G.Sammaiah v. State of Telangana

4. V Prem kumar, S/o Srinivas, Aged 33 years, occ. Panchayat Secretary, r/o. D.No.8-3-244-B-71, Bharat Nagar, Karimnagar, (Hall ticket No - 241303461 . Senior National Participation)

5. P Adithi Nayana, D/o Dasharath, Aged 28 years, occ. Unemployee, r/o. plot 71:. P.h.ase -2, Sai Dwarakapuri, Nalgonda, (Hall ticket No - 243809159. Junior National Participation)

6. Gurram Sampath, S/o G Venkati, Aged 31 Years, occ. Private job, r/o.D.No.3-83, Chinnakalvala, Sultanabad, Karimnagar, (Hall ticket No 241 3'l 4450 Senior National Participation)

7. Sports Authority of Telangana State, Rep. by its Vice Chairman and lVlanaging Director, L.B. Stadium, Hyderabad. .,...RESPONDENTS Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the order dt 20.09.2024 in WP.No.25028 ot 2024. Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI M.SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondents : ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL W.P.NO: 26477 OF 2024 Between:

1. R.Ramesh, S/o. Yadaiah, Aged 28years, student, r/o. H.No.3-11, Ward No.3, Kethepally, Nalgonda. (All I ndia University Participation-Athletics)

2. B.Swamy, S/o. Chandar Lal, Aged 29 years, student, H.No.g-14, Dharana tdhanda, Warangal. (South Zone Senior Championship-chess)

3. G.Neelima, S/o. Ravinder, Aged 28 years, student, rlo. H.No.4-128, Sri Ra m nag ar, Nalgo nd a. (Zone I nter-U niversity-Hockey)

4. M.Rajesh, S/o. Ravinder, Aged 28 years, student, r/o. H.No.2-83, Medaram, Suryapet. (Participation in State lnter District Championship Seniors-JUDO) 5. P.Srinivas, S/o. Jangaiah, Aged 38 years, student, r/o.H.No.B/g0, N.S.p. Camp, [rliryalaguda, Nalgonda district (Participation in State lnter District Championship Seniors-Foot ball)

6. M..Ragh.u, S/o. Baniya, Aged 32 years, student, r/o. H.No.2-16, ltlariyathanda, Nizamabad. (Participation in State lnter District Championship Sehiors-Kho Kho)

7. K.Surendar, S/o. Durgaiah, Aged 33 years, student, rlo. H.No.1-109, Rajampeta, Kamareddy (Participation in State lnter District Championship fgr School Rural sports) B. Y.Ramulu, S/o_. Balrajaiah, Aged 34 years, student, r/o. H.No.6-7, Bibipet, Kamareddy. (Participation in State lnter District Championship for School Games -Rural sports)

9. Thamballa vijaya Kumari, D/o. T.Narayana, Aged 30 years, student, rlo. H.No.5-137, Matoorpeta village, Madhira mandal, Khammam district-507 203 ( Partici patio n in I nter-District (state Level) rournament-Foot Bar r ) l0.Chakali [\/aruthi, S/o. Hanumandlu, Aged 2g years, student r/o. 11-34t1, Jukkal, Kamareddy, Telangana - 503305 (Participation in lnter-District (State Level) Tournament - Hockey. .....PETITIONERS AND

1. 9tqtq of relangana, Rep. by its Principal secretary, Department of General Administration, Telangana Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

2. 9tate of relangana, rep. by its Principal secretary, Department of school Education, Telangana Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

3. The commissioner and Director of school Education, Telangana State, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

4. lPortt Authority of.Telangana State, Rep. by its Vice Chairman and/Managing Director, L.B. Stadium, Hyderabad.

5. state of relan_gana, rep. by its Principal secretary, youth Advancement, Tourism and Culture (Sports) Department, Telangana Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate order, writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in calling only the candidates who produce Form-ll Certificate only as per the message dated 2BtBt2O24 for recruitment under Notification No.24lRC-1/TRT/DSC/2024, dated 29t0212024 issued respondents, under sportspersons quota for SGT Teachers, vide messages dated 2Bl0Bl2O24 issued by 3rd respondent as illegal, arbitrary' contrary to G.O.Ms.No.74, Youth Advancement, Tourism and Culture (Sports) Department, dated 09/08/2012, G.O.Ms.No.107, General Administration (Ser.D) Department, daled 2710712018 read with G.O.Ms.No.S, Youth Advancement' Tourism and culture (sports)Department, dated 1410512018 and the Notification No. 24lRC-1/TRT/DSC/2024, dated 2910212024 issued by 3rd respondent, as the Form cannot control the terms of the Notification, and consequently direct the respondents to consider all the eligible candidates as per the merit, including the petitioners, in accordance with the preference of sports disciplines recognized for 2percent reservation in direct recruitment in Government Departments and Government lnstitutions from the recognized sports in terms of G.O.Ms.No.74' Youth Advancement, Tourism and Culture (Sports) Department, dated 09/08/20'12' G.O.Ms.No.107, General Administration (Ser.D) Department, dated 2710712018 read with G.O.Ms.NoS, Youth Advancement' Tourism and Culture (Sports) Department, dated 1410512018 and the Notification No.24lRC-1/TRT|DSC|2OZ4, dated 29t0212O24, read with amended Rule 2 sub-rule (22) of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, in recruitment for SGT Teachers vide Notification No.24lRC-lffRTlDSCl2024, dated 2910212024 issued by 3rd respondent, in the interest of justice. F Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the respondents to permit all the eligible meritorious sports candidates, including the petitioners, who claimed under sports quota reservation, as per the prescribed qualifying marks in the preliminary examination, in accordance with the preference of sports disciplines recognized lor 2o/o reservation in direct recruitment in Government Departments and Government lnstitutions from the recognized sports in terms of G.O.Ms.No.74, Youth Advancement, Tourism and Culture (Sports) Department, dated 09.08.2012, G.O.Ms.No.107, General Administration (Ser.D) Department, daled 27 .O7 .2018 read with G.O.Ms.No.S, youth Advancement, Tourism & culture (Sports) Department, dated 14.05.201g and the Notification No.24lRC-1/TRTlDscl2oz4, dated 29.02.2024, read with amended Rule 2 sub- rule (22) of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, in recruitment for sGT Teachers vide Notification No.24lRC- 1/TRT/DSC/2024, dated 29.02.2024 issued by 3rd respondent, irrespective of Form-l to lV referred under Annexure lll of G.O.Ms.No.74, dated 09.08.2012, in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI M.SRINMS Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : G.P FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 & 5 SRI G.SATISH REDDY W.P.N oF 2024 Between: Ms. Adluri Harshini, D/o A. Devi .Prqqad, aged 26 years, Occ. Unemployee, Fyo 3_4- 95i1l1 , sudhanagar, Hanamkonda, Hanamkonda District, Telangana'st5te-booot t. .....PETITIONER AND

1. Ielan_gana Pubtic Service Commission (TGPSC), Rep. by its Secretary, Prathibha Bhavan, Nampally, HyderabaiJ.

2. The Sta.te of Telangana, Rep. by its principal Secretary to Government, General Administration Department, Secretariat, Hydeiabad.

3. lportg Authority of. Terangana s.tate., Rep.. by its Vice chairman and Manaoing Director, L.B. Stadium, Basheerbagh, Hydeiabad.

4. Commissioner and Director of Agriculture, FatehMaidan, Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad, Telngana-500001 . Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to prayed (a) to hold non-consideration of Form-ll candidates under Notification issued for recruitment of Agriculture officers, even in the eventuality of .....RESPONDENTS non-availability of Form-l candidates is illegal, unfair and contrary to the very policy of the Government to provide reservation for sports persons under G.O.Ms.No.74, dated 09.08.2012 (b) to declare the action of the 1st respondent in misinterpreting G.O.Ms.No.74 dated 09.08.2012 and making the very policy of the Government useless and unworkable as bad, illegal, unfair and unconstitutional (c) consequently direct the respondents to treat the petitioner, who is a Form-ll candidate under the definition of meritorious sports person and select and appoint the petitioner under sports quota by revising the select list dated 26.06.2024 (d) by issuance of Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus. I.A.NO:1 OF 20 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents not to finalize the selection/ not to issue appointment orders to the selected candidates pending disposal of the writ petition. |.A.NO:2 OF 2024 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition* the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to select and appoint the petitioner against sports quota vacancy within the 2 percentage quota by replacing the last OC candidate, who was appointed against sports quota vacancy pending disposal of the writ petition. l.A.NO:3 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to keep one post of Agriculture Officer under OC-category, which was converted from the Sports Quota category pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI J.SUDHEER Counsel for the Respondent No.l : SRI P.S'RAJASEKHAR counsel for the Respondent No.2 : G.P FoR GENERAL ADM|NlsrRATloN Counset for the Respondent No.3 : SRI G.SATISH REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : G.P FOR SERVICES - t W.P.NO:27175 OF 2024 Between: Jakkula Avanindra Rao,, S/o Kantha Rao, Aged 26 years, occ Unemployee, Rio H.No.3-6-27211, Subash Nagar, Karimnagar Urban, Kirimnagar District, Tefangana- 505001. .....PETITIONER AND

1. Telangana_Public Service commission (TGpsc), Rep. by its secretary, Prathibha Bhavan, Nampally, Hyderabad.

2. The State of Telangana- Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Goveroinent, General Administration Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

3. QPortt Authority of.Telangana State., Rgp, by its Vice Chairman and tManaging Director, L.B. Stadium, Basheerbagh, Hydeiabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to(a)to hold non-consideration of Form-ll candidates under Notification issued for recruitment of Assistant Motor Vehicle lnspector, even in the eventuality of non-availability of Form-l candidates is illegal, unfair and contrary to the very policy of the Government to provide reservation for sports persons under G.O.Ms.No.74, dated 09/08/2012 (a)to declare the action of the 1st respondent in misinterpreting G.O.Ms.No.74 dated Ogl08l2o12 and making the very policy of the Government useless and unworkable as bad, illegal, unfair and unconstitutional and (b)consequently, direct the respondents to treat the petitioner, who is a Form- ll candidate under the definition of meritorious sports person and setect and appoint the petitioner under sports quota (c)by issuance of Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus. I.A.NO:l OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to keep one post of Assistant Motor Vehicle lnspector notified under Sports Quota category pending disposal of the writ petition. I.A.NO:2 O Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents not to finalize the selection/ not to issue appointment orders to the selected candidates for the post of Assistant Motor Vehicle lnspector pending disposal of the writ petition. t.A.NO: F 2024 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to select and appoint the petitioner against sports quota vacancy within the 2 percentage quota in Multizone-l pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI J.SUDHEER Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI P.S.RAJ Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : SR! G.SATISH REDDY w.P. 35 C)F Kola Sai Pavan Kumar, S/o K. Nageshwar Rao, Aged 32 years, Occ; Unemployed, Ri/o Flat No.401, 'Sri Sai Apartments Shankar Nagar, Peerzadiguda, Medchal- Malkajgiri District Telangana - 500 098. .....PETITIONER AND

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government youth, Advancement, Tourism and Culture (Sports) Department, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad. 2 lhe Telangana Public Service Commission, Rep. by its Secretary pratibha Bhavan, M.J. Road Patel Nagar, Goshamahal, Nampally Hyderabad - 500457, Telangana.

