. ANALYSIS OF G.Os., NOTIFICATIONS, RULES, CASE LAUIS AND FINDINGS OF THE COURT: To support the cases of learned counsel for respective parties, they relied upon the following judgments:

63. Learned Senior counsel Sri Madhan Mohan Rao argued on behalf of the petitioners and he has relied upon the following judgments: 38 In Nirendra Kumar Saha & others Ys. Steel Authority of ludia Ltd,, and otherst ; "37. .Before parting with this case I am, hovvever, of tha considercd opittion that a few words may be said regarding the doclrine of comity o.f Court v'hich demands that Courts take a consistent and uniform approach tou,ards administration ofjustice by taking ddequate core k) ensurc climination of conJlicting orders. The issue raiscd in thesc t'rit pelilittns lns been substanti.llly answercd b), no les-s than three l{igh Courts atrl I have .found lo reasons to dffir with than. The Hon'ble Supremc (lotu't, in the case of India Household and Heolthcare Ltd. v. LG Household and Healthcarc Ltd., reported in 2007 (5) SCC 510, has, inter alia. lrcld that the doctrine of comity or amity reqrdres a Com't not to poss an ortlcr which would be in conJlict with another order passcd by a u)nq)etcnt Court of Law. Thus, additionally, I am also of the view thdt lh(t present cose is an instance where the doctrittt: of comit.t' or aruity oJ Court is applicable, since Courts of coordinatc benches as nell as o l)ivision Bench of another High Court hate substantially addrcssed the issue raised in the present writ petitions and have come to tmilitrm dnd consistent fr.ndings and therefore there i.s no scopc of passing an.t' conflicting order herein..". In the above mentioned case, it is observed that once one Court decides an issue, the other court cannot pass conflicting orders against the same issue. The above case referred to by the petitioner shows that the neighbouring State has already passed an Order regarding sports quot:1, interpreting G.O.Ms.No.74 (which was adopted by the Government of Telangana), which is contrary to the r 2009 SCC online Cal 619 39 respondent's contention herein. The respondent authorities did not agree with the petitioners' contentions. In the said circumstances, petitioner relied upon the above said case and the case law supports petitioners' contention.

2. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai Vs. Tulsyan NEC Limited/ "2O. Lastly, it is immaterial that the releuant form prescibed under the Income Tax Rules, at the releuant time (i.e. before 1.4.2007), prouided for set-off of MAT credit balance against the amount of tax plus interest i.e. afier the computation of interest under Section 234-8. This was directly contrary to a plain reading of Section 115-JAA(4). Further, a form prescribed under the Rules cafT fleuer haue any effect on the interpretation or operation of the parent statute." In the above case, the Income Tax Department filed civil appeals by way of Special Leave Petitions before the Honble Supreme Court. The main ques tion 1n the case mention above is, whether MAT credit is admissible in terms of Section 1 1$-JAA against the tax payable (assessed tax) before calculating interest u/s 234 (a, b & c) of the Income Tax Act, Lg6L In this case, the relevant Form 115/JAA prescribed what is contrary to section 115-JAA (4) itself. '(zorr) 2 scc 1 40 Although it is a case of Income Tax, the learned counsel for the petitioner has emphasized. the importance of the Forms and Statues regarding the Act. The above case law is taken into consicleration for the vaiidity of. Forms and statutes. In the present case, the TGpsc prescriberl Form-I, Form-ll etc., in the sports quota, which is not mentioned in the Statutes. The said Statutes are discussed only in relation to Annexure-I (Recognized Sports by the authorities), Annexure-Il (Recognized priority list, numbered from 1 to 9o). There is no discussion in the G.os., with regard to Forms. The Rules only said "meritorious sportsper.sons", in accordance with Annexure-I and II.

3. Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. ESC'ORTS Ltd., and others;3 lt i.s meant to indicate the ordinary procedure which may be follov'ed. Shri Nartntan argued that none of the prescribed forms provitl.ed for the applicatton and grant of subsequent permission. That may t e so for the obvtous reason that ordinarily one would expect pernti.ssion to be sought and given before, the act. Surely, the Form cannot control the Act, the Rules or the directions. As one learned judge of the Madras High Court was fond of saying ,,it is the dog that wags the tail and not the tail that wags the dog." '(rgso) 1 scc 264

41. In the above case, Escorts Ltd., objected to the purchase of its shares by Foreign Companies of the CAPARO group without prior permission RBI under FERA. Escorts refused to register those share transfers. Further, Escorts Ltd., argued that under Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA) prior permission of the RBI was mandatory before a non- resident could purchase the share, pointing out that the prescribed application forms and the exchange control manual required "prior permission." The Honble Apex Court held that Section 29(1Xb) of FERA uses the word "permission" without the qualifier "prior" Parliament in other sections of FERA had expressly used "previous permission" where it intended so. Since it was omitted Section 29(1)(b), it was deliberate. Therefore, the RBI had discretion to grant permission before or after the purchase {ex post- taeto)- --- The above case is also similar to the previous case. However, the issue is addressed in relation to the Forms and Act, where TGPSC initially did not request any information regarding the Forms. Subsequently, Web Note was issued on

22.07.2024 and 20.08.2024 seeking Form-I for Group-I & II candidates, Form-II for Group-III candidates. In the said circumstances, a Latger Bench of the Supreme Court observed 42 that "it is the dog that wags the tail and not the tail that wags the dog." It means the Forms cannot control the Act, the Rules of the directions.

64. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners Sri J. Sudheer, has relied upon the following judgments: t. Alluhabad Universiry, ETC;, Allahabod Degree College & another Vs. Geetanjali Tiwari (Pandy) & others ETC ETC, *OAI INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES I-lon'ble O Chinnappa Reddy, J.. (as l{is Lordship then was) in Girdhari Lal & sons v. Balbir Nath Mathur (1986) 2 SCC 237, in His Lordship's inimitable stvle had the occasion to emphasize: "6. Il nny be vtorthwhile to restate and explain at this stage certain well-knovun principles of interpretation of statutes: Wortls are but mere vehicle.s thoughts. They are meant to express or convey one's thoughts. Generally, a person's words and thoughts are coincidental. No problem arises then, but, not tnfrequently, thev are not. It is common experience with rnost men, that occasionally there are no adequate words to express some of'their thoughts. Words whtch very nearlv express the thought:; may be found but not v,ords which will express precisely. There is then a great fumbling for words. Long-windecl explanations and, in conversation even gestures are resorted to. Ambiguous words and w,ords w,hich unwittingly convey more that one meaning are used. Where clifferent interpretations are likely to be put on words and q question arises what an individual meant when he used certain words, he may be asked to explain himself and he may do so and say that he meant one thtng and not the other. But if tt is the legislature that has expressed itsel,f by making the laws and dfficulties arise in interprettng o 2024 La* Suit(SC) 1181 il'pltotrt aw lo saruuDJtl nqto aW q spJott lo tuuott(1 atfi ppv ot tou atD aM puo utato8 o! tou puD aMas ol ruDau afi sptoll 'paga uaat8 aq rcu pruoqs 'suDaru nqlo tq tQtoa1c'pau!rutapp aq uDc Ttlt 'atnlo1s8a1 aqtto uouuaru! arul aql tqt uosDat ou s! aaql saspc q"ns w latryo1sr8a1 ary to uo1rua|ut aql walap uana {ow puo taruoc lou saop sprotut aql lo Sutuoau utold aW ruW a1qlssod aq saulpuos tou y snonBrqwDun puo na1c arco! oultd aq o7 .roaddo sa7n7o7s lo sptow aqt anqw ua^g 'lunowotod st sptot aqt rcu puD atnwlsr&a1 aqt to uouuarul 'sa8pnf sD ilaM sD sraqo o7 atn7op13a1 atll lo uo!ruaru! aqt [\uru\d rb,ruoc o7 paTcadxa aq {oru sptoln uru1d asnoc?q ruq sprcil qcnslo ssauuruld aW u! c!&ow to u)Dqr ,(uo s1 anll! a_sn?caq !?y '!pt-oy yl?ld o1 na[a auB p1norys uno) Y 'uaqt o7 uaal8 aq tsna 1ca{a snon&rquoun puo u1o1d aiD salruqslo sptom aqt araqw ruqt uory)n4saoc lo alnt uap1oB pailp?-os atlt lo slsoq lDil aW sl s1q1 ',bs ,Qu1o1d sptotut aqt WLy^ papuaru! atn7op6a1 aW ruW pautnsa.td lalrt aq [ow 7t 'sa8pn[ ot sD votDls!&a1 o7 ,Qtoalc so uatlods aADq tsnru sp.toti aqt acuysaqasuallt tot yoads ,(lltourpto sptol^ qJnS 'ast)D r{ou uol\cnrtsuoc {o uollsanb ou snon8tqwDun puD JDap aJD splo*r araqlA 'as.rnoc lg 'atn7o1n3a1 aql to uoquaru! aLfi filo pu1/'ot sl 'sarur\s lo uo1lo1a.td.talut aW u? 'fi atracuoc a*r sD 'uno) o to tlsot tsowato! aq1 iswDl aql to uorwtatd.tatur to sau1ncg[rp Surtlosat lo lsu aW fioqo PS 01 st.tnoc aql a.tD trroH 'suosrad ruata[rp tq poolstapun ,(puata[tp Sutaq {o apodoc sptont aq ,{out tbtp :snonBtquD aq ,(oru sp,torvt ary lpa{anuoc aQ ol tuDaul s! ruqM taauoc ,t1a1onbapo 1ou ,(ow ull.t {q pasn sprotw atfi :lll to uopo1s13a1 ary lo :11.r1ds ary ry8noc a^Dq pu tow uorus{otp aq1 'dn don ot punoq a,ro sau1ncg{tp atout 'tuoaw taql tDq,A tno Pu{ ot n (tnoc aql uos.tad p4W D puo (atruo1s8a1 aqt lo slq8noqt aLfi sproi o7u1 s1nd uoutstlntp aql so) raqtouD lo xq&noryt aqt sp,toa o7u1 s1nd uostad auo lr 'lAoN 'sunoc aql q pailoilD s! ruDaa atruop1&a1 aLfl ruLlM 1no Sutpugf rtq suo1 aqt Suuatdta1ul lo ysq aW oS 'as!.tD uolrulatdtatut lo saulncgfip sD ua{o sD saqasuaqt ulo1dxa q ptoano{ awoc touuDc 'spnp!^lpul afipn 'satn|ols8at aW 'saulncg$rp asoql atlosat ot tls ot palsD aq puuD" atn7o7s13a7 D 'plDS sDq arryqsl8a1 aqt ruqm EV 44 fi 3J Another crisp and enlightening passage is found in Reserve Bank of India (supra) *-here His Lordshtp observed asfollows: "3j. Interpretation must depend on the text and the c;ontext. They are the bases of interpretation. One may well say if the text is the texture, context is what gives the colour. Neither can be ignored. Both are important. T-hat intcrpretation ,s hest which makes the textual interpretation match the contextual. A statute is best interpreted when we htov,why it was enacted. t{ith this lcnowledge, thc statltte mttst be read, .first as a v'hole and then section by section, c:ktuse by clause, phrase bv phrase and word by word. If a statute is looked at in the contod of its enactment, u,ith the glasses of the statute-maker, provided by suc'h context, its scheme, the sections, clauses, phrases and words may take colour and appear dffirent than when the stutute is looked at without the glasses provided bv the context...." In the above case, the petitioner's main grievance is that, despite fulfilling the eligibility criteria, she was not shortlisted for the interview. As per her score, she did not reach the cut- off marks. It happened because she was not awarded any marks under clause-7 in table (3XA) for teaching / post doctoral experience. Her past teaching experience on contractual basis and as a guest faculty, were not counted as teaching experience by Allahabad University Lrnder the regulations 10(e) and 10(0(iii) of the University Grants Commission. (Minimum qualification for appointment of teachers and other academic staff, in Universities and Colleges 45 and other measures for the maintenance of standards in higher education) Regulations, 20 18. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition and the learned Sing1e Judge rejected it. Aggrieved by the same, a Writ Appeal was filed, and the High Court passed the impugned Order observing that Regulation No. 10 has no application to Assistant Professors. Aggrieved by the same, the University has filed a Civil Appeal (arising out of SLP) before the Honble Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that such an interpretation is unsustainable in law, and the dismissal order of the Sing1e Judge was affirmed. The above case was referred by the petitioners' counsel by contending that the TGPSC had wrongly interpreted G.O.Ms.N o.74 and the Forms. The said G.O. reveals that "Meritorious sportspersons" will be decided in accordance with Annexure-I and Annexure-Il, but did not mention anything regarding. Forms. In these circumstances, Rule 2O must be read in its proper context. The question of Forms will not arise, and Forms have nothing to do with the Rules.

2. Dr. Jc;ishri Laxmanrao Patil Vs. The Chief Minister & anothers; s civil Appeal No.3123 of 2o2o 46 The Hon'ble Apex Court at para No.10 heid as follows: *7O. In the 183d Report of the Laut Commission of India, Justice M. Jagannadha Rao obserued that a stafifie is a will of legislature conueged" in the form of text. It Ls well settled. princ:iple of law that as a statute is an edict of the legislature, the conuentional wag of interpreting or constnting the statute is to see the intent of the legislature. The intention of legislature assimilates two ctspects. One aspect carries the concept of 'meaning' i.e. u.that the word means and anotlrcr aspect conueys the concept of 'purpose' and 'object' or 'reason' or 'approaclt peruading through the statute. The process o/ construction, therefore, combines both l.iberal and purposiue approacttes. Howetter, necessitA of interpretation would arise only where a lan.guage of the statulory prouision is ambiguouq not clear or where tuto uiews are possible or tuhere the prouision giues a different meaning defeating the object of the statute. He supported his uiew bg rekrring to two judgments of this Court in R.S. Nagak u. A.R. Antulay; (1984) 2 SCC 183 and Grasim Industries Ltd. u. Collector of Customs, Bombau, (2OO2) 4 SCC 297. It was held in R.S. Nayak (suprct) that the plainest dutg of the Court is fo giue effect to the natural meaning of the words used in the prouision if the words of the statute are clear and unambiguous.

12. It is a recognised rule of interpretation of statutes that tlrc expressions used therein should ordinarilg be understood in a sense in which theg best harmonise with tlrc object of the statute, and which effectuate the object of the legislahtre. Howeuer, the object-oriented approach cannot be canied to the ertent of doing uiolence to the plain language used bg re-turiting the section or structure word-s 47 in place of the actual words used by the legislature. The logical corollary ttmt ftows from the judicial pronouncements and opinion of reputed authors is that the pimary rule of construction is literal construction. If there b no ambiguitg in the prouision which is being construed there is no need to look beyond. Legislatiue intent uthich is crucial for understanding tlrc object and purpose of a prouision should be gathered from the language- The purpose can be gathered from erternal sources but anA meaning inconsistent with the explicit or implicit language cannot be giuen.' In the above case, question involved pertains to the interpretation of the Article 342-A of the Constitution. The Hon'lrle Apex Court, while interpreting Article 342-A found, an ambiguity in Article 342-A(1) about "CENTRAL LIST." As a statute is an edict of the legislature, the conventional way of interpreting or construing the statute is to see the intent of the legislature. The intention of legislature assimilates two aspects. One aspect carries the concept of 'meaning' i.e. what the word means and another aspect conveys the concept of 'purpose' and 'object' or 'reason' or 'approach pervading through the statute. Moreover, u.pon plain reading of the G.Os and the Rules, there is no ambiguity. However, clause (ii) of the G.O.Ms.No.74, which deals with 48 deciding meritorious sportspersons for 2o/o reservation, refers only Annexure-I and II, but not Annexure-Ill. In the case at hand, the authorities also misconstrued the provision / Rules. This observatiorl supports the petitioners' case.

3. J. Venkat Balaji Vs. The State ofAndhra Pradesh represented. bg the ChieJ Secretdry, and. another6. "Whetler ttLe dog can wag tlLe tail or the tail u;ill utag the dog" is the question in this case. Factual Matrk in Bief: The petitioner is a candidate seeking employnuznt in Group-l of the State seruices. He has cleared the preliminary and the moin written examination. He is a sportsman, ulho has plaged Competitiue Tennis at a certain leuel. He seeks emplogment under the 2o/o Sports quota. Afier qualifuing in the matn examination, the petitioner was asked to submit his eligibilitg certiJicates/ sports certiftcates bg an ernail dated O3.O6.2021. The same were refened to a committee constituted bg respondent No.2. The said cornmittee by its order dated 31.05.2021 rejected the petitioner's case on the ground tlnt he has not represented India in an International Competition, Multinational Competition os prescibed in Form-I of Annexure-l . (ix) In the quota of tu)o percent (2%) set apatT for sports reseruation for meritorinus sports persons, indtuidual euents u w.p.No.11osz of z o2t, dt.zg.o7.2ozL 49 haue to be giuen preference ouer team euents within a prioritg. (x) Participation at higher leuel shall be considered onlg when it is supported by uinning medals at the louter leuel. "Meitorious 2(19) Meritorious Sportsman: Sportsman" means a sportsman who has represented the State or the Country in a national or international competition or Uniuersities in the Inter-Uniuersity tournaments conducted by the Inter-Uniuersity Boards or the State School team in the national sports/games/for schools conducted bg the All India School Games Federation in any of the games, sporfs, mentioned below: and any other games/ sports as may be a specified by the Gouentment from time to time. (emphasis supplied) Relying upon the leading judgment of the Supreme Court of India in Life Insura.nce Corporation of India us. Escorts Ltd. and Ors., the learned senior counsel argues that the form cannot control substantiue portion and draws fhis Courts attention to the phrase that 'the d.og can wag its tail and. not Aecording to -him, the form eannot restrict- or limit the criteia that is already fued in the notification and the G.O. -'ufce-'u-e-fsao: The Group-I aspirants filed the above case. While applying for posts, he filed his sports certificate. After verification, the petitioner was asked to submit his eligibility certificate/sports certificate by an email, dated 03.06.2021. The Committee rejected the same on the ground that the petitioner not represented India in an International/ 50 Multinational Competition. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached A.P. High Court and finally, the said Writ Petition was allowed. Subsequently, the Writ Appeal was filed by the APPSC challenging the order of the learned Single Judge, which was later dismissed as withdrawn. Therefore, order became final and no other appeal is filed till now A similar case is on hand with similar set of facts. A11 the petitioners' cases were rejected on the grounds that they did not represent India in an International/Multinational Competition and were rejected accordingly. The petitioners approached this Court. This Court granted inter-im direction to participate in the examination. The observation of the Hon'l:le High Court of A.P. is applicable in the present case also.