3. The Sports Authority Of Telangana Commission, Rep. by its Voice Chairman q1! .{qnqS[nO Director L.B.Stadium, Fateh Maidam, Abids, Hyderabad - 500457, Telangana.

4. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government General Administration Department Secretariat Building, Hyderabad. 5. The Commissioner of Transport,,State of Telangana, Dr. B.R Ambedkar Transport Bhavan, RTA Complei, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. 6. 9andhrl Janame Jayudu, S/o. Sandhri Vyshampai, Age. 27, Occ. Unemployed, H.No. 1 -B-139/6 Tempte Alwal, beside Alwal railway Station, Secunderabad, Telangana-50001 0. .....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 ot the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to grant appropriate relief more in the nature of Writ of Mandamud under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia, declaring the Guideline (xii) of GO Ms.No.74, Youth Advancement, Tourism and Culture (Sports) Department dated 09.08.2012 issued by the 1st Respondent herein and consequential Memo No.367/RP-2/AMVll2022, dated 26.09.2024 issued by the 2nd Respondent as arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory, unconstitutional, violating Articles 14, 16 and 21 ot the constitution of lndia and contrary to State mand subordinate Service Rules, 1996 as well as contrary to Guideline (ii) of c.O. Ms. No.74 dated 09-08-2012 and set-aside the same or alternatively, declare the Guideline (xii) of G.O. Ms. No.74 is not applicable to the recruitment made by the 2nd Respondent and consequenfly, direct the Respondents to forthwith consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Assistant Motor Vehicle lnspector in MZ-ll against the vacancies earmarked/reserved under meritorious sports person quota in preference to the candidates who got lesser marks and who are in lesser priority under Annexure - ll of G.O. Ms. No.74 than the Petitioner by considering the certificate issued by the 3rd Respondent as well as the certificate issued by the National Rifle Association of lndia. l.A.NO:1 Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to forthwith consider the case of the Petitioner for appointment to the post of Assistant Motor Vehicle lnspector in MZ-ll against the 2percent reservation provided to the meritorious sports persons provided under sub-rule 20 of Rule 2 of the State and subordinate service Rules taking into consideration the marks obtained by the Petitioner as well as the priority of the Petitioner under Annexure - ll i.e., Priority No.27 in preference to the candidates, who got lesser marks as well as lesser priority under Annexure -'1 1 to GO Ms. No.74, Youth Advancement, Tourism and culture (Sports) Department dated 09/08/2012 by considering the certificates issued by the 3rd Respondent as well as the National Rifle Association of lndia, pending disposal of the writ petition' NO:3 n ' 1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to _Government Youth, Advancement, Touiism and'Culiure (Sports) Department, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad.

2. The Telangana Public Service Commission, B"P. Oy its.. Secretary Pratibha - Bhavan, M:J. Road Patel Nagar, Goshamahal, Nampally Hyderabad - 500457, Telangana.

3. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Se-cretary to Govemment - cenerit Administraiion Dephrtnient Secretariat Building, Hyderabad. " 4. The Commissioner of Transport, State of Telangana, Dr. B.R Ambedkar Transport Bhavan, RTA Complex, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. .....PETITIONERS AND 't. Sandhri Janame Jayudu, S/o. Sandhri Vyshampa.i,.Age.27, Occ. ^. .. Unemployed, H.No. 1-8-1391Q T-eqrple Alwal, beside Alwal railway Station, Secundeiabad, Telangana-50001 0.

2. Kola Sai Pavan Kumar, S/o K. Nageshwar Rao, Aged 32 years, Occ ; Unemployed, R:/o Flat No.401, 'Sri Sai Apartments Shahkar'Nagar, Peezadiguda, Medchal-Malkajgiri District Telangana - S0O 098. 3. The.Sports Authority Of Telangana Commission, Rep. by its Voice Chairman and Managing Direclor L.B.Stadium, Fateh M;idam, Abids, Hyderabad -500457, Telangana. Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 04i10/2024 passed in writ petition No. 2g035 of 2024. .....RESPONDENTS :1 OF 20 Between:

1. The State of TqLangana, Rgp. by its Principal Secretary to Government youth, Advancement, Tourism and Culiure (Sports) Departmtlnt, Secretariat Buitding, Hyderabad. 2 The Telangana Public Service Commission, Rep. by its Secretary pratibha Bhavan, M.J. Road Patel Nagar, Goshamahal, Nanipally Hydera'bad - 500457, Telangana.

3. The Sports.Authority Of Telangana Commission, Rep. by its Voice Chairman 31!.f!3ng0inO Director L.B.Stadium, Fateh Maidam, Abifos, Hyderabad - 5OO457, Telangana.

4. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Govemment General Administration Department Secretariat Building, Hyderabad. 5. The Commissioner of Transport, State of Telangana, Dr. B.R Ambedkar Transport Bhavan, RTA Complex, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. .....PETIT!ONERS D

1. Kola Sai Pavan Kumar,9/o.K. Nlgeshwar Rao, Aged 32 years, Occ; Unemployed, Po. .ftqt !.o 401, 'Sii Sai Apartme-nts Shahkar'Nagar, Peezadiguda, Medchal-Malkajgiri District Telangana - 500 O98. 2. 9andhri Janame Jayudu, S/o. Sandhri Vyshampai, Age. 27, Occ. Unemployed, HNo. 1-8-139/6 lemple Aiwal, beside Alwal railway Station, Secunderabad, Telangana-50001 0. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under section lsl cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders dated 04hO12024 passed in W.p.No. 2BO3i of 2024. Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI P.V.KRISHNAIAH Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1, 3 to 5 : G.P FOR SERVICES' ll Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI P.S.RAJASEKHAR (SC FOR TGPSC) Counsel for the Respondent No.6 : SRI S.GOUTHAM W.P.NO:28046 OF 2024 Between:

1. Kola Sai Pavan Kumar, S/o K. Nageshwar Rao Aged 32 yea Unemployed Ryo Flat No.401 , 'Sri Sai Apartments' Shankar Peezadiguda, Medchal-Malkajgiri District Telangana - 500 098. Syed Sirai Ahmed, S/o Sri Syed Jahangir Aged 32 years, Occ. Unemployed R7o Plot Nb.60, Nakshatra Colony Balapur, Hyderabad - 500 005, Telangana. rs, Occ. Nagar, 2 .....PETITIONERS AND

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government Yo.uth, Advancement, Touiism and Culture (Sports) Department, Secretariat Building' Hyderabad.

2. The Telangana Public Service Commission, Rep. by its- Secretary Pptt!]t-a Bhavan, M.J. Road Patel Nagar, Goshamahal, Nampally Hyderabad - 500 001.

3. The Sports Authority of Telangana State, Rep. by its Vice Chairman and Manaling Director [.e. StaOium, Fateh Maidan, Abids, Hyderabad - 500 457' ._ T.S. 4. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Se-cretary to.Government General Administration Department Secretariat Building' Hyderabad. RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 ot lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to grant appropriate relief more in the nature of writ of Mandamus under Arlicle 226 of the constitution of lndia, declaring - (i) the Guideline (xii) of Go Ms.No.74, Youth Advancement, Tourism and Culture (Sports) Department dated 09.08.20'12 issued by the 1st Respondent as arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory, unconstitutional, violating Articles 14, 1 6 and 2'l of the constitution of lndia and contrary to sub-rule 20 of Rule 2 of state and subordinate service Rules, 1996 as well as contrary to Guideline (ii) of G.o. Ms. No.74 dated 09-08-2012 and set- aside the same and also declare the action of the 2nd Respondent treating the Petitioners as ineligible to participate in the main examination under Group - | Services in pursuance to the Notification No.0212024, dated 19.02.2024 issued by the 2nd Respondent and not allowing the Petitioners to participate in the main examination under Group - I Services ii) consequently, not considering the cases of the Petitioners for appointment to the posts of Deputy Superintendent of Police / MPDO under Group-l Services in pursuance of Notification No.0212024 dated 19.02.2024 issued by the 2nd Respondent against the Meritorious Sports Persons Quota reserved/ earmarked in Multi Zone-ll as per the marks/ranks obtained by the Petitioners as arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory, unconstitutional, violating Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and contrary to sub-rule 20 of Rule 2 of the Telangana State and Subordinate Services Rules as well as Guideline (ii) of GO Ms.No.74, Youth Advancement, Tourism and Culture (Sports) Department, dated 0910812012 iii) issue consequential directions directing the Respondents to allow the Petitioners to participate in the main examination under Group-i Services and consequently, consider the cases of the Petitioners for appointment to the post of Deputy Superintendent of PoliceitVIPDO under Group-l Services in pursuance of Notification No.02l2O24 dated 19.02.2024 issued by the 2nd Respondent against meritorious sports persons quota reserved/earmarked in Multi Zone-ll as per the marks/ranks obtained by the Petitioners. l.A.NO:1 OF 2024 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affldavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to allow the Petitioners to participate in the main examination under Group-l Services and consequently, consider the cases of the Petitioners for appointment to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police/MPDO under Group-t Services in pursuance of Notification No.02l2024 dated 19.02.2024 issued by the 2nd Respondent against meritorious sports persons quota reserved/earmarked in Multi Zone-ll as per the marks/ranks obtained by the Petitioners, pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI P.V.KRISHNAIAH Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 ,2 & 4: G.p FOR SERVICES - ll Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : SRI P.S.RAJASEKHAR (SC FOR TGPSC) W.P.NO: 28969 OF 2024 Between: Parikirala Sai Krishna, S/o Maisaiah, Aged 32 years, unemployee, Rl/o. 30-2-40, Beside Police Station Madikonda Rottebanda, Madikonda Kazipel, Hanamkonda- 506142 (Hall ticket No - 231 18OO425. National School games Participation) .....PETITIONER AND

1. State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of General Administration, Telangana Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

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

3. Telangana Public Service Commission, Rep !y its Secretary, Prathibha Bhavan, M.J. Road, Nampally, Hyderabad-S0O 001 .

4. Sports Authority of Telangana State, Rep. by its Vice Chairman and Managing Director, L.B. Stadium, HYderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate order, writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in balling only the candidates who have represented lndia in an lnternational competition/Multinational competitions in one of the recognized Games/Sports (Form-l), for certificate verification for recruitment under Notification No.31 of 2022, daled 3111212022 issued by 3rd respondent, under sports persons quota, vide web Note dated 04-05-2024,23-08-2024 and provisional selection web note dated 1 0-10-2024 excluding the petitioner as per participation and preference having FORM-lll issued by the 3rd respondent as illegal, arbitrary contrary to G O Ms No 74, Youth Advancement, Tourism and Culture (Sports) Department, dated OgtOBl2O12, G.O.Ms.No.107, General Administration (Ser.D) Department, dated 2710712018 read with G.O.Ms.No.S, Youth Advancement, Tourism and Culture (Sports) Department, dated 1410512018 and the Notification No.31/2022, dated 31t12t2}22 issued by 3rd respondent, as the Form cannot control the terms of the Notification, and consequently direct the respondents to consider all the eligible candidates as per the merit, including the petitioner, in accordance with the preference of sports disciplines recognized for 2 (Percent) reservation in direct recruitment in Government Departments and Government lnstitutions from the recognized sports in terms of G.O.Ms.No.74, Youth Advancement, Tourism and Culture (Sports) Department, dated 0910812012, G.O.ttls.No.1T17, General Administration (Ser.D) Department, dated 271O712018 read with G.O.Ms.No.S, Youth Advancement, Tourism and Culture (Sports) Department, dated 1410512018 and the Notification No.31 12022, dated 3111212022, read with amended Rule 2 sub-rule (20) of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, in recruitment for Posts of Assistant Motor Vehicle lnspector in transport department vide Notification No.31 of 2022, dated 3111212024 issued by 3rd respondent, in the interest of justice. l.A.NO:1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner, who claimed under sports quota reservation, as per the prescribed qualifying marks in the examination, in accordance with the preference of sports disciplines recognized for 2o/o reservation in direct recruitment in Government Departments and Government lnstitutions from the recognized sports in terms of G.O.Ms.No.74, Youth Advancement, Tourism and culture (Spurts) Department, dated 09.o8.2012, G.o.Ms.No.1o7, General Administration (Ser.D) Department, dated 27.07.2o18 read with G.O.Ms.No.S, Youth Advancement, Tourism and Culture (Sports) Department, dated 14.05.2018 and the Notification No.31/2022, dated 31.12,2022, read with amended Rule 2 sub-rule (20) of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, in recruitment for posts of Assistant Motor Vehicle. lnspector in transport department vide Notification No. 31of 2022, dated 31.12.2022 issued by 3rd respondent, irrespective of Form-l referred under Annexure lll of G.O.Ms.No.74, dated 09.08.2012, in the interest of justice. |.A.NO:2 OF 2024 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay Final selection Results in Pursuance to the Notification the Notification No.31t2022, dated 3.1 . 12.2022, pending disposal of the writ petition in the interest of justice. t.A.NO: 24 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to permit the petitioner to receive the additional material papers in the above writ Petition. t.A.NO F 2025 Between: 1 . State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary., Department of General AdministrationlTelangana Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

2. State of Tela Tourism and Hyderabad. noana. reo. bv its Principal Secretary, Youth Advancement, C"ulture (Sports) Departhent, Telan!ana Secretariat' Saifabad,

3. Telangana Public Service Commission, Rep. by-its. Secretary' Prathibha Bhavan, M.J. Road, Nampally, Hyderabad-S0O 001. .....PETITIONERS AND

1. Parikirala Sai Krishna, S/o Maisaiah, Aged 32 years, unemployee, R/o' 3O-2- +0, Beside Police Station MadikondL Rottebanda, Madikorrda Kazipet, Hahamkonda- 506142 (Hall ticket No - 231 1800425 . National School games Participation)

2. Sports Authority of Telangana State, Rep. by its Vice Chairman and Managing Director, L.B. Stadium, HYderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under section 151 cPc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders dated: 2311012024 passed in w.P. No. 28969 ol 2024 and to pass order dismissing the writ petition as devoid of merit' Counset for the Petitioner : SRI KONGARA RAJKUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : G.P FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : G.P FOR SERVICES' ll Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : SRI P.S.RA.IASEKHAR (SC FOR TGPSC) W.P.NO: 28978 OF 2024 Between: 1 K Raju, S/o Chandraiah, Aged 37 years, unemployee, R!/o. H.No. 6-69, Thimma Nagar (V), Medak District, Tetangana (Hall ticket No - 245706233. Senior Men lnter District)

2. Banoth Chandra Kiran, s/o B. Sai Ram, Aqed 26 vears. occ. unemolovee. R/o. H.No. 1-1-31, Bankath Singh Tanda lVfahabub-abad District, Telingana (Hall ticket No. 245010495 1OOmirs National Participation)

3. Pe-sari. 9lptq"r9, s/o P. Rajaiah, Aged 29 years, occ. unemployee Rt/o. H.No. 8-6-33/4, Kothirampoor, Karimnagar Distiict, Telangana (Hhll iicket No - 241308653. State Participation in mountain cycling)

4. G. Sammaiah, s/o Mallaiah, Aged 44 years, occ. unemploye Rl/o. H.No. 4-59, Suddala Chennur, Mancherial District, Telangana (Hall iicliet No - 244414199 Participation in lnter University)

5. S. Meghna, D/o S. Srinivas, Aged 24 years, occ. Unemployee, Fi/o. H.No. 6-3- 1q?/_1]r_{qi.llSar Colony Hyderabad District, Tetangan-a (Hail ticket No - 4221 64597 13 Senior National Championship)

6. N. Mallesh, S/o Pakeeraiah, Aged 35, occ. Employee Rl/o. H.No. 5-1OO/3, Qld{apurqm YadadriBhuvanagiri District, Tetangana (Hail ticket No 22431 15639 Senior National Championship)

7. Ashok ameta, S/o Muthaiah, Aged 36 years, occ. Employee, R:/o. H.No.7-19, Thandrial (m) Jagtiat District, Telangbna (Hail tickdt No 241307630 tntei University Championship)

8. MudavathHanumanthu, S/o Balu, Aged 32 years, occ. Employee, Rl/o. H.No. ?-.5_1r^^Lgl1gpur Thanda Nagarkarnool Diatrict, Tetangana lnatt ticket No 245203249 lnter District Participation School games 9 Rg{dy Madhukar, S/o Reddy Rajaiah, Aged 24 years, occ. Unemployee, R/o. '(Hall H.No. B-71 , Thimmapur, JayashankerBhupalpally District. Telahodna ticket No 243207590 South Zone Junior AthietiLs Championship) - 'l0.Birru Srinivas, S/o Birru Siddulu, Aged 27 years, occ. Unemployee, R:/o. H.No. 4-63, Yellamla, Jangaon District, Telangaria (Hall ticket No 245503g07 Senior National Championship) 1 1 . Chinthala Mahipal Eeddy, s/o Mohan Reddy, Aged 31 years, occ. Unemployee, Fl/o. H.No. 1-86, Neermala Jangadn Diatrict, Telanoani (Hall ticket No 245102171A11 lndia University Toumament)

12.9hinthala Mahipal Bgddy, S/o Mohan Reddy, Aged 31 years, occ. Unemployee, R/o. H.No. 'l-86, Neermala Jangaon District, Tela'nqani (Hall ticket No 245102171 All lndia University Toumahent)

13.P-S_ai Krishna, S/o P. Maisaiah, Aged 32 years, occ. Unemployee, Fl/o. H.No. 30-2-40, vikas Bharathi schoor Hlnamk6nda District, Terdng6na'(Hatt tiiiei No 24341'1028 All lndia University Toumament) '14.A. Srinivas, S/o A. Shambulingam, Aged 37 years, occ. emolovee. Rl/o. H.No. 10-731111, Near Potice Stat-ron Siddipet, Siddipet District: T'eta;gana lUati ticket No. 242403403 Senior National participatidn) 1 5. N. Vinay Kumar, S/o. N. Vijay Kumar Aged 24 years, Occ. t1ngmp-lgye_e .l-1.N9. 2-1 Thallagadda, Suryapet District, Telangana (H.No. 245620305 Youth National Championship)

16.K. Ashok, S/o. Mysaiah, Aged 38 years, Occ. Umemployee, R/o. H.No..4-2- 56, udoya Nagai, Peddapalli District, Telangana (H.No. 241402182 lnter University Championship) .....PETITIONERS AND

1. State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of General Administration, Telangana Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

2. State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Youth Advancement, Tourism and Clulture (Sports) Department, Telangana Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

3. Telanoana Public Service Commission, Rep. by its Secretary, Prathibha Bhavai, M.J. Road, Nampally, Hyderabad-S0o 001.

4. Sports Authority of Telangana State, Rep. by its Vice Chairman and Managing Director, L.B. Stadium, HYderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate order, writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in calling only the candidates who have represented lndia in an lnternational Competition/Multinational Competitions in one of the recognized GamesiSports (Form-l), for certificate verification for recruitment under Notification No.2 of 2024, dated '19.02.2024 issued by 3rd respondent, under sportspersons quota, vide Web Note dated 22.07.2024 issued by 3rd respondent as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to G.O.Ms.No.74, Youth Advancement, Tourism and Culture (Sports) Department, dated 09.08.2012, G.O.Ms.No.107, General Administration (ser.D) Department, daled 27.07.2018 read with G.o.Ms.No.S, Youth Advancement, Tourism and culture (sports) Department, dated 14.05.2018 and the Notification No.212024, dated 19.02.2024 issued by 3rd respondent, as the Form cannot control the terms of the Notification, and consequently direct the respondents to consider all the eligible candidates as per the merit, including the petitioners, in accordance with the preference of sports disciplines recognized for 2 percent reservation in direct recruitment in Government Departments and Government lnstitutions from the recognized sports in terms of G.o.Ms.No.74, Youth Advancement, Tourism and Culture (Sports) Department, dated 09.O8.2012, G.O.Ms.No.107, General Administration (Ser.D) Department, daled 27.O7.2018 read with G.O.Ms.No.S, Youth Advancement, Tourism and Culture (Sports) Department, dated 14.0S.2018 and the Notification No.212024, dated 19.02.2024, read with amended Rule 2 sub- rule (20) of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, in recruitment for Group-l Services vide Notification No.2 of 2024, daled 19.2.2024 issued by 3rd respondent, in the interest of justice. |.A.NO:1 OF 2024 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to permit all the eligible meritorious sports candidates, including the petitioners, who claimed under sports quota reservation, as per the prescribed qualifying marks in the preliminary examination in accordance with the preference of sports disciplines recognized for 2percent reservation in direct recruitment in Government Departments and Government lnstitutions from the recognized sports in terms of G.O.t\/s.No.74, Youth Advancement, Tourism and Culture (Sports) Department, dated 09.08.2012, G.O.Ms.No.107, General Administration (Ser.D) Department, daled 27.07.2018 read with G.O.Ms.No.S, youth Advancement, Tourism & culture (Sports) Department, dated 14.05.2018 and the Notification No.212024, dated 19.02.2024, read with amended Rule 2 sub-rule (20) of the Telangana state and subordinate Service Rules, 1g96, in recruitment for Group-l Services vide Notification No.2 of 2O24, dated 19.2.2024 issued by 3rd respondent, irrespective of Form-l referred under Annexure lll of G.O.Ms.No.74, dated 09.08.2012, in the interest of justice. 20F 2024 Petition Under Section 151 cPc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay conducting of written Examination of Group-l services in pursuance to the Notification the Notification No.212024, dated 19.02.2024, schedule to be hetd ftom 2111012024 onwards till 27l1otzo24, pending disposal of the writ petition in the interest of justice. |.A.NO:1 OF 2025 Between: 1 . State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of General Administration, Telangana Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

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

3. Telangana Public Service Commission, Rep. by its Secretary, Prathibha Bhavan, M.J. Road, Nampally, Hyderabad-SO0 001. .....PETITIONERS AND

1. K. Raju, S/o Chandraiah, Aged 37 years, unemployee, Fi/o. f'ry9,^6^-q9, Thimma Nagar (V), Medak District, Telangana (Hall ticket No - 245706233. Senior Men lnter District)