65. Sri Chikkudu Prabhakar, Learned counsel for the petitioners, has relied upon the following judgments: 1 . Shank rrrso;n Dash Vs. tlnion of Indiaz

7. It is not correct to say that if a number of uacancies are notified. for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the success.,lful candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied. Ordinarily the notification merelg amounts to an inuitation to qualified candidates to apply for '(rggr) 3scc47 51 recnitment and on their selection they d"o not acquire ang right to the post. [/nless the releuant recruitmertt rules so indicate, the State is und.er no legal dutg to filt up all or ang of the uaconcies. Howeuer, it does not mean tlnt the State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary maruter. TLte decision not to fill up the uacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropiate reasons. Arud if the uacancies or any of them are filted up, the State is bound to respect the comparatiue merit of the candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test, and no discrimination can be permitted. This correct position has been consistently followed by this Court, and u)e do not ftnd anA discordant note in the decisions in State of Haryana u. Subhash Chander Manlaha, Neelima Shangla u- State of Haryana, or Jatendra Kumar u. State of Punjab. B. In State of Haryana u. Subhash Chander Marutaha' 75 uacancies of Subordinate Judges were aduertised, and out of the selection list onlg 7, who had secared more than 55 per cent marks, u)ere appointed, although under the releuant rules the eligibilitg condition required only 45 per Court had recommended earli.er, to the Punjab Gouernment tltat only the candidates securing 55 per cent marks or more sltould. be appointed. as Subordinate Judges, the other candidates included in the select list were not appointed". They fited. a wit petition before the High Court claiming a ight of being appointed on the ground that uacancies existed and they u)ere qualified and were found suitable. Tlrc wit application was allowed. While reuersing the decision of the High Court, it was obseraed bg this Court *wt it was open to the gouernment to dectde lww mang appotntments should be made and altlwugh the High Court had appreciated the position 52 correctlg, it had "somehaw persuaded itself to spell out a right in the candidates because in fact there u-tere 75 uacancies". It uas expresslg ruled that the existence of uaca.ncies does not giue a legal right to a selected cand.idate. Similarlg, the claim of som.e of tlrc candidates seler:ted for appointment, tuho were petitioners in Jatendra Kumar u. State of Punjab, was tumed down holding thot it u)as open to the gouemment to decide hotu mang appointrnents would be made. The plea oJ arbitrariness was rejected in uiew of the facts of the case and it was held that the candidates did not acquire anA ight merelg bg applging for selection or euen afier selection. It is true that the claim of the petitioner in the case of Neelirrut Shangla u. State of Haryana, was alloued bg this Court but, not on the ground that she had acquired any right bg her selection and existence of uacancies. The fact uas that the matter had been refened to the Public Seruice Commissiort u-thich sent to the gouernment onlg the names of 17 candidotes belonging to the general category on the ossumption that onlg 17 posts were to be filled up. The gouemment accord.ingly made only 17 appointments and stated before tle court that theg were unable to select and appoint more candidates as the Commission had not recommended ang other c:andidate. In this background it u-tas obserued that it is, of <:ourse, open to the gouemment not to fill up all the uacancies for a ualid. reason, but the sebction cannot be arbitrarilg resticted to a feut candidates notwithstanding the number of uacancies and the auailabilitg of Etalified candidates; and, there nutst be a @nscious application of mind bg th.e gouentment and the High Court before the rutmber of persons selected for appointment is restrtcted. The fact that it was not for the Public Serube Commission to 53 take a decision in this regard was emphasised in this judgment. None of these deci.sions, therefore, supports the appellant. In the above case, the main grievance of the petitioner (who got appointed to Delhi, Andaman and Nicobar Police Service) is that he was not appointed in the vacancies that arose due to the non-joining of IPS selected candidates. Even though the said fallout vacancies were filled by candidates from the reserved categories, the petitioner, who belongs to the general category, was not appointed in the said vacancy. Hence this appeal (referred by Division Bench). The petitioner's contention is that non-appointing him to the said vacancies in the IPS cadre and carrying them forward to the next Notification is arbitrary and a violation of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. In the case at hand, the respondents, although reserving 2oh vacancies for meritorious sportspersons, are filling up the said vacancies based on the classification in Annexure-I[I (Forms). In the event of meritorious sportspersons are not available, the reserved vacancies shall be allotted to the general category. The petitioners are questioning the non-allotment of resenred vacancies, despite having the requisite sports certilicates as per the G.Os and Notifications. However, the 54 petitioners were disqualilied by the Forms. After disqualifi<:ation, the said vacancies are ailotted to general category for r,r,ant of meritorious sportspersons, which is bad in Iaw. Moreover, it is pertinent to mention that throughout the recruitment process, there is no other sportsperson other than the petitioner, even though the authorities rejected the case ol the petitioners under the guise of the requisite Forms.

66. Learned Special Government Pleader, on behalf of learned Additional Advocate General, has relied upon the following judgments: l. State of M.P. qnd. others Vs. Nandlal Jaisutal and otherss "23. We mag first consider the question of laches or delay in ftling the urit petitions because tlnt i.s the question which hos been decided bg the High Court against tlrc petitioners and tlrc petitioners haue challenged the arrectness of the fi.ndin11 reoched bg the High Court on this point. The policy decision impugned in the utit petitions was taken on December 30, 1984. The Letter of Intent uas issued in fauour of each of respondents 5 to 11 on February 1, 1985 and th.e Deed. of Agreement u)as exeanted on February 2, 1985. Each of rbspondents 5 to 11 thereafier proceeded to purchase land where the new distilleries were to be located and incurred large expenditure in purclnse oJ' such land and secuitg deposit in a fairlg large amount utas also paid " 1tsael + scc se6 55 bg each of respondents 5 to 11. Thereafier ciuil construction work for putting up the distillery buildings was entrusted to reputed builders and uaious steps were taken bg each of respondents 5 to 11 for obtaining reqrisite permission/con- sent from Madhga Pradesh Pradushan Niuaran Mandal. The construction of the distillery buildings was started and in manA cases considerable progress was made in the construction. Each of respondents 5 to 11 also placed orders for plant and machinery and this too inuolued considerable amount of expenditure. All this had to be done with quick dispatch because the distilleies were required to be readg fo, production bg Apnl 7, 1986. Each of respondents 5 to 11 uorked indefatigably, ceaselessly and in all earnestness and spent considerable time, energy and resources in setting up the distilleries at the new sites and by the time the writ petitions came to be filed each of respondenfs 5 to 11 had spent at least Rs.l.S crores if not more, orl acquisition of land, purchase of plant and machinery, construction of di.stiltery buildings and other incidental and ancillary expenses. The first writ petition was fileQ_pg NgryQl,gl J-qi-sqglg?-ry-qygmber 28, 1985 about 11 montls afi.er the date of the impugned policg decision, while the second wit petition came to be filed bg Sagar Agarwal euen later on January 24, 1986 and tlrc third writ petition of M/ s Doongaii & Ca. was filed when the beaing of the Jirst two wit petitions was actuallg going on in the HUh Court. There can be doubt that the petitioners were guiltg of gross delag in fiting tlrc uit petitions with the result that bg the time the wrtt petitions came to be filed, respondents 5 to 11 had, pursuant to the policg decbion dated December 30, 1984, altered their position bg 56 incu.ning l*9. expenditure toutards scttting up the distilleies .

24. Now, it is well settled that the power of the High Court to issue an appropiate urit under AAicle 226 of the Constitution is discretionary and the High Court in tle exercise of its discretion does not ordinarilg assist the tardg and the indolent or the acquiescent and th.e lethargic. If tlrcre is inordinate delag on the part of the petitioner in fiting a turit petition and such delay i.s not satbfactorilg explo.ined, ttrc High Court maA d.ecline to interuene and granl relief in the exercise of its utrit juri.sdiction. The euolution of this rule of laches or delay is prenised upon a number of factors. The High Court does not ordinailg perrnit a belated resort to the ertraordinary remedg under the u'nt jurisdiction because it is likelg to cause mnfusion and pubtic inconuenience and bring in its train new injustices. The ights of third parties mag inktruene and. if the uLrit juisdiction is exercised on a writ petition fited afier unreasonable delay, it may haue the effect of inflicting not only hardship and inconuenience but also injustice on third parties. When the wit juisdiction of the High Court is inuoked, unexplained delay coupled uith the creation of third partg ights in the meanwhile is an important factor which alwags u.rcighs utith the High Court in deciding tuhether or not to exerci.se such jurisdictton. We do not think it necessary to burden this judgment with reference to uaious decisions of this Court uhere it has been emphasised time ond again that where there is inordinate and unexplained delag and third partg rights are created in the interuening period, the HUh Court would decline to interfere, euen if the State action complained of is unconstitutional or illegal. We may onlg mention in the 57 passing two dectsions of this Court one in Ramana Dayaram Shettg u. International Airport Authoity of Indta' and tle other in Ashok Kumar Misdira u. Collector. We mag point out that in R. D. Shettg's case, euen though the State action was held to be unconstitutional as betng uiolatiue of Article 14 of the Constitution, this Court refused to grant relief to the petitioner on the ground that the writ petition had been filed bg the petitioner more than fiue montls afier the acceptance of the tender of the fourth respondent and duing that period, the fourth respondent had irucarred considerable expenditure, aggregating to about Rs.1.25 lakhs, in making arrangements fo, putting up the restaurant and the snack bar. Of course, this rule of laches or delag is not a rigid rule which can be cast in a strait- jacket forunula, for there mag be cases where despite delay and creation of third partA ights the Higlt Court mag still in the exercise of its discretion interfere and grant relief to the petitioner. But, such cases uhere tle demand of justice is so competling that the High Court would be inclined to interfere in spite of delag or creation of third partq rights would bg- -their- lery - nilLre- bs&w---md J-ar- be-tween. [Iltimatelg it would be a matter uithin the discretion of the court; ex hgpothesis euery di.scretion must be exercised fairly and justly so as to promote iustice and not to defeat it.

2. M. Sriniaas and others Vs. State of Tela nganq. qnd otherse *26. A conjoint reading of the aboue order of the Writ Court and one which is passed in Wit Appeal, uthich are relating to same Group-I selection, which is subiect matter in the ew.P.Nos.260380f 2024 and batch, dt.26.L2.20240f D.B. 58 instant batch shows that the Court declined to entertain the petition on the ground of delag in approaching the Court. It u.tas potgnantlg held that the delay on the part of the petitioners may be of onlg six manths, but in matter of this nature, daA-to-daA delay matters and the petitioners failed to exploin euen a single reason to explain the delag in approaching this Court. It is notetuorthg that Sri J. Sudheer, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.32482 of 2024 urged that G.O.Ms.No.29, dated O8.O2.2024, utas not uploaded till 16.08.2024. Thus, this fact safisfes the aspect of delag in filing the petitions....

28. The date of filing of petitions in preuious round before the Single Bench i.e., W.P.Nos.21239 and 2232O of 2024 is 02.08.2024 and 13.O8.2024 respectiuely, whereas the present batch of petitions uere ftled much after that..The challenge to same selection process in the preuious round failed on the ground of delag. Since the petitions filed prtor in time in the preuious round u-)ere not enterlained on the grounrl" of delag, it is not possible for us to persuade ourselues that subsequent round of litigation i.e., the preserlt batch can be entertained bg ignoring much larger delag. More-so, uhen the order passed in W.P.No.21239 of 2O24 got stamp of approual bg the Diuision Bench of this Court i.n Writ Appeal and the SLP before the Supreme Court was a.lso dismissed. The delag is fatal for the present petitiotts as tuell. We are not satisf.ed uith the explanation of the delay giuen in one case as disanssed aboue.

33. At the cost of repetition, it cannot be forgotten that the selection questioned in these matters is same selection uthich became subject matter of challenge in the preuious round i.e., W.P.No.21239 of 2O24. If lesser delag in filing 59 preuious round of litigation was hetd to be fatal, it is not possible to hold that a much larger delag in filing the present batch of petitions will fade into insignificance. The other contentions raised in the witten submissfons are relating to meits of the matter which cannot be gone into in uiew of delay infiling this batch of Writ Petitions." The learned Special Government Pleader referred the above two case laws on behalf of the Advocate General. The main contention of the Government on behalf of the 3'd respondent is that there is a delay of six months in liling the writ petitions, and on the ground of delay itself, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. The first case i.e. State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Nandalal Jaiswal and others; it was filed by the Nandalal Jaiswal on November 28, 1985, about 11 months after the date of the _impu gne d p o-liqlI de-qis iQ,_n. In the 2.d case, the order was passed by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court, and with regard to the delay, it is observed that "after a lapse of six months from the date of cancellation of old Notification, questioning the New recruitment, Notification i.e. 2/2024 as per G.O.Ms.No.29 was issued." 60 In the case at hand, there is no cancellation of the Notification. After issuing the Notification, a Web Note was subsequently issued with regard to the sports quota related to Form-I, which is eligible for Group-l services. Moreover, the present case is filed during the selection process. However, the issue involved in the said case is the policv decision and implementation of a 2o/o sports quota. The cases relied on by the State are not particularly relevant to the present case and also the above two case laws also cannot be considered on the grounds of legal sustainability Regarding the delay and latches, the case at hand cannot be dismissed. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. Idoreover, once the petitioners' claim is genuine and they are seeking relief as a sportsperson, their right is legal. With regard to delay and Iatches, this Court relied upon the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of htkarann Kanq. Joshi and others Vs. Maharashtra Industrial Deaelopment Corporation and others,2Ol3 (1) SCC 353, which was decided on November 2, 2012. In the said case, the petitioner 61 approached the Court after a lapse of 24 years. In the said case, Apex Court observed as follows: "L2: The State, especiallg a Welfare State which is gouerned. by tlte Rule of Lantt, cannot arrogate itself to a status beyond one that is prouided ba the constitution. our Constitution is an organic and flexibte one. Delag and latches is adopted as a mode of discretion to decline exercise of jurisdiction to grant relief. There is another facet. The court is required to exercise judicial discretion. The said" discretion is dependent on facts and circumstances of the cases. Delag and latches is one of the facets to deny the exercise of discretion. /f is not an absolute impediment. There can be mitigating factors, continuitg of cause of action etc-, that apart, if the whole thing shocks the judicial conscience, then the Court should exercise the discretion more so, when no third partq interest is inuolued.. Thus analysed, the petition is not hit by the d.elay and. latc?rcs as the same is not constittttional limitation, the cause of action is continuous and further the Situ-atio n cd rt ainly s ho cks ja dtcial cortscte nce -

13. The question of condonation of delay is one of the discretions and has to be decided on the basis of the facts of the ccrse at hand, as the same uary from case to caFe. It utiu depend upon uhat the breach of fundamental right and the remedg claimed or and when, and lww the delag arose. It is not that there is any period of limitation for the courts to exercise their power under Art. 226, nor i.s it that there can neuer be a calse where tlrc courts cannot interfere in a matter, afier the passage of certain length of time' Th'ere maA be a case where the demand for justice is so 62 compelling, that the High Court would be inclined to interfere in spite of delay. Utimately, it wouid. be a matter u,ithin the discretion of the Court and such discretion, must be exercised fairly and justly so as to promotet justice and. not t<> defeat it. The ualiditg of the party's d.efence must be tie cl up o n p inciple s sub stantiallg e quitable.

14. No hard-and-fast rule can be laid down as to when the High Court should refuse to exercise its .lurisdiction in fauour of a partg who moues it afier considerable delag and is othenpise guiltg of latches. Discretion must be exercised judiciously and reasonably. In the euent th.at the claim made by the applicant is legally sustainable, delag should" be condoned. In other words where circumstances justifying the conduct exist, the illegolity which is manifest, cannot be sustai.ned on the sole ground of latches. When substantial justice: and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserues to be preferred, for the other side, cannot claim to houe a uested. right in the injustice being done, because of a non-deliberate delay. The Court should not harm innocent parties if their rights haue in fact emerged by delay on the' part of the petitioners. Under the aforementioned circumstances, the respondent authorities contention is denied.