2. Banoth Chandra Kiran, s/o B. Sai Ram, Aged 26 years, occ. unemployee, R/o. H.No. 1-'l-31, Bankath Singh Tanda Mahabubabad District, Telangana (Hall ticket No. 24501 0495 'l OOmtrs National Participation) 3. Pesari. Omprasad, s/o P. Rajaiah, Aged 29 years, occ. unemploye-e.Rl/o. H.No. 8-6-33/,4, Kothirampoor, Karimnagar District, Telangana (Hall ticket No - 24'1308653. State Participation in mountain cycling)

4. G. Sammaiah, s/o Mallaiah, Aged 44 years, occ. unemploye Rl/o. H.No. 4- 59, Suddala Chennur, Mancherial District, Telangana (Hall ticket No - 244414159 Participation in lnter University)

5. S. Meghna, D/o S. Srinivas, Aged 24 years, occ. Unemployee, .flo.. t1.fo' 6-3-18-3/1 1, Jai nagar Colqny Hyderabad District, Telangana (Hall ticket No -4221 64597 1 3 Senior National Championship)

6. N. Mallesh, S/o Pakeeraiah, Aged 35, occ. Employee R/o. H.No.5-100/3, Siddapuram YadadriBhuvanagiri District, . Telangana (Hall ticket No 22431 15639 Senior National Championship)

7. Ashok ameta, S/o Muthaiah, Aged 36 years, occ. Employee, Ri/o. H.No.7- 19, Thandrial (m) Jagtial District, Telangana (Hall ticket No 241307630 lnter University ChamPionshiP) B. MudavathHanumanthu, S/o Balu, Aged 32 years, occ. Employee, Rl/o. H.No. 2-51, Laxmapur Thanda Nagarkarnool District, Telangana (Hall ticket No 245203249 lnter District Participation School games

9. Reddy Madhukar, S/o Reddy Rajaiah, Age! 24 years,-o.cc. Unemployee, Ryo. tt.No. B-71, Thimmapui JaiashankerBhupalpally District, Telangana (Hall ticket No 24320759O South Zone Junior Athletics Championship) 10.Birru Srinivas, S/o Birru Siddulu, Aged 27 years, occ. Unemployee, Rl/o. Jangaon Distrlct, Telangana (Hall ticket No .Yellamla, H.No. 4-63, 243503807 Senior National Championship) ll.Chinthala Mahipal Reddy, s/o Mohan Reddy, ASqd f . years, .occ. 0nemolovee. Ryb. H.tlo. 1'-86, Neermala Jangaon District, Telangana (Hall ticket i{o 245102171 All lndia University Toumament) l2.Chinthala Mahipal Reddy, S/o Mohan Reddy, Aged 31 years, occ. Ulemp]oyee, Rl/o. H.No. 1-86, Neermala Jangaon District, Telangana (Hall ticket No 245102171A11 lndia University Tournament)

13.P Sai Krishna, S/o P. Maisaiah, Aged 32 years, occ. Unemployee, R/o. H.No. 30-2-40, Vikas Bharathi School Hanamkonda District, Telangana (Hall ticket No 243411028 All lndia University Tournament)

14.4. Srinivas, S/o A. Shambulingam, Aged 37 years, occ. employee, R/o. H.No. 10-7311/1, Near Police Station Siddipet, Siddipet District, T-elangana (Hall ticket No. 242403403 Senior National Participation)

15.N. Vinay Kuma1, s/o. N._Vijay Kumar Aged 24 years, occ. Unemproyee H.No. 2-1 Thallagadda, Suiyipet Districi, Telangana' (H,No. 24Sd2CfiOs Youth National Championship)

16.K. Ashok, S/o. Mysaiah, Aged 38 years, Occ. Umemployee, R/o. H.No.4- 2:56, udoya Nagir, Pedda[alli Disirict, Telangana (n.ruo. 241402182 lnter University Championship)

17. Sports Authority of relangana state, Rep. by its Vice chairman and fi/anaging Director, L.B. Stadium, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in supporl of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders dated: 1811012024 passed in W.P. No. 2Bg7B of 2024 and to pass order dismissing the writ petition as devoid of merit. !.A.NO:2 OF 2025 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent no.3 to place the paper wise marks secured by the petitioners/candidates who have attended (7) papers of Mains examinations through respective candidate's login of the writ petitioners and grant time to recounting as provided in web note dated 1O-3-2O25. Counselfor the Petitioner: SRI KONGARA RAJKUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : G.p FOR SERVICES -ll counsel for the Respondent No.4 : sRt P.S.RAJASEKHAR (sc FoR Tcpsc) W.P.NO:30741 Between: Naganaboina Chandramohan, S/o Guruvaiah, Age. 3_9 years, Caste-. 9C-D, Occ ; Un Employee, R/o. H.No.22-3-29, Deshaipet, Warangal Telangana- 506002. .....PETITIONER AND

1. The State of Telangana, Rep.by its Principal Secretary to the Employment Department, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

2. The Telangana State Public Service Commission, Rep. by its Secretary, Nampally, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Articte 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in non -selected the petitioner in spite of having merit in the Sports for the Post of Junior Lecturer in the Physics Faculty in the Reserved Sports Quota in the Multi Zone-l in the Provisional Selection List, dated. 28.10.2024 in pursuance of the Notification No.2212022, Dated.O9.12.2022 as an illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unjust, unfair, unreasonable, unlawful, irrational, unconstitutional and in violation of the Principles of Natural Justice and in violation of Article 14,16 and 21 0f the constitution of lndia and against to the catena of Judgments of an Apex court and this Hon'ble Court and set aside the same and consequently, direct the 2nd respondent to participate the petitioner in further selection process to select the petitioner for the post of Junior Lecturer in the Physics Faculty in the Reserved Sports Quota in the Multi Zone-l and issue appointment order basing on the merit and eligibility criteria prescribed in pursuance of the Notification No.2212022, Daled.O9.12.2O22. I.A.N Petition Under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend the Provisional Selection List, dated.28.10.2024 lill the 2nd respondent to select the petitioner for the post of Junior Lecturer in Physics Faculty in the Reserved Sports Quota in the Multi Zone-l in pursuance of the Notification No.2212022, dated.09. 1 2.2022 forthwith. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI PRABHAKAR CHIKKUDU Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR SERVICES- | w oF 2024 Between: J. Ravi Teja, S/o Krishnaiah, Age 27 years, Occ ; Unemployed, R/o. H.No. 4-219t1, Ambedkar Colony, Koheda Road, Pedda Amberpet, Abdrillapurmet, RR District - 501 505 Junior Lecturer HT No. 2203016623, Rank. 7528 Participation in the All lndia lnter University Tournament of Softbalt. .....PETITIONER AND 'l . The State of Telangana, lts rep. by Chief Secretary to Government, General Administration Department, State Secretariat, Hyderabad - 500 O22. 2. Telangana State Public Service Commission(TcPsC), Represented bv its Secretary, Prathibha Bhavan, M.J. Road, Nampally, Hydeiabad, 500103. 3. The State of Tqlangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, youth Advancement, Tourism and Culture. (YS) Department, State Secretariat, Hyderabad - 5OO 022.

4. Sports Authority of Telangana (SATG), Represented by its VC and MD, L.B Stadium, Hyderabad-500001 . .....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 ol the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order, or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent is Nor considering the FoRM-3 submitted by the petitioner to claim reservation of Sports quota since the above-said FORMs contain the phrases such as Employment to Group-l and ll Post Service on FORM-1, Employment to Group-lll Posts/Service on FORM-2, Employment to Group-lV posts/Service on FORM.3, and Employment to Last Grade Service on FoRM-4 in ANNEXURE - lll which is against the definition of the Meritorious Sportsman of rule 2, for sub-rule (20) of Telangana State and subordinate Service Rules and against the guideline (ii) and Annexure - ll of the G.O.Ms.No.74, YAT and C (Sports) Department, dated. Ogtgl2o12 resulting in grave injustice as the petitioner herein was not selected though he had valid certificates and also vacancies are available in sports quota as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, against the principles of natural justice and violative of Art 14, 16, 19 (g) and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently set aside the phrases Employment to Group-l R. ll Post Service on FORM-I , Employment to Group-lll Posts/Service on FORM-2, Employment to Group-lV Posts/Service on FORM-3, and Employment to Last Grade Service on FORM-4 in ANNEXURE - lll and direct the respondents to consider the Petitioner under Meritorious sports category as per the Para 12 (vr) of the Notification issued by the 2nd Respondent vide Notification No 2212022 dated 0911212022 fot Recruitment to the Posts of Junior Lecturers Under the Control of Commissioner of lntermediate Education by considering his FORM-3. O:1 OF Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the phrases Employment to Group-l and ll Post Service on FORM-1 , Employment to Group-lll Posts/Service on FORM-2, Employment to Group-lV Postsiservice on FORM-3, and Employment to Last Grade Service on FORM-4 in ANNEXURE - lll and direct the respondents to select the petitioner by considering his FORM-3 in Sports Quota, pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI RAMESH CHILLA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : G.P FOR SERVICES -ll Gounsel forthe Respondent No.4 : SRI P.S.RAJASEKHAR(SC FORTGPSC) 90 Between: M.K.Kareemulla Khan, S/o Md Zafarulla Khan, Age. 32 years, Occ. Unemployed, Fi/o. H.No. 1-10-35, SS Gufta, Mahabubnagar, Telangana - 509001 . AE Hall Ticket Number. 2160427737, General Rank. 7o30-Participatibn in the 43rd Senior National Handball Championship. .....PETITIONER AND

1. The State of Telangana, lts rep. by Chief Secretary to Government, General Administration Department., State Secretariat, Hyderabad - 500 022. 2. Telangana State Public Service Commission(TGPSC), Represented by its Secretary, Prathibha Bhavan, M.J. Road, Nampalty, Hydeiabad, 500103. 3. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, youth Advancement, Tourism and Culture. (YS) Department; State Secretariat, Hyderabad - 5OO 022.