67. Sri P.S. Rajasekhar, learned Standing Counsel for TGPSC, has relied upon the following judgments: l. Ra,mesh lfitmar Choudhary Vs. Stcte of Rajastho,ttTo 'o 2}L2SCC onLine Raj 2824 53 "The petitioner offered his candidahtre in the recruitment aforesaid in "Backutard Class" category; and abo claimed his entitlement to be considered in other category as "Outstanding Sportsman" with reference to a certificate said to haue been issued by Sansk'it Education Department of the Gouernment of Rajasthan to the effect that he had participated in the State leuel tournament of Sansk'it Colleges in Kabaddi and uas part of the first ranking team. In the result of the witten examination taken by the petitioner for the recruitment in question, he was assigned meit number 508. Howeuer, his claim for consideration in the uacancies reserued for "Outstanding Sportspersons" category was declined bg the respondents on the ground that the documents submitted by him were not certifging him to be an Outstanding Sportsperson at international leuel. The petitioner made a representation and hauing failed to get the claimed retief, has ftted this utrit petition seeking to challenge the uatidity of the Explanation to Rule 1O the Rules of 1998. For the questions sought to be raised, appropriate it shall be to take note of the prouisions contained in Rule 1O of th; Rules of 1998 as under:- "Rttle 70: Reseraation of aacantcies .for Outstanding Sportspersons.'- Reseruation of uacancies for autstanding Sportspersons shall be 2%o of the total uacancies outside the puruieu of the Commissfon in that Aear earmarked for direct recruitment. In the euent of non- auaitabilitA, of the eligible and suitable Sportspersons in a particular gear, the uacancies so reserued for them shall be fitled in accordance with the normal procedure and such uacancies shall not be carried fonaard to the subsequent 64 Aear. The reseruation for Sportspersons shali be treated as hoizontal reseruation and it shall be adjusted in the respe:ctiue categorg to uthich the Sportspersons belorLg. Explctnation - "Outstanding Sportspersons" shall mean a.nd inclu<7e the Sportspersons belonging to the State uho haue parti.<:ipated" indiuidually or in team, in the Games recogrized bg the International. Olympic Committee and Indian Olgmpic Association or, in lnternational championships in Badminton, Tennis, Chess and Cicket recognized bg their respectiue National Leuel Association, Federation or Board; with the follou-ting descriptions for each class of the Ciuil Seruices:-- Class of Seruice Description Subotdinate Seruice Has represented lndia in Asian Games, Asian Championships, Common Wealth Garnes, World Championships, World Uniuersity Games, l,\'orld School, SAARC Games or Olgmpic Games where he (in an indiuidual item) or his team (in a team euent) ha,s obtained lst llnd or III position. The learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuouslg argueri that tlrc uery purpose of Rule 10 Ibid. stands frustrutted bg wag of the Explanation u.there the. meaning of "Outstanding Sporrspersons " has been restricted onlg to the persorLs securing 1, 2 or 3 position in international cornpetitions. It is submitted thnt from tluz practical standpoint, the beneJit of intended reseruatiort cannot be deiued because of the Explanation aforesaid; and for thi.s reason, no candidate got selected in this category in th.e recruitment in question. It is submitted that the object of prouidi.ng reseruation to the sporfspersons in the 55 emploAment is to encourage the sports actiuities and to uplift, the sportspersons but th.e Rule as framed, particularlg the Explanation thereof, run counter to such auowed object. It is also submitted that the Rule is essentiallg a part of the welfare legislation and the category enuisaged therein ought to be giuen wide meaning because the Legislature neuer intended that the prouision be framed in such a manner tlnt its operation and applicability tttould be rather impossible. The learned counsel has refened to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raheja Uniuersal Ltd. u.IVRC Ltd.: (2O12) 4 SCC 148 (paragrapls 50 and 64) and in S.K. Gupta u. K.P. Jain: AIR 1979 SC 734 (paragraph 25); and to the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Darbai Lal u. Smt. Dharam Wati: AIR 1957 Allahabad 541 (trtaragraph 3O). A look at the scheme of the Rules of 1998 as a uthole makes it clear that part-III thereof prouides for the methods of recruitment to the posts of the seruices, i.e. Rajasthan Rural Deuelopment and Panchayati Raj State Seruices and the Rajasthan Rural Deuelopment and Panchagati Raj Snfiotdinat e-Se r u ice S. G r2nOTal p ro uiSio ns in relatiOn b afle recruitment in Part IIL of course, prouide for reseruation of uacancies for scheduled castes and scheduled Tribes (trter Rule 7); and for Backward Classes, Special Backward Classes and. Economically Backward. Classes (per Rule 8). Furth.er, hori.zontal reseruation is prouided in relation to the woman candidates in Rule 9 and for Ex-seruicemen in Rule 1O-A. In the companA of these Rules i"s the questioned Rule 10 ibid. that prouides for horizontal reseruation of 2ok uacancies for outstanding sportspersons (as quoted herein before). 66 The .fundamentals of the law, per Article 16 of the Constitution of India, enuisage equalitA of opportunity in the matters of public emplogment. Of course, exceptions are prouided to the ertent of permissible classifi<:ation and for resentation for specific class o/ persons; and, as alreadg noticed, the Rules of 1998 haue otherutise prouided for reseruation of uacancies for uarious classes oJ'persons with rekrence to the social welfare requirements. So far as the sports actiuities are concemed, mag be that tlut legislature hns tltought it fit to make a prouision so as fo serue both the purposes of prouiding job opportunities to the outstanding sporfspersons and at the same time, to motiuate the sporfspersons to excel in tLrcir respectiue arena ctnd to bing laurel:; to the country but, for its uery nohtre, no such intention could be perceiued in this rule as if to create another class of persons for reseruation onlg in the nome of sports actiuities. We need not dilote much on the philosophg behind the Rule in question but this much is clear that onlg some sporfsperson.s with outstanding achieuements at"e intended to be giuen the benefit and hence, the reseruati.on itself has been trtrouided onlg for Outstanding Sporfspersons. As to uhat leuel of standing or achieuement in the arena of sports be tre:ated as 'outstanding' u)as definite:ly for the Legisla.ture to prouide. Broadlg speakiq, the explanation to the Rule puts such persons in outstanding category who haue obtained some rank in the recogniz,ed international competitions. We find nothing of fault or infirmitA in such a proposition. We haue also examined the submissions as made on behalf of the petitioners as regards the principles to be applied for 67 interpretation of expression "Outstanding" as ocanrring in Rule 10 ibid.; andfind the submissions meitless. If ute look at the normal and basic meaning of the adjectiue "Outstanding" in the dictionaies, we find that as per Chambers English Dictionary, the assignable meaning of adjectiue "Outstanding" in the present contert is "prominent: excellent, supeior". As per Webster's Dictionarg, it signifies something "standing out from a group: conspianous, prominent." As per Oxford Dictionary, if is: "Noteworthy, remarkable; exceptional". Thus, the expression "Outstanding" by itself well qualifies any partiatlar person or thing as being prominent much anuaA, apart and aboue the ordinary class; and, for any person to stand. in the category of "Outstanding" in relation to any field of actiuity, he is required to be exceptional and should stand superior to the other persons in the same field. It is but obuious that art "Outstanding Sportspersort' has to be something ouer and aboue a mere sportsperson; and for that matter, ought to be ol)er and aboue euen a good or uery good Sportsperson. A look at the Explanation to Rule 10 ibid. makes it clear that the phraseology employed therein is specificallg of the nature as to leaue nothing to doubt or guess as to what is intended by "Outstanding Sportspersons" uhere the meaning has been assigned with the phrase "shall mean and include". Thus, euen while apptging the principles in cited decisions, it cannot be taken that the phrase has been defined in the manner as to enlarge the meaning of phrase "Outstanding Sportspersons with the emplogment of the expression "means". It being not a deeming definition or of stating examples, the meaning as giuen therein brtngs 68 about more of certainty and specification, leauing no room for doubt or anA other interpretation. It is clear that the def.nition is clear and specific and no other meaning is to be assbned to the tuords or expressions defined., then as put down. in the Explanation ttself. If th.e' expression "Outstanding" is to be intt-rpreted to a parTic:tLlar leueL uhich the petitioner tuould sugeest, like that of any rank in the States or National leuel tournamen| the scope of the rule uould be unnecessailg enlarged and that too at confiict with the fundamentols of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. This particular tule is not meant for prouicling reseruation to anA person for me:re-lg being a sportsperson or for merelg hauing participctted in some tournament at some leuel. The idea has been to prouide limiterT reseruation, only to the outstanding sportsperson at international leuel; and in case of non-auailabilitg of such a candidate, to Jill up the uacancies bg the other regular categ<tries." In tlie above mentioned case, the enrire case was discussed in relation to "outstanding sportsmen." However, in the case at hand, the issue concerns "meritorious sportspersons." There is a difference between "outstanding sportspersons" and the "meritorious sportspersons." According to the Chambers dictionary "outstanding" means, excellent, slrperior or remarkable. "Meritoriolrs" means formal deserving reward or praise having merit. The TGPSC relied on the case about the outstanding observations as follows: 59 If the expression "Outstanding" is to be interpreted to a partiatlar leuel uthich the petitioner would suggest, like that of ang rank in the Sfates or National leuel tournament, the scope of the rule would be unnecessartlg enlarged and that too at conftict utith the fundamentals of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. This partianlar rule is not meant for prouiding reseruation to any person for merely being a sportsperson or for merelg hauing participated in some tourrtament at some leuel. The idea has been to prouide limited reseruation, onlg to tlrc outstanding sportsperson at international leuel; and in case of non-auailabitity of such a candidate, to fill up the uacancies by the other regular categories." Regarding the paragraph mentioned above, the particular State reservation is intended only for outstanding sportspersons. For this, no need to produce any Forms because to prove the grading of outstanding, Forms are not required. Whereas in the case on hand, vacancies will be filled up by the "Meritorious sportspersons" following the Annexure-[ i.e. recognized list of games and Annexure-Il tecognized priority list. [n such circumstances, an outstanding sportspersons is altogether different. Accordingly, the contention of the TGPSC cannot be sustained.

68. In the following case, it was decided with regard to the implementation of 2o/o sports quota as well as the policy. 70 The }Ion'lrle Supreme Court in Deo Gupta vs. PEC Uniaersitg of Technologg & othersll held as follows: '1. Special leaue granted. This appeal challenges an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No. 1a594 of 2O23, dated 14.O7.2023. The High Court rejecte.d the appellant's Writ Petition wh.ich had questioned the imposition of minimum 75o/o aggregate marks as an eligibtlitg condition (in the qualtfging examination) for enabling a candidate to claim admission in. engineering courses under th.e 2o/o sports quota.

11. ....Para 2 of the policg stated that the benefit of this sports categorA would be auailable to those uLxs "pass their qualifging examination from schools/ colleges recognised bg the Chandigarh administration and those uho studied in Chandigarh schools or colleges for at least two gears before applying for graduation certificates". The policy further stipulated that merit of the certificates, i.e, sporfs certificates utould be graded appropriatelg as A, B, C and D, an.d in descending order. Grade A contains sports per-sorrs of international standing, who represented the country or who donned the India colour in Olgmpic Games, World Cttps, tournaments and championships organised bg international federations at the highest leuels, and Commonwealth Gomes. Grade B compised of sports persons, tuho participated in World Uniuersitg/ international tournaments and games other than those in Grade A in which at least 1O teams participated, including Asian Federation Cup: Schools Games or obtained first three posifions in recognised. National Championships, Intemational championships, State Federations, Alt India " zo23 trusc e95 7L Combined Uniuersities team etc. Grade C listed participation in senior nationals / inter-Uniu ersttg tourrtaments / federation anp: Junior National Federation i.e. National School Games, WS teams participating in the national school games; first three positions in recognised Chandigarh schools game (prouided at least 7 teams participated) and seueral such other sporfs competitions and euents. Grade D listed participation in senior national championship/ national games participation in recognised junior championship; parttcipation in national school games etc...

15. This court, in Ashutosh Gupta u. State of Rajasthan explained Lrcw the reasonable classification is to be applied: "6. The concept of equality before lau does not inuolue the idea of absolute equality amongst all, which may be a phgsicat impossibility. All that Article 14 guarantees is the similaritg of treatment and not identical treatment. The protection of equal laws does not mean that alt laws must be uniform. Equalitg before the law means that among equals the law should be equal and should be equallg administered and that the likes should be treated alike. Equality before the laut does not mean that things which are different shall be treated as tltough theg were the same. It is true that Article 14 enjoins that the people similarlg situated should be treated similarlg but what amount of dissimilaity utould make the people disentitled to be treated equally, is rather a uexed question. A legislature, which has to deal with diuerse problems arising out of an infinite uanetg of human relations must of necessity, haue the pouter of making special laws, to attain partictiar objects; and for that purpose it mast lnue large powers of selection or classification of persons and things upon which 72 such lou.)s are to operate. Mere differentiotion or inequalitg of treatment does not "per se" amount to discrimination u-tithin tLLe inhibition of the equal protection clause. The State has alwags the power to make classi.fication on a basis of rational distinctions releuant to the particular subject to be dealt with. In order to pass the test of permissible classiftcation, two conditions mu.s, be fulfilled namely (i) that the classification must be founded on an intelli.qible differentia which distinguishes per.sons or thtngs that are grouped together from others uho are l<:.fi out of the group, and (ii) that that differentia must hau<z a rational relati<tn to the object sought to be achieued bg the AcL What is ner:essary is that there must be a nexus between the basis o/ classification and the object of the Act. When a lanl is challenged as uiolatiue of Article 14, it is necessary in the first place to oscertain the policg underlying the statute and the object intended to be achieued bg it Hauincl ascertained the policy and the object of the Act, the court hos to applg a dual test in examining the ualiditg, the test b<ting, uthether the classifrcation is rational ond based upon ()rL intelligible differentia which distinguished persons or things that are groupczd together from others that are left out of the group, and uthether the basis of differentiation has anA rational nents or relation' with its auotued policg and objects. In order that a law may be stntck down under this article, the inequalitg must arise under the same piece of legislation or under th.e same set of lau.ts which haue to be treated together as one enactment. Inequalitg resulting from tuo different enactments made by two different authorities in relation to the same subject will not be liabl.e to attack under ArticLe 14" 73 It has also been held, in State of J&K u. Triloki Nath Khosa' that *the object to be achieued" should not be "a mere pretence for an indiscriminate imposition of ineqtalities and the classification" shoutd not be "characterized as arbitrarg or absurd". The judgment in Venkateshwara Theatre u. State of A.P, is a decision where this court pointed out, to how discimination ari"ses, if persons who are un-equals are treated as equals, thus: "JLtst as a difference in the treatment of persons similarly situate leads to discimination, so also discimination can aise if persons who are unequals, i.e. dffirentlg placed, are treated similarly.... A lau prouiding for equal treatment of unequal objects, transactions or persorls would be condemned as discriminatory if there is absence of rational relation to the object intended to be achieued by the law."

17. In Subramo,nion Swanng a Centrq.l Bureau of Inaestigatiott, this court frowned upon, and declared uoid, a classification based on status in public employment, characterizing that it defeats the purpose of the underlging - law, i.e- combating corntption: *59. It seems to us that classifrcation which is made in Section 6-A on the basis of status in gouernment seruice is not permissible under Article 14 as it defeats the purpose of finding pima facie truth into the allegations of grafi, which amount to an offence under the PC Act 1988. Can there be sound differentiation betuteen comtpt public seruants based on their status? Surely not, because inespectiue of their status or position, cotrupt public seruants are corrupters of public power. The corntpt public seruants, uhether high or how are bird.s of the same feather and must be confronted. with the process of inuestigation and inquiry equallg. 74 Based on the position or status in seruice, no distinction can be made between public seruants against uLlnm there are allegations amounting to an offence under the PC Act, 1988. On an objectiue application of the principles outlined aboue, this <:ourt is of the considered opinion that the objectiue of introducirLg the sports quota i.e. 2o/o of intake, was to promote and encourage those who excelled and gained a certai.n degree of prescibed proftciency and achieuement in defined competitiue sports. The introductiort of this quota was to promote sports, and sportsmanship in educational institt-ttions. No doubt, the state acts tuithirt its ights to prescibe a certain minimum eligibilitg standard or set of citei.a as the threshold requirement for adnission to any pafti(rular course, giuen its peculiar require:ments. The Punjob and Hargana High Court, thus, upheld the presciption of a cut off eligibilitg standarrl. of securing minimum 15ok in the qualifging examination, in Jagatpreet Kour And Ors. us Punjab Uniuersitg": "The petitioner has himself stated that the ltrospectus for Punjab ErLgineerirLg College had specifrcally prouided that there would a minimum cut off aggregate of 1 5 marks. The respondents-Uniuersity haue onlg introducerl. the criteia uthich ensures tlrc bare minimum of acaderric excellence uthich would be required of a student who is nltimatelg to become an Engineer. In Amardeep Singh Sahota's ccse (supra) the Full Bench has categoicallg held that these are students utho ruill ultimatelg serue humanity. Excellence in Sports mag be a releuant ansideration, but a certoin minifirum academic standard is required to be maintained." The objectiue of introducing sports quota, laweuer, is not to accommodate academic merit, but something altogether 75 dffirent: promotion of spo#s in the instittttion, the uniuersity, and ultimately, in the country. Among others, uniuersities are the nurseies or the catchment for sportspersons, who can represent tn state, national, international leuel and Olympic sports. At the same time, the state or educational institution can insist upon a minimum eligibility condition. That is not to sag that such condition would necessaily and mandatoily haue to be what is applicable to general (or open category) candidates. The latter kind of citeria would tend to exclude meritorious sportspersons, and place the less (academically) meitoious sporfspersons, at a disaduantageous position, because they satisfg the open category candidates' criteion of higher academic meit. For instance, it is quite possible that a sportsperson, who has and continues to represent the country in international Olympic sporfs, and gained such excellence as to haue bagged a medal or two, in sag, wrestling, would be altogether excluded in the euenfualitg of a wrestler, of the same category (but who has neuer reached the national leuel) secuing BOo/o marks in the _qua!fuing examinattg\t, It exaclg this cpnsequellce- whlch this court had warned would be the "unequal application" of a uniform criteria, a wooden equality without regard to the inherent differences, which Article 14 frouns upon, and forbids.