4. Sports Authority of Telangana (SATG), Represented by its VC and MD L.B Stadium, Hyderabad-500001 . .....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 ol the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order, or direction, more in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent is NOT considering the FORM-2 submitted by the petitioner to claim reservation under the 2 percentage Sports quota since the FORMs contain the phrases such as Employment to Group-l and ll Post Service on FORIM-1, Employment to Group-lll posts/Service on FORM-2, Employment to Group-lV Posts/Service on FORM-3, and Employment to Last Grade Service on FORN/-4 in ANNEXURE - lll which is against the definition of the Meritorious Sportsman of rule 2, for sub-rule (20) of Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules and against the guideline (ii) and Annexure ll of the G.O.Ms.No.74, YAT and C (Sports) Department, dated. 09.8.2012 resulting in grave injustice as the petitioner herein was not selected for the post of Assistant Engineer pursuant to Notification vide No. 1612022, Dated. 1210912022 though he had valid certificates and also vacancies are available in sports quota as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, against the principles of natural justice and violative of Art 14, 1 6, 19 (g) and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently set aside the phrases Employment to Group-l and ll post service on FORM-1, Employment to Group-lll Posts/Service on FORM-2, Employment to Group-lV PostsTService on FORM-3, and Employment to Last Grade Service on FoRM-4 in ANNEXURE - lll and direct the respondents to consider the petitioner under Meritorious sports category as per the para 12 (vi) of the Notification issued by the 2nd Respondent vide Notification No 16/2022, Dated. 1210912022 for the Posts of Assistant Engineer in various Engineering Departments by considering his FORM-2. |.A.NO:1 OF 2024 Petition UnderSection 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the phrases Employment to Group-l and ll Post Service on FOR[/-1, Employment to Group-lll Posts/Service on FORTV-2, Employment to Group-lV Posts/Service on FORIvI-3, and Employment to Last Grade Service on FORtt/-4 in ANNEXURE - lll and direct the respondents to select the petitioner by considering his FORtt/-2 in Sports Quota, pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI RAMESH CHILLA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.l to 3 : G.P FOR SERVICES -ll Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : SRI P.S.RAJASEKHAR (SC FOR TGPSC) W.P.NO:32687 OF 2024 Between:

1. J. Alankrit Goud, S/o J Surender Nath Goud, Aged 32 years, Occ. Employee, R/o. H.No. Plot No. 19, Poulomi Estates Waterfront Vaishali Nagar, Hafeezpet, Telangana" 500049. (Group -l Mains Hall ticket No . 240927717 Participation National School games, lnter University Championship)

2. Gangireddy Rajashekar Reddy, S/o G. Srinivas Reddy, Aged 28 years, Occ. Employee, R/o. H.No. 5-13812, Near Bus Stand Chinthalapalem, Suryapet District, Telangana -508246 (Hall ticket No. 240929393 Participation in Zonal lnter University Championship )

3. Koppula Harish Kumar, S/o Shanker, Aged 35 years, Occ. Employee Ri/o. H.No. 2-8-135, Near lqbal Urdu School Old Colony, Kagaznagar, Telangana - 504296 (Hall ticket No - 240934703. Participation in State/lnter District Championship. .....PETITIONERS AND

1. State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of General Administration, Telangana Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

2. State of Tela Tourism and Hyderabad. ngana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Youth Advancement, Culture (Sports) Department, Telangana Secretariat, Saifabad,

3. Telangana Public Service Commission, Rep. by its Secretary, Prathibha Bhavan, M.J. Road, Nampally, Hyderabad-sO0 001.

4. Sports Authority of Telangana State, Rep. by its Vice Chairman and Managing Director, L.B. Stadium, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate order, writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in calling only the candidates who have represented lndia in an lnternational Competition/tMultinational Competitions in one of the recognized GamesiSports (Form-D, for certificate verification for recruitment under Notification No.2 oI 2024, dated 1910212024 issued by 3rd respondent, under sports persons quota, vide Web Note dated 22.07.2024 issued by 3rd respondent as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to G.O.Ms.No.74, Youth Advancement, Tourism and Culture (Sports) Department, dated 09.08.2012, G.O.Ms.No.107, General Administration (Ser.D) Department, dated 27.07.2018 read with G.O.tt/s.No.5, Youth Advancement, Tourism and Culture (Sports) Department, dated 14.O5.20.18 and the Notification No.212024, dated 19.02.2024 issued by 3rd respondent, as the Form cannot control the terms of the Notification, and consequently direct the respondents to consider all the petitioners as per the merit, in accordance with the preference of sports disciplines recognized for 2percent reservation in direct recruitment in Government Departments and Government lnstitutions from the recognized sports in terms of G.O.Ms.No.74, Youth Advancement, Tourism and Culture (Sports) Department, dated 09.08.2012, G.O.Ms.No.107, General Administration (Ser.D) Department, dated 27.07.2018 read with G.O.Ms.No.S, Youth Advancement, Tourism and Culture (Sports) Department, dated 14.05.2018 and the Notification No.212O24, dated 19.02.2024, read with amended Rule 2 sub-rule (20) of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, in recruitment for Group-l Services vide Notification No.2 of 2fl24, dated 19.2.2024 issued by 3rd respondent, in the interest of justice. |.A.NO:1 OF 2O2A Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further procedures including issuance of Group-l Mains results in respect preference of sports disciplines recognized for 2o/o rcservation in direct recruitment in Government Departments and Government lnstitutions from the recognized sports in terms of G.O.Ms.No.74, Youth Advancement, Tourism and Culture (Sports) Department, dated 09.08.2012, G.O.Ms.No.107, General Administration (Ser.D) Department, dated 27.07.2018 read with G.O.Ms No.5, Youth Advancement, Tourism & Culture (Sports) Department, dated 14.05.2018 and the Notification No.212024, daled 1910212024, read with amended Rule 2 sub-rule (20) of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, in recruitment for Group-l Services vide Notification No.2 of 2024, dated 19.2.2024 issued by 3rd respondent, irrespective of Form-l referred under Annexure Ill of G.O.Ms.No.74, dated 09/08/2012, in the interest of justice, Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI KONGARA RAJKUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : G.P FOR SERVICES 'll Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : SRI P.S.RAJASEKHAR (SC FOR TGPSC) W.P.NO:34 147 0F 2024 Between: Prashanth Kanneboina, S/o. Saraiah Aged about 43 Years, Occ . Employee No .47- 01-42O, Paidipally, Warangal, Warangal District. .....PETITlONER AND

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, General Administration Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2. Telangana Public Service Commissiofl (TGPSC)' Rep. by its Secretary, Prathibha Bhavan, Nampally, Hyderabad.

3. Sports Authority of Telangana State, Director, L.B. Siadium, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. -Rep. by its Vice Chairman and Managing .....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or Direction particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner to appointment for the post of Junior Lecturer (Maths, Post code-19) pursuant to the Notification No.2212O22 dated 09.12.2022 under Sports Quota Reservation (Form-ll) and denying the claim of the petitioner in the Junior Leciure Recruitment, even in the eventuality of non-availability of Form-l candidates, as illegal, unfair, without jurisdiction, violative of article 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of lndia and contrary to the very policy of the Government to provide reservation for sports persons under G.O.Ms.No.74, dated 09.08.2012, consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner to the post of Junior Lecture (Maths) pursuant to the Notification No.2212022 dated 09.12.2022, who is a Form-ll candidate under sports quota, with all consequential benefits. |.A.NO:1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner to the post of Junior Lecture (Maths) pursuant to the Notification No.2212022 dated 09.12.2022, who is a Form- ll candidate under sports quota, without insisting for Form-l Certificate. |.A.NO:2 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to keep one post of Junior Lecture (Maths, post code-1g) vacant, pursuant to the Notificatio n No.2212022 dated 09.12.2022, under sports quota. l.A.NO:3 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to take this matter as "For Being Mentioned" and direct the office to correct the typographical error as "Multi Zone-ll instead of Multi Zone-!" in interim order dated 11.12.2024 in WP.No.34147 of 2024. 10F Between: 1 . The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, General Administralion Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2. Telangana Public Service Commission (TGPSC), Rep. by its Secretary, Prathibha Bhavan, Nampally, Hyderabad. ......PETITIONERS AND

1. Prashanth Kanneboina, S/o. Saraiah Aged about 43 Years, Occ . Employee No .47-01-420, Paidipally, Warangal, Warangal District.

2. Sports Authority of Telangana State, Rep. by its Vice Chairman and Managing Director, L.B. Stadium, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition Under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders date* 11h212024 passed in W.P. No. 34147 of 2024 and to pass order dismissing the writ petition as devoid of merit. Counsel for the Pqtitioner : SRI ALLIKA SURESH Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : G.P FOR SERVICES 'll Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : SRI P.S.RAJASEKHAR (SC FOR TGPSC) .P. o

1. Punnamaneni Sampath, S/o.Satyanarayana, Age. 35 years, -Occ' U-n- emolovee. R/o.H.No.13-150,Mas-eed Street, NTR Nagar' Sathupally' Khimmam District-507303. Hall Ticket No.22O7 O77 1 47 .

2. Bandi Harika, D/o.llaiah, Age.33 years, Occ.Un-employee' Vg.J!.N9,5: O+lt,Cot6pat[ Village, Akkannapet-Mandal, Siddipet District-505466. Hall Ticket No.221 1090338. ...,.PETITIONERS D

1. Telanoana Public Service Commission (TGPSC)' Rep'by its Secretary, Prathi-bha Bhavan, Nampally, Hyderabad.

2. The State of Telangana, Rep.by its Principal Secretary General Administration Department , Secretariat Buildings , Hyderabad.

3. Commissioner, Board of lntermediate, Office at Nampally, Hyderabad. a lportp Atltlplty of Telangana State, Rep.by its Vice-Chairman and Managing Director, L.B.Stadium, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad.

5. Iqllqpe!! Prgbhakar, S/o Tallapelli Meshek, age 33 years, Occ Jr. Lecturer in TGMRIES, Rl/o H No.2-7912211, Behind MRO Offic6, Dharmasagar, Hanumkonda-506142.

6. E. 1- Santhosh Kumar, Sio E. Narender, age 42 years, Occ Teacher, R/o H No. 101712911, Autonagar, Medak Mandal, medak diskict 502110. .....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a wdt or direction or order more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the respondents . a). to hold non_ consideration of the Petitioners candidature in '1 .1 Selection list who have qualified under Form-ll of sports Quota for the post of Junior Lecturers vide Notification No.2212022, dated 09-12-2022, even in the eventuality of non-availability of Form-l candidates, without considering the petitioners merit under the Form-ll and lll eligibility of meritorious sports persons is illegal, unfair and contrary to.the very policy of the Government to provide reservation for meritorious sports persons under G.O.M.S.No.74, dated 09-08-2012. b). to direct the 2nd Respondent State to issue clarification that in the absence of Form-l candidates, Form - ll and lll candidates can also be consider for the posts of Junior Lecturer as othenvise, it defeats the very policy of the state Government in providing 2 percent reservation for meritorious sports persons and . c). consequenfly direct the respondents to call the petitioners for the certificate verification and.thereby consider the candidature of the petitioners as per their merit in 1.1 Provisional selection list in view of the absence of Form-l candidates in the ratio prescribed to the vacancies notified under sports quota for the post of Junior Lecturer in their respective subjects English and Mathematics. d). consequenfly direct the respondents to keep two Junior Lecturer posts vacant subject to out of come of this writ petition in English and Mathematics subjects. |.A.NO:1 OF 2024 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the respondents to call the petitioners for the certificate verification and thereby consider the candidature of the petitioners as per their merit in 'l .1 Provisional Selection list in view of the absence of Form-l candidates in the ratio prescribed to the vacancies notified under sports quota for the post of Junior Lecturer in their respective subjects English and Mathematics, Consequently direct the respondents to keep two Junior Lecturer posts vacant in English and Mathematics subjects , subject to out of come of this writ petition. :4 OF 20 Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the registry to receive the additional documents 1. Participation certificate of 1st Petitioner in Valleyball, 2. Gold Medal certificate of 2nd Petitioner in Kabaddi , 3. online Application of 1st Petitioner and 4. online application of 2nd petitioner and put up in the main W.P. No.34.2108 -of 2024. :1 OF

1. Telangana Public Service Commission (TGPSC), Rep.by its Secretary, Prathibha Bhavan, Nampally, Hyderabad.

2. The State of Telangana, Rep.by its Principal Secretary.General Administration Department,' Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

3. Commissioner, Board of lntermediate, Office at Nampally, Hyderabad. 4. Tallaoelli Prabhakar, S/o Tallapelli Meshek, age 33 years, Occ Jr. Lecturer in TGMRIES, Fl/o H No. 2-7912211, Behind MRO Office, Dharmasagar' Hanumkonda-506142.

5. E. Santhosh Kumar, S/o E. Narender, age 42 years, Occ Teacher, Rl/o H No. 1-1Ot7129t1 , Autonagar, Medak Mandal, medak district- 5021 10. .....PETITIONERS AND

1. Punnamanel! Sampath, Slo.Satyanarayana, Age. 35 years, Occ. Un- e-mployee, S/o.f.N_o.13-150,Maseed Street, NTR Nalar, Sathupally, Khammam District-507303.Hai1 Ticket No.2207077 1 47.-

2. Bandi Harika, D/o.llaiah, Age.33 years, occ.Un-employee, R/o.H.No.S- 64il,Gollapally Viltage, Akkannapet Mandal, Siddipet- District-505466. Hall Ticket No.221 1090338.

3. Sports Authority of Telangana State, Rep.by its Vice-Chairman and Managing Director, L.B.Stadium, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders dated: OGl12l2O24 passed in W.P. No. 34408 of 2024 and to pass order dismissing the writ petition as devoid of merit. |.A.NO:3 OF 2O2s Between: 1 . Telangana Public Service Commission (TGpSC), Rep.by its Secretary, Prathibha Bhavan, Nampally, Hyderabad.

2. The state of rqlangana, Rep.by its Principal secretary General Administration Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

3. Commissioner, Board of lntermediate, Office at Nampally, Hyderabad.

4. Spgtti Authority of Telangana State, Rep.by its Vice-Chairman and [\tlanaging Director, L.B.Stadium, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad 5. Tallapelli Prabhakal S/o Tallapelti Meshek, age 33 years, Occ Jr. Lecturer in TGMRIES, R/o H No. 2-7912.2t1, Behind tvlRO Office, Dharmasagar, Hanumkonda-S 061 42. 6 E. Santhosh Kumar, S/o E. Narender, age 42 years, Occ Teacher, R/o H No. 1-101712911, Autondgar; Medak Mandal, medak district- 5021 10.

1. Punnamaneni Samp.a]f, S/9.99!yi!.rarayana, Age. 35 years, Occ. lnlemplgye_q, R/o.H.No.13-150,Masetid Streit, rufn f.faqii. Sathu pally, Khammam District-s07303. Ftail Ticket fno.2237 07 i i 4i .' 2. Pgn9! _. Hqn!.?,. D/o.llaiah,- ...:Age.33 . years, Occ.Un-emptoyee, -Viltage, ltglnapet Mandat, siociipet Fl/o.H.No.5-64/1,Gollgp?tty District-505466. Ha[ Ticket No.221 1090338. .....RESPONDENTS AND Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the lnterim order dated 06.12.2024 passed in l.A 1 ot 2024 in W.P. No. 34408 of 2024 and dismiss the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s UMA DEVI NAMA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : G.P FOR SERVICES Jl Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : SRI P.S.RAJASEKHAR (SC FOR TGPSC) : 35677 OF Between: Namthebad N Fl/o.H.No.4-5-1 agesh, S/o. Kishan, Aged about 42 years, Occ ; un-employed, 59, Kasabgally, Uppertaked, Nizamabad-503001. .....PETITIONER D

1. State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Higher Education CEO Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2. Telangana Public Service Commission, Represented by it Secretary, Nampally, M.J. Road, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article-22b of the ConStit0tion of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus by declaring that the Petitioner is entitled to have his claim considered and be selected and appointed as Lecturer in Zoology under sports quota with all consequential benefits pursuant to Notification No. 22t2O222 dated o911212022 issued by the 2nd Respondent, duly holding the action of the Respondents in not filling-up posts earmarked for sportspersons as per merit by implementing two (2 percent ) reservation and thereby denying selection and appointment to the Petitioner to the post of Lecturer in Zoology, as being arbitrary, illegal, erroneous, and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of lndia. |.A.NO:1 OF 2024 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 2nd Respondent to consider Petitioners claim for selection to the post of Lecturer in Zoology by taking into consideration his representation dated 10t1212024. Gounsel for the Petitioner : SRI V.RAVICHANDRAN Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR SERVICES - | Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI P.S.RAJASEKHAR (SC FOR TGPSC) .P_ oF 2024 Between: lqOadhani Kalyani, D/o Venkateswarlu, Aged about 36 yrs., Occ ; Excise Constable, Fi/o H No 4-13013, Mudigonda (m and p), Khammam(dt),507158. .....PETITIONER D

1. Telangana Public Service Commission (TGPSC), Rep. by its Secretary, Prathibha Bhavan, Nampally, Hyderabad.

2. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, General Administration Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

3. Sports Authority of.Telalgana State., Rep, by its Vice Chairman and Managing Director, L.B. Stadium, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Cou( may be pleased to it is humbly prayed (a) to hold non-consideration of Form-ll candidates under Notification issued for Group-l recruitment, even in the eventuality of non- availability of Form-l candidates is illegal, unfair and contrary to the very policy of the Government to provide reservation for sports persons under G.O.Ms.No.74, dated 09/08/2012 (b) to declare the action of the 1 respondent in misinterpreting G.O.Ms.No.74 dated 09/08/2012 and making the very policy of the Govemment useless and unworkable as bad, illegal, unfair and unconstitutional and (c) consequently, direct the respondents to treat the petitioner, who is a Form_ll candidate under the definition of meritorious sports person and consider her claim under sports quota in accordance with her merit. (d) by issuance of Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus. |.A.NO:1 OF 2024 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to treat the petitioner eligible for sports quota vacancy within the 2 percent quota in Multizone-l in accordance with her merit. .NO:2 OF Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to affect the respondents not to finalize the selection/ not to issue appointment orders to the selected candidates under Group-l recruitment. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI J.SUDHEER Gounsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : G.P FOR SERVICES'll Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : SRI P.S.RAJASEKHAR (SC FOR TGPSC) w.P. F 2025 n Surya Teja Saidulu, S/o Saidulu Shake Ag-ed 32 years, Occ. Employee, Fl/o..Flot No. 307, Sm;rt Habitat, 2-3-34511, SH, Sa! Nagar Co!ot1y,JlqColg, Hvderabad, Telangana- 500049. (Group -l Mains Hall ticket No 240915049 Pa(icipation in Nationlal Championshiir National Games, lnter State lnter Zonal Open Nationals for Seniors Federation Cup.) .....PETITIONER AND

1. State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of General Administration, Telangana Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad. nqana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Youth Advancement, du[ure (Sports) Department, Telangana Secretariat, Sai fabad,

2. State of Tela Tourism and Hyderabad. 3. Telanga naP ublic Service Commission, Rep. by its Secretary, Prathibha Bhavan, M.J. Road, Nampally, Hyderabad-S00 001.

4. Sports Autho Director, L.B. rity of Telangana State, Rep. by its Vice Chairman and Managing Stadium, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate order, writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in calling only the candidates who have represented lndia in an lnternational Competition/Multinational Competitions in one of the recognized Games/Sports (Form-l), for certificate verification for recruitment under Notification No.2 of 2024, dated 19.02.2024 issued by 3rd respondent, under sportspersons quota, vide Web Note dated 22.O7.2024 issued by 31 respondent as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to G.O.Ms.No.74, Youth Advancement, Tourism and Culture (Sports) Department, dated 09.08.2012, G.O.Ms.No.107, General Administration (Ser.D) Department, dated 27.07.2018 read with G.O.Ms.No.5, Youth Advancement, Tourism and Culture (Sports) Department, dated 14.05.2018 and the Notification No.212024, dated 19.02.2024 issued by 3rd respondent, as the Form cannot control the terms of the Notification, and consequently direct the respondents to consider all the petitioners as per the merit, in accordance with the preference of sports disciplines recognized for 2percent reservation in direct recruitment in Government Departments and Government lnstitutions from the recognized sports in terms of G.O.lVs.No.74, Youth Advancement, Tourism and Culture (Sports) Department, dated 09.08.2012, G.O.Ms.No.107, General Administration (Ser.D) Department, dated 27.07.2018 read with G.O.NIs.No.5, Youth Advancement, Tourism and Culture (Sports) Department, dated 14.05.2018 and the Notification No.2t2024, dated 19.02.2024, read with amended Rule 2 sub-rule (20) of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, in recruitment for Group-l ServiceS vide Notification No.2 of 2024, dated 19.2.2024 issued by 3rd respondent, in the interest of justice. !.A,NO:1 OF 2025 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further procedures including issuance of Group-l Mains results in respect preference of sports disciplines recognized for 2% reservation in direct recruitment in Government Departments and Government lnstitutions from the recognized sports in terms of G.O.Ms.No.74, Youth Advancement, Tourism and Culture (Sports) Department, dated 09.08.2012, G.O.Ms.No.107, General Administration (Ser,D) Department, dated 27.07.2018 read with G.O.Ms.No.S' Youth Advancement, Tourism and Culture (Sports) Department, dated 14.05.2018 and the Notification No.212024, daled 19.02.2024, read with amended Rule 2 sub-rule (20) of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, in recruitment for Group-l Services vide Notification No.2 of 2024, dated 19.2.2024 issued by 3 respondent, irrespective of Form-l referred under Annexure lll of G'O.Ms.No.74, dated 09.08.2012, in the interest of justice. Counset for the Petitioner: SRI KONGARA RAJKUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : G.P FOR SERVICES'll Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : SRI P.S.RAJASEKHAR (SC FOR TGPSC) W.P.NO: 9198 OF 2025 Between:

1. Vengala Premkumar, Sio Srinivas Aged 34 yearq.Occ..Employee, R/o. H.No. 83-r44t\l7l1 , Vasudeva Colony Road No.3, Bhagath Nagar, Karimnagar Telangana - 505 001 (Group -ll Mains Hall ticket No - 2283328092 National Games, lnter State lnter Participation in National Zonal Open Nationals for Seniors Federation Cup.) 'Championship

2. Chintala Mahipal Reddy, S/o Mohan Reddy Aged 32 ylars, Occ. Elploy-e-e. Fi/o. H. No. i-86, Neermala, Devaruppala Jangaon, Telangana - 506 303 (Group -ll Mains Hall ticket No - 2282805211 Participation in the All lndia lnter University Tournament.)

3. Ashok Ameta, S/o Muttaiah Aged 37 years, Occ. Employee, R/o. H, No. 7;'!9, Thandrial Vill, Kathlapoor, Jagtial, Teiangana - 505 306 (Gpup -l! Ma.ins. Hall ticket No - 2281903151 Participation in South Zone Senior Championship) 4. Naramula Mallesh, S/o Pakeeraiah Aged 36 years, Occ. Employee, Fi/o. H.No. 5-100/2, Siddapuram vill, Pallerla Post,18/211, Athmakur Mdl, Yadadri Bhuvanaqiri, Telangina - 508 11 (Group -ll Mains Hall ticket No - 22BZgO7i55 Particiiation in National Championship National Championship for Juniors, Youth Natidnal Games.)