18. The conclusion drawn by the court is also supported bg the fact that the sporfs policg of 2023 gouerning admissions, was euolued with a careful eye to detail, to ensure that performance in sport, rather than academic meit, was the ctnsen citeion to be applied for filling tlrc 2o/o sports quota. Another reason uhich leads this aurt to conclude that discimination has resulted, is because in 76 respect of sports too, the state has lowered the criterion for those enjoging uertical classification, under Article 15 ft). In such euent, it was open to the state to lower the eligibilitg criterion, for sports quota, to other candid.ates too; the dissimilaitg in treatment is therefore, egregior.rs.... Lastly, the sports policy, itself underlines that the quota would be auailable to students who "pass their qualifying examination from schools/colleges recognised by the Chandigarh administration " or had studied in Chandigarh for tuto preceding Aears. Requiing all candidates topossess a fulfill a certain eligibilitg standard- such as the one, prescribed in the sports policy, of 2O23 (alludczd to) or the qualifying marks prescribed by the concerned Board, or uniuersitg, to pass in the concerned subjects is entirely different from the presciption of a uniform stand ard, far higher than the such a minimum threshold. The imposifion of the minimum 75% eligibilitg condition, there.fore, does not subse;rue the object of introducing the sports quota, but is, rather destructiue of it; the criterion, in that sense subverted the object and is disciminatory; it therefore, .falls afoul of the equalitg clause, in Article 14 of the Constittttion.

19. For the aboue reasons, it is held that exclttsion of the petitictner and other like candidates, on the ground of their secui.ng less than 75%o in the qualifuing exam.ination, was unutarranted and dbciminatory.... These candidates hou.teuer should. haue qualifted. in terms of the: immediatelg preceding academic year's criterion, applicable for the balance sporfs qtota seat(s). At the same time, candidates who haue been selected and giuen admission are concerned, shall not be disturbed. The process of filting the remaining uacant seat(s) - in the sporfs quota shail be completed within two weeks. Nothing said. in thb jud.gment 77 shall result in inualidation of admission of candidates in other (non-sports) categoies.' In the above case law, for implementation of sports quota respondents imposed minimum of 75%o aggregate marks in class XII (or equivalent) Board Examination as the eligibility condition for enabling the candidates to claim admission in Engineering course under 2o/o Sports Quota. This Honble Court observed that such imposition of 75o/o aggregate marks is nothing but discrimination in the implementation of the Sports Quota and it is unwarranted and discriminatory In the case at hand also, for implementation of Sports Quota imposition of only Form-I candidates are eligible for Group-I services is nothing but discrimination in the implementation of the Sports Quota.

69. To adjudicate the sports policy and implementation of the 2o/a reservation for the benefit of the fair analysis of sports quota the following rules and regulations are incorporated as under: Notification No.2 12024 dated L9.02.2024 in point No.4.7 reads as follows "The reseruation to Meitoious Sportsperson i.s applicable as per tlrc amendments mad.e to the State and. Subordinate Seruice Rules, as per G.O.Ms.No.1O7, General 78 Administration (Ser.D) Dept., Dt.27-O7-2018 that is in Rule- 2, for sub-Rule (2O) and in Rule-22(i) in sub-Rule (2), for Class-D. In implementing the reseruation to Meritorious Sporfs Person, G.O,Ms.No.OS YAT&C (Sports) Departmen| Dt.14/ 05/ 2018 will be followed. In the euent of non-auailability of eligible Meritoious Spods persons, two percent (2%) reseruation of posts for them stand lapsed." G.O.Ms.No.74, dated 09.O8.2OL2, issued by Youth Advancement, Tourism and Culture (Sports) Department reads as follows:

2. The Gouernment in consonance with the said sports policu hereby direct that the recruitments at all leuels utill haue a sports qtota reseruation of tuto percent (2o/o) for meritonous sporfspersons in all posts of State Gouernment Departments, Dducational Institutions, Local Bodies, Corporations, Boards, Authorities, Grandhalaya Samsthas, Market Committees and other establishments which are funded or aided bg the State Gouentment uthere direct recru.itment is one of the methods of appointment, herei.nafier. The fotlowing NOTIFICATION wilt be published. in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette:- In pursuance of the Sports Policg declared in G.O.Ms.No.84, Youth Ad.uancement' Tot4rism and. Culture (sports) Department, dated: 04-O5-2000, wherein orders were issued ertending tuo percent (2%) Sports reseruation in fufire direct recruitment in Gouernment at all leuels, the follouing gnidelines are issued for gouerning such appointments: 79 (t) Th.e reseruatton for recruttment under sports quota shall applA to all the Gouernment. und..ertakings/ grant-in- aid. Institutions and. other Gouernment Institutions. (ii) The perforrnance of the indiuidual in hauing obtained Medals/participation in disciplines for deciding a meitoious sporfsperson, against two percent (2%) sports quota as mentioned in Annentre-Il to this order, shall be the citeion, keeping in uiew the participation in recognized sporfs disciplines as per Annexure-I to this order, or as maA be reuised by the Gouerttment from time to time. (xii) Tlrc appointing authoities shall call for applications bg pubtishing in leading news pa"pers in English/Telugu/Urdu languages from meritoious sporfspersons along with the certificates in FormJ, Form-ll, Form-III and Form-IV as the case maA be, uide Annexure III enclosed to this notification and shatl submit the same to the Sporfs Authoity of Andhra Pradesh. Afier scruting bg the Spods Authoity of Andhra Pradesh, like genuineness of the certificates, ueifying medals/ranks etc., the applications will be to a Committee at Gouernment leuel in Youth Aduancement, Touism and Culture (sports) Department and the said Committee shall ftnalise the proposals. The said Committee shall issue eligibilitg certificate for appointment under Sports quota. (xiit) The recommendation of the Committee for issuing eligibilitg certificate shall be ftnal. Tlrc Committee shall consfsf of the follouing members:- (2) Prl. Secy.,/ Secy., Youth Seruices & Sports - Chairman / Chairperson (2)Prt. Secg.,/ Secg, Home Department - Member 80 (3) Prl. Secy., / Secg General Administration (Seruices) Department Member (4) Vice Chairman & Managing Director, Sports Authoritg of - Andhra Pradesh - Conuenor (xiu) The eligibility certificate issued bg the Com.mittee shall be foruarded to the Recruiting/ Agencg Appointing Authontg for aptpointment under sports quota in uaious categories of pos/s in different Departments on the basis of Merit'Cum- Sporf.s Etigibitity Certificate against the notifications issued by thetm. (xuii) In the existing 7O0 roster points as per rule 22(2)(e) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Seruice Rules, 1996, 48th and 98th point maA be earrnarked fo, reseruation under Sporfs Quota.

70. Annexure to G.O.Ms.No.74, Youth Advancement, Tourism and Culture (Sports Department, dated 09.O8.2O12). In Annexure-l (List of recognized Sports disciplines for 2%o {two percent) reservation in direct recruitment in Gorrt. Department / Govt. Institutions. In the said Annexure-I there are 29 recognized sports disciplines are there (1. Football, 2. Hockey,

3. Volleyball to item No.29 Body building (Uniform services like police, excise etc.,). 7L. Annexure to G.O.Ms.No.74, Youth Advancement, Tourism and Crrlture (Sports Department, dated 09.O8.2OL2\. [n 81 Annexure-Il priorities of sports and games for recruitment of 2o/o (two percent) reservation under sports quota such as (1. Gold Medal in Olympic Games, 2. Silver medal in Olympic games, 3. Bronze medal in Olympic Games to 9O participation in the State / lnter District Championship for school games U - 19, U-17, CBSE, ICSE and Rural sports.) are there. Along with this G.O.Ms.No.74, Annexure-Ill contains the following: Form-I (for representing India in an International competition / Multinational competition in one of the recognized games / sports). In the bottom of the Form-I there is a note as follows: "This certificate will be valid only when signed personally by the Secretary, National Federation, National Association. " State_ in India in a Form-II: National competition in one of the recognized games / sports. In the bottom of the Form-II there is a note as follows: "This certificate will be valid only when signed personally by the Secretar5r of the State Association. Form-III: For representing a University from A.P. State in Inter University competition at National level / Zonal level / Regional level in one of the recognized games / sports. a2 In the bottom of the Form-III there is a no1.e as follows: "This certificate will be valid only when signed personally by Dean / Director or other Officer in overall charge of sports in the concerned University." Form-lV: For representing a State School Team in the National games for school children in one of the recognized games / sports / representation at regional and State Ievel. In the bottom of the Form-IV there is a note as follows: "This certificate will be valid only when signed personally by the District Educational Offrcer or overall in-charge of sports / games for school in the concernecl District / or District Sports Development Officer, District Sports Authority."