5. Birru Srinivas, S/o Siddulu Aged 28 years, Occ. Employee, R/o, H. !9' 4-p3' Yellamla Janjaon Jangaon, Telangana - 506 201 (Group Jl-Mains Hall ticket No - 228631-3608 Participation in- National Championship National Games, lnter State lnter Zonal Op6n Nationals for Seniors Federation Cup')

6. Reddv Madhukar, S/o Raiaiah Aged 25 years, Occ' Un Employee, Fi/o. H. No. B-71 ,' Thimmapur, Bu-dharam Ghanapur, Jayashankar Bhupalapally' Telangana - 506 345 (Group -ll Mains Hall ticket No. - 2285816227 Participation in South Zone Juniors)

7. Mandala Nagarjuna, S/o Bixam Aged 34 years, Occ. Employee, Rt/o. H. No. 2- 83, Medvaram Vill, Nereducherla Mdl Suryapet, Telangana - 508 201 (Group - ll Mains Hall ticket No - 2283309067 Participation in the All lndia lnter University Tournament.) .....PET]TIONERS D

1. State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of General Administration, Telangana Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

2. State of Tela Tourism and Hyderabad. ngana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Youth Advancement, Culture (Sports) Department, Telangana Secretariat, Saifabad,

3. Telangana Public Service Commission, Rep. by its Secretary, Prathibha Bhavan, M.J. Road, Nampally, Hyderabad-S00 001 . a. lport9 Authority of Telangana State, Rep. by its Vice Chairman and Managing Director, L.B. Stadium, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate order, writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus -declaring the action of the respondents considering only the candidates who have represented lndia in an lnternational Competition/Multinational Competitions in one of the recognized Games/Sports (Form-l), for certificate verification for recruitment under Notification No.2g of 2022, daled 29.12.2022 issued by 3rd respondent, under sports persons quota by 3rd respondent as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to G.O.Ms.No.74, youth Advancement, Tourism and Culture (Sports) Department, dated 09.0g.2012, G.O.Ms.No.107, General Administration (Ser.D) bepartment, dated 21.07.201g read with G.O.Ms.No.5, Youth Advancement, Tourism and Culture (Sports) Department, dated 14.05.2018 and the Notification No.2812022, dated 29.12.2022 issued by 3rd respondent, as the Form cannot control the terms of the Notification, and consequently direct the respondents to consider the petitioners as per the merit, in accordance with the preference of sports disciplines recognized for 2 percentage reservation in direct recruitment in Government Departments and Government lnstitutions from the recognized sports in terms of G.O.Ms.No.74, Youth Advancement, Tourism and Culture (Sports) Department, dated 09.0g.2012, G.O.Ms.No.107, General Administration (Ser.D) Department, dated 27.07.2018 read with G.O.Ms.No.5, Youth Advancement, Tourism and Culture (Sports) Department, dated 14.05.201 B and the Notification No.2812022, dated 29.12.2022, read with amended Rule 2 sub-rule (20) of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, in recruitment for Group-ll Services vide Notification No.2B of 2022, dated 29.12.2022 issued by 3rd respondent, in the interest of justice. O:1 OF Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further procedures including issuance of Group-ll certificate verification in respect preference of sports disciplines recognized tor 2o/o reservation in direct recruitment in Government Departments and Government lnstitutions from the recognized sports in terms of G.O.Ms.No.74, Youth Advancement, Tourism and Culture (Sports) Department, dated 09.08.2012, G.O.Ms.No.107, General Administration (Ser.D) Department, dated 27-07.201B read with G.O.Ms'No.S' Youth Advancement. Tourism and Culture (Sports) Department, dated 14.05.2018 and the Notification No.2812022, dated 29.12.2022. read with amended Rule 2 sub-rule (20) of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules' 1996' in recruitment for Group-ll Services vide Notification No.28 of 2O22' dated 29.12.2022 issued by 3rd respondent, irrespective of Form-l referred undLr Annexure lll of G.O.Ms.No.74, dated 09-08.2012- in the interest of justice. .A.NO:2 ,R Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent no.3 to keep 8 posts vacate for the petitioners in respect preference of sports disciplines recognized tot 2o/o teservation in direct recruitment in Government Departments and Government lnstitutions from the recognized sports in terms of G.O.Ms.No.74, Youth Advancement, Tourism and Culture (Sports) Department, dated 09.08.2012. G.O.Ms.No.107, General Administration (Ser.D) Department, dated 27.07'2018 read with G.O.Ms.No.S, Youth Advancement. Tourism and culture (sports) Department, dated 14.05.2018 and the Notification No.28t2022,dated29.12.2022,rcad with amended Rule 2 sub-rule (20) of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, in recruitment for Group-ll Services vide Notification No.28 of 2022, dated 29.12.2022 issued by 3rd respondent, irrespective of Form-l referred under Annexure lll of G.O.Ms.No.74, dated 09.08.2012, in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI KONGARA RAJKUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : G.P FOR SERVICES - ll Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : SRI P.S.RAJASEKHAR (SC FOR TGPSC) w.P. oF 2025 Between: 1 Qhintala {Vlahipal Reddy, Sio Mohan Reddy Aged 32 years, Occ Employee, -303 R/o. H No. '1-86, Neermala, Devaruppala Jangaon, Telangana -506 (Group -lll Mains Hall ticket No - 2292807353 Participation in the All lndia lnter University Tournament. )

2. M-andala Nagarjuna, S/o Bixam Aged 34 years, Occ Employee, F/o. H. No.2- 83, Medvaram Vill, Nereducherla Mdl Suryapet, Telangana - 508 201 (Group - lll Mains Hall ticket No - 2293323115 Participation in the All lndia lnter University Tournament.) .....PETITIONERS AND

1. State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of General Administration, Telangana Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

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

3. Telangan_a Public Service Commission, Rep. by its Secretary, Prathibha Bhavan, M.J. Road, Nampally, Hyderabad-S0O 001 . 4 lporF Authority of.Telangana 9tate, Rep. by its Vice Chairman and Managing Director, L.B. Stadium, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate order, writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents consider.ing only the candidates who have represented a state in lndia National competitions in one of the recognized Games/Sports (Form-ll), for certificate verification for recruitment under Notification No.29 of 2022, dated 30.12.2022 issued by 3rd respondent, under sports persons quota by 3rd respondent as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to G.O.Ms.No.74, Youth Advancement, Tourism and Culture (Sports) Department, dated 09.08.2012, G.O.Ms.No.107, General Administration (Ser.D) Department, daled 27.07.2018 read with G.O.Ms.No.s, Youth Advancement, Tourism and culture (Sports) Department, dated 14.05.2018 and the Notification No.29t2022, dated 30.12.2022 issued by 3rd respondent, as the Form cannot control the terms of the Notification, and consequently direct the respondents to consider the petitioners as per the merit, in accordance with the preference of sports disciplines recognized for 2percent reservation in direct recruitment in Government Departments and Government lnstitutions from the recognized sports in terms of G.O.Ms.No.74, Youth Advancement, Tourism and Culture (Sports) Department, dated 09.08.20'12, G.O.Ms.No.'107, General Administration (Ser.D) Department, daled 27.07.2018 read with G.O.Ms.No.S, Youth Advancement, Tourism and culture (sports) Department, dated 14.05.20'18 and the Notification No.2912022, dated 30.12.2022, read with amended Rule 2 sub-rule (20) of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, in recruitment for Group-lll Services vide Notification No.29 of 2022, dated 30.12-2022 issued by 3rd respondent, in the interest ofjustice. 10F 20 Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay all further procedures including issuance of Group-lll certificate verification in respect preference of sports disciplines recognized to( 2Vo reservation in direct recruitment in Government Departments and Government lnstitutions from the recognized sports in terms of G.o.Ms.No.74, Youth Advancement, Tourism and Culture (Sports) Department, dated 09.08.20'12, G.O.Ms.No.107, General Administration (Ser.D) Department, dated 27.O7.2018 read with G.O.Ms'No'S, Youth Advancement, Tourism & Culture (Sports) Department, dated 14'05'2018 and the Notification No.2912022, dated 30.12.2022, read with amended Rule 2 sub-rule (20) of the Telangana state and subordinate Ser.vice Rules, 1996, in recruitment for Group-lll services vide Notification No.29 of 2O22, dated

30.12.2022 issued by 3rd respondent, irrespective of Form-ll referred under Annexure lll of G.O.Ms.No.74, dated 09.08.2012, in the interest of justice. !.A.NO:2 OF 2025 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent no.3 to keep 2 posts vacate for the petitioners in respect preference of sports disciplines recognized for 27o reservation in direct recruitment in Government Departments and Government lnstitutions from the recognized sports in terms of G.O.Ms.No.74. Youth Advancement, Tourism and Culture (Sports) Department, dated 09.08.2012, G.O.Ms.No.107, General Administration (Ser.D) Department, dated 27.O7.2018 read with G.O.Ms.No.5, youth Advancement, Tourism & Culture (Sports) Department, dated 14.0S.2018 and the Notification No.2912022, dated 30.12.2022, rcad with amended Rule 2 sub-rule (20) of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, in recruitment for Group-lll Services vide Notification No.29 ot 2022, dated 30.12.2022 issued by 3rd respondent, irrespective of Form-ll referred under Annexure lll of G.O.Ms.No.74, dated 09.08.2012, in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI KONGARA RAJKUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : G.P FOR SERVICES - ll Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : SRI P.S.RAJASEKHAR (SC FOR TGPSC) W.P. oF 202s Between:

1. Kola Sai Pavan Kumar, S/o K. Nageshwar Rao Aged 32 yea Unemployed Fl/o Flat No.401, 'Sri Sai Apartments' Shankar Peerzadiguda, Medchal-Malkajgiri District Telangana - 500 O9B. rs, Occ- Nagar,

2. Syed Siraj_Ahmed, S/g Sr! Syed Jahangir Aged 32 years, Occ- Govt. Employee, Rt/o Plot No.60, Nakshatra Colony Bai-apur, Hyderabad - S0O 005, Telangana. AND .....PETITIONERS

1. The State of rtangana, Rgp-. gy its principar Secretary to Government youth, Adv.ancement, Tourism and curiure (sporis) Departm6nt, secretiriai iiuiroing, Hyderabad.

2. The Telangana Public Service Commission, Rep. by its Secretary Pratibha Bhavan, lVl.J. Road Patel Nagar, Goshamahal, Nampally Hyderabad - 500 001.