72. This Court is of the view that the above Forms can serve no other purpose than to prove the genuineness of the sportsperson. Severai sports academies issue sports certificates which are not recognized by the competent authorities. At that juncture, to maintain fairness, legality and the proper use of 2o/o qluota, these Forms were established. In the State of united Andhra Pradesh several examples are there; where private agencies conducted sports competitions and issued International / National Certificates to 83 the candidates. The same certificates were used for getting seats in Engineering and MBBS courses. To curb this type of illegalities in the sports / games quota, getting certificate is not only the criteria but also, along with the certificate, they have to get proper authentication by the competent authorities by way of Form-I to Form-IV and produce before the competent authorities. In the said circumstances, only the culture of Form-I to Form-IV is implemented. That is the reason why there is no mention of Form-I to Form-IV anywhere in the Rules. They mentioned "meritorious sportspersons" only. In implementation of 2o/o sports Quota, they have to depend upon onry Annexure-I & II, which is recognbed games and recognized priority rist.

73. To implement th.e 2o/o sports quota, every authority has to follow Annexure-I and Annexure-Il. At the time of filling out the sports quota, they must verify whether the sports certificate is genuine or not, with the Form-r to Form-IV which is recognized by competent authorit5r. On the contrary, respondents' counsel, while arguing the matter, stated that Group-I posts would not be allotted to the lower meritorious candidate. where there is no such rule. 84 Such an interpretation would go against the spirit of sports policy of the government. For Example:- The majority of the competitive examinations, require a Degree as the minimum qualification for any post. For the said post, the authorities must verify whether the candidates possess the minimum qualification to appear for the examination. Instead of that, the Government authorities in the State of Telangana, along with that minimum qualification, they are discriminating among the sports / games personalities. It means, for Group-I services, only Form-l sportsperson is eligible. If such is the rule, it is nothing btrt discrimination against the sportspersons. The sports quota is only for an additional qualification and not a primary qualification to get employment or a seat in the Educational Institutions and classification in above terms in against the spirit of the sports policy.

74. ln 2o/o sports quota, while following the Annexure-I and II, in Annexure-Il, there are 90 priorities. While filling up the vacancies und.er sports qrtota, they have-to follow the-priority list only. For Example:- There are four vacancies under the sports quota. While applying the priorit5r list, the authorities ask for applications under the sports quota, along with Forms-I to IV. At the time of filling up of vacancies, all the Forms have 85 to filter in accordance with the priority list; it means there are four vacancies and out of all the Forms, only two persons have the priority one certificate along with Form-I. At that juncture, the authorities follow as per the priority list out of Forms, the second priority event. If there is only one person, then they have to search for 3.d priority within the Form-I to IV certificates. Likewise, they have to follow the priority list, if there is no person under the priority list, authorities can transfer that vacancy to the open category. 75- In the state and subordinate service Rules, 1996, Rule 20 under "Meritorious Sportspersons", they only discussed Annexure-I and I[ respectively. It did not discuss about Forms- I to IV because the Forms are in no way connected with the recruitment. For the purpose of genuineness to curb the fake sports certificates, this system is adopted. Moreover, Rule 22 reads as follows: *22. special Representation (Reseruation):- (1) Reseruations mag be made for appointments to a seruice, class or category in fauour of scheduled castes, scheduled rribes, socially and. Educationally Backward classes, women, persons uith Disability, oMeritorious Sportsmanr, Ex-Seruicemen and. such other categories, as maa be prescribed bg the Gouernment from time to time, to the ertent and in tle manner specified" hereinafier in these rules or as the case mag be, in the spectal 86 rules. 'The principte of reseruation as Ltereinafier prouided shall apptA to all appointments to a seruice, class or categorg:- O bg direct recruitment, except uhere the Gouernment, bg a general or special ord.er made in this behalf, exempt such seruice, class or category. (it) c)therwise than by direct recruitment the pinciple of reseruation in the matter of promotion and appointment by transfer inuoluing promotion in so far it relates to Scheduled. Casfes and Scheduled Tribes onlg shall apply to such seruices, class or category whose total cadre strength of the post is more than fiue. Perusal of the above rule makes it clear that there is no discussion with regard to Forms.

76. Even the G.O.Ms.No.74, also with regard to Forms, is misund.erstood by the authorities. In the said G.O. clause-Il observed. as "decid.ing a meritorious sportspersons against the (2%) sports quota as mentioned in Annexure-Il and to this Order shall be the criterion, keeping in view the participation in recogntzed sports disciplines as per Annexure-I to this order-" In the said expression, there is also no discussion with regard to the Fornts. And the authorities also misunderstood (xii). "Along with certificates" in Form-I, II, III and IV are mentioned. But, nowhere it is mentioned that Form-I is the only for Group- I, Form-II for Group-II posts. It means that along with their sports certificate, every candidate has to submit Forms to prove 87 the genuineness of the certificates issued. by the competent authorities; but not for a specific Form for a specific post.

77. once any state authorities want to encourage the sportspersons, at the time of lilling up posts under sports quota in different departments, they have to follow Annexure-I and II only. If they introduce certain posts for certain Form persons only, it causes great injustice to the sportspersons. In the counter, the authorit5r said that "less meritorious sportsperson do not occupy higher scale posts and also to ensure that higher scale posts are occupied by more meritorious sportspersons." The tone of the authorities in the said submissions indicates misunderstanding as to the importance of the sports quota and it is nothing but entertaining discrimination. In the said counter, G.o.Ms.No.74 in the Gouernment sector, the jobs are to be categorized into fiue groups: Group-I seruices (Deputg collector, Dsp, Assisfant Director, cadreposts etc., ) Group-II Seruices : (Dg.TaLusildar, EO, pR & RD etc.,) Group-III Seruices: (Cleical posfs in the HOD offices) Group-IV seruices : (Cleicalposts in the Districts / Subordinate offtces) Last Grade seruices: (class IV posts like office subordinates etc.) 88 7a. If the above system follows, again, there must be discriminatit)n among the sportspersons. To that extent, there is no clarity in the policy. Authorities have mistakenly comparecl the less "meritorious sportspersons" and the more "meritorious sportspersons." In any appointments or any educational institutions, such comparison alien to GOs, rules cannot be made. The Annexure-ll directly indicates the list from the top "meritorious sportsperson" to the low "meritorious sportsperson." If the authority follows the Annexure-Il, justice will be done to the sports quota. Otherwise, thc very purpose of giving the sports quota will be vitiated.

79. As per G.O.Ms.No.S, dated 14.05.2018, the amendment clause reads as follows: In the said guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.74' YAT & C (Sport-s) Deportment, dated O9.O8.2O12 for existing clause No.(xuii) the follouing shall be substituted, narnelg. (xuii) I'rouide 2% reseruations to meritorious sportsperson honzontallg in Direct recruitment in the existing 10O roster points os per Rule-22(2)(e) of the T.S. and Subordinate Seruice Rules, 1996, 48th and 98th points meant for open competition shall be earmarked to reseruation- under Sports Quota in Direct recruitment and the said reseruation shall be hoitzontal. Further, in the euent of Non-auailabilitg of eligibte sporfspersons, the points reserued for them should 89 be deemed to be ceased and allotted to open competition in the same recruitment. Even according to the above amendment nothing is there with regard to the Forms. The authorities wrongly interpreted the same that for Group-I post, only Form-I cand.idates are eligible. In the event of Non-availability .of eligible sportspersons, the points reserved for them should be deemed to be ceased and allotted to open competition in the same recruitment, which is incorrect. But, as per the Rules and G.os., the authorities have to follow the Annexure-I & II and after following Annexure-l & II, if candidates are not available, then the points reserved for them should be deemed to be ceased and allotted to open competition in the same recruitment. Though there is no ambiguity, the authorities have misinterpreted the G.os. Thus, the issue has arisen. Accordingly, the contentions of the respondents in prescribing the specific form for specific post cannot be legally sustainable.

80. Some of the petitioners questioned the Annexure-Il (priorit5r list) itself stating that priority structure is not correct and the priority list mentioned. under Annexure-Il has not been stmctured in alignment with the Form categories outlined in Annexure-Ill. However, in order to prove their contention, no 90 d.ocumentary evidence is placed before this Court to consider the same. A.s such, their contention is rejected'

81. In vierv of the aforesaid discussion, based on the Rules and the said G.o.Ms.No.74, dated 09.o8.2012, G.O.Ms.No.5, dated i4.05.2018 and G.O.Ms.No.lo7, dated 27.o7.2018, these Writ Petitiorts are disposed of with the following directions: a. The respondent authorities are hereby directed to declare the results of the petitioners whose results were withheld pursuant to the Interim order of this court and fitl up the vacancies if they are found eligible in accordance with Annexure-l anc[ II' b. The respondent authorities are further directed to fiIl up the vacancies which were directed to be kept vacant pursuant to the Interim order of this court, if they are found eligible strictly in accordance with Annexure-l and II. c. If all the posts have already been filled up as on the date of this order, the appointments so made, shall not be disturbed. However, in all future Notifications, the respondent aut_horities shall adhere to Annexures I and II respectively while filling up the 2o/o spotts quota. The authorities shall also ask the candidates to produce Forms (I to IV) in relation to their respective sports certificates to verify their genuineness and grading so as to ensure a fair and transparent selection process under the sports quota. 91 There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. Date: L4.1O.2O25 LR Copy is to be marked B/o. BDR NAMAVARAPU RAJESHIVAR RAO, J