3. The Sports Authority Managing Director L. T.S. of Telangana State, Rep. by its Vice Chairman and B. Stadium, Fateh Maidan, Abids, Hyderabad - 500 457,

4. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government General Administration Department Secretariat Building, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to grant appropriate relief more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus under Anicle 226 of the Constitution of lndia, declaring - (l)the Guideline (xii) of GO Ms.No.74, Youth Advancement, Tourism and Culture (Sports) Department dated 09.08.201 2 issued by the 1st Respondent as arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory, unconstitutional, violating Articles 14, 1 6 and 21 of the constitution of lndia and contrary to sub-rule 20 of Rule 2 of State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 as well as contrary to Guideline (ii) of G.O. Ms. No.74 dated 09-08-2012 and set- aside the same and issue a declaration to the effect that the Petitioners who possess Form-l Certificate issued by the 3rd Respondent are eligible for appointment to the post under Group-ll Services in pursuance of the Notification No. No.28l2022, dated 29-12-2022 issued by the 2nd Respondent against th-e posts reserved/earmarked for Meritorious Sports Persons under Rule 22 of the state and subordinate Service Rules. (ii)consequently, direct the Respondents to ve6ify the original certificates of the Petitioners along with others and consider to appoint the Petitioners against the posts earmarkedi reserved for Meritorious sports Persons in pursuance of the Notification No. No.28l2O22, daled 29-12-2022 issued by the 2nd Respondent as per the merit among the sports persons. F Petition Under Section',51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the 2nd Respondent to verify the original certificates of the Petitioners along with others and consider and appoint the Petitioners to the posts earmarked/ reserved for Meritorious sports Persons under Group-ll services in pursuance of the Notification No. 2812022, dated 29-12-2022 issued by the Znd Respondent pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI P.V.KRISHNAIAH Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 ,2 & 4: GP FOR SERVICES - ll Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : SRI P.S.RAJASEKHAR (SC FOR TGPSC) The Court made the following COMMON ORDER 3 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.34446, L4675, L6684, L67L5, 241L3, 25028, 26477, 26909, 27175, 28035, 28046, 28969, 28978, 3O74L, 32L96, 325t9, 32687, 34147, 34408, 35677 and 36422 of 2024 AND IIIRIT PETITION Nos. 4995, 9198, 9202, AND 97o,4 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 fiied 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 couttsel 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.3 44OB of 2024, appearing for the respective unofficial respondents, and pemsed the material available on record.

3. For convenience, the facts stated in W.P.No.25028 of 2024 are d.iscussed here under: Learned counsel for the petitioners submits as follows: 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 12024, 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-l 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.107) 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-O8.2012 (hereinafter referr:ed 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.lO7. Hence, this writ Petition.

5. Paragraph No.4 of the Notification, dated 19.02.2024 deals with 'Reservations.' Clause 4.7 of the said paragraph stipulates that the reservation to "Meritorious Sportsperson" is appticable 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 5 (20) and in Rule-22(i) in sub-Rule (2lr, for Class-D. In implementing the reservation to Meritorious Sports Person, G.o.Ms.No.oS will be foliowed. In the event of non-availability of eligible "Meritorious Sportspersons", two percent (2%) reservation of posts for them stand lapsed.

6. Vide Notification, in G.O.Ms.No.lO7, sub-rule (20) of Rule 2 of the Rules, 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 2'% for meritorious sportspersons in direct recruitment in Government Departments / Undertakings / grant-in-aid Institutions at all levels.

7. In paragraph No.2, clause (ii) of the Notification provides that the performance of the individual in having obtained Medals/participation in disciplines for deciding a meritorious sportsperson, against two percent (2%) sports quota as mentioned in Annerure-I[ to the G.o.Ms.No.74, shall be the criterion, keeping in view the participation in recognized sports disciplines as per Annexure-I 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 cail 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 qualiSring marks and claimed International / Multinational Certificates while submitting Group-I application forms. g. The said web Note calling candidates, who have represented India in an International Competition I 8 Multinational competitions in one of the recognized games / sports oniy, is contrary to G.O.Ms.No.74 and G.O.Ms.No. LO7. The 3.a respondent issued another Web Note, dated 20.O8.2O24 calling for only two candidates, out of which one candidate had already quaiified for Mains exam as per his merit/category published on O7.O7.2O24 and another candidate only was picked up under sports quota and provisionally permitted to appear for Group-l mains exam.

10. The respondents misconstrued G.O.Ms.No.74, G.O.Ms.No.1O7 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 2% reservation to Meritorious Sportsperson of the notified vacancies of 563 posts, and 4 posts have to be filled as per the clause 4.7 of the Notification dated 19.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.7O7 and G.O.Ms.No.74. Paragraph 12 of the Notification dated L9.o2.2o24 issued by the 3.d respondent deals with procedure for selection. According to paragraph No.12 (1) (B) of the said Notification, the number of candidates to be admitted to the written (Main) Examination (Conventional 9 Type) would be Fifty (5O) 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 22Aof 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 strbmitted above, only one candidate who is having Form-I has been provisionaliy 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 / Multinational competitions only. If that is the purport, the petitioners'applications ought not to have been entertained at all.

12. In paragraph No.2, clauses (ii) and (ix) of the Notification in G.O.Ms.No.74 clearly stipulate that 2Vo set apart for sports reservation for meritorious sportspersons, individual events 10 have to be given performance over team events 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-Ill is only Forms I to IV and is a mere certificate to be enclosed of the participation in sports/games, issued by recognized/ autho rized sports associatio n (s)

13. In the Notification/Web note, Form-l is being misconstrued by the respondent-authorities. Vide Web Note dated 22.07.2024 and 20.O8.2O24, the Certificate verifications were called from the candidates who represented India in International competition I Multinational competitions in one of the recognized 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, which prevails over the Notification. The Notification No.2 of 2024, dated 19.02.2024 does not exclude other sportspersons. Annexure-ll of G.o.Ms.No.74 specifies priorities for recruitment to the posts reserved under sports quota and it starts with a Gold Medal in Olympics games at item No.1 and ends up with participation in the State / lnter-district championship for school games at item No.90. Thus, Form-I L1, cannot control the substantive portion of the Notification and the G.O. and the amendments made to the Rules, L996 under G.O.Ms.No.tO7.

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. LO7, Sports quota is a separate quota, created with 2o/o reservation for meritorious sportspersons and shall be applicable as per the Annexure-l 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.1 1057 of 2021, dated 29.O7.2021; W.P.No. 16062 of 2020, dated

09.08.2024 and W.P.No. 13979 0f 2020, dated 24.01.2022 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 2"d respond.ent, 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 72 Games/Sports (Form-I), under sportspersons quota, is being taken up.

16. The authorities are calling for only the candidates who represented India International Competition/Multinational Competitions in one of the recognized Games/Sports (Form-1), under the sports quota, vide web Notes were issued on 22.07.2024 and 2o.o8.2o24 respectively, is arbitrary, contrary to G.O.Ms. No.74, G.O.Ms.No.LO7 and the Notification No.2/ 2024, dated L9.o2.2o24 issued by the 3.d respondent, and are violative of Articles 14, 16 and 2l of the constitution of India. Therefore, they filed the present Writ Petitions. L7. When the matter was taken up for hearing, at the admission stage, after hearing both sides, this court passed the following interim direction. oTherefore, to balance the equities, as an interim measure, pending the Wrtt Petition, the respondents are directed" to allout the petitioners to participate in main examination/ Iunner selection proce s s. Howe ue r, the re sults of the petitioners shall 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.N o.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.

19. He further submits that the policy makers are different from-executives. The very purpose of giving 2oh teservation for sportspersons is defeated. There is no clarity in G.O.Ms.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.107 were issued clarifying certain issttes, in so far as the above issue is concerned, there is no clarity. That due to misinterpretation in this regard, the vacancies meant for sportspersons are being wasted and the policy is frustrated' 14

20. He further submits that when the policy is to give 2o/o reservation for sportspersons and confirming the same at particular ievel, it would mean giving reservations with one hand and taking it away with another hand. when the higher- level performers are not available, denying the next category candidates, would 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 recruitment agency strictly follows the Rule 2, sub-rule 20 of the Rules. The "Meritorious sportsman", br-lt the recrrritment agency has not followed the same, means the individuals who have participated in the disciplines or obtained medals mentioned in the Annexures I & II respectively. In the Rules, there is no reference with regard to Forms. once the Rule does not disclose any Forms, if any Notification discloses any Forms, the same are not valid.

22. sri chikkudu prao'hakaf, learned counsel for petitioner submits that the writ petitions pertain to Junior Lecturers Multi Zonal-L. zonal posts are reserved for Sports euota. zonar 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 categorization.

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

25. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that in the online application form, pertaining to Group-I services Notification No.O2 / 2024, the candidates who ate claiming sports reservation, were required to give details about the sports/games in which they had participated and also the level of participation/tournaments in which they had participated/won medals. As per G.o.Ms.No.lO7 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 have 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 candidates who have represented India InternationallMultinational Tournaments, are eligible for Sports Reservation in Group-I Services, is false and denied. Para 4.7 of the Group-l services Recruitment Notification No.02/2024 reads as follows: "The reseruatton to Meritorious Sportsperson is applicable as per the amendments made to the State and Subordinate Seruice Rules, as per G.O.Ms.No.107, General Administration (Ser.D) Dept., Dt.27-07-2018 that is in Rule- 2, for sub-Rule (20) and in Rule-22(i) in sub-Rule (2), for C/ass-D. In implementing the reseruation to Meritorious Sporfs Person, 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, ttao percent (2o/o) reseruation of posts for them stand lapsed."

26. He further submits that the G.O.Ms.No.0S is a continuation of Government order for G.o.Ms.No.T4, through which, the G.o.Ms.No.74 has been arnended making the sports reservation horizontal. In the same w&y, G.o.Ms.No.1o7 was L7 issued by 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.0212024, dated L9.O2.2024.

28. He further submits that the results of Preiiminary Test and Final Key of Group-I Services Prelims was hosted by the Commission bn 07.-O7-.2O24. Regarding the Meritorious Sports Persons who are claiming Sports Reservation, the following was informed in the Web Note/Press Note: "The shortfall in respect of Meritoious Sports Persons shall be notified separatelg after uerification of FORM - I (Candidates uho haue represented India in an International competition / Multinational competition in the recognized Games/ Sports) of the candidates who lnue claimed sporfs Reseruation if found eligible as per tle G.O.Ms No.74 Youth Aduancement, Touism & Cttlfire (Sports) Department Dt.Og/08/2012 & G.O.Ms.No.S. Youth Ad.uancement, Tourism & Culture (sports) Department Dated: 14- O5-2O18 & G.O.Ms.No.1O7 General Administration (Ser.D) Department Dated: 2 7-07-20 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-l 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 verification of Form-I. Respondent No.5 has claimed that she has represented India in an International and Muiti National competition and was also 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.S shail be followed. In this regard, in Para XII in G.O.Ms.No.74. 79

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-III 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.N o.7-4, which reads-a.s follows: (xiu) Tlrc eligibilitg certificate issued bg the Committee shall be forutarded to the Recruiting/Agencg Appointing Authority for appointment under spods quota in uaious categoies of posfs in different Departments on the basis of Merit-Cum- Sports Eligibility Certifi.cate against the notifications i.ssued bg them. (xu) Eligibilitg Certiftcates i.ssued bg the Committee shall be ualid for the notification issued bg Recruiting Agencg/Appointing Authority, uthich slnll be mentioned in the certiftcate. 20

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

34. He further submits that since respondents No.1 to 4 and 6 have not represented India in lnternational/Mutti-National Sports & Games & does not have Form-[, they were not shortlisted for Sports Certificate verification. Further it is submitted that except Respondent No. 6 all other Respondent have qualified for Mains examinations in Merit / Category without reference to their sports achievement as per the results hosted by the Commission on 07 lO7 12024.

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-l Mains as per metitf 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 ail 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 the Committee of certificates -verificatioo,, \Mere sent to 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 (xiii). 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 2o/o reservation in 22 Government 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 modality 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-l Services (Dy. Collector, DSp, Asst. Director: Cadre Post etc.) Group-ll Services (Dy. Tahsildar, EO PR&RD etc.) Group-III Services (Clerical Posts in the HoD offices) Group-lV Services (Clerical posts in the Dist. / Sub Ordinate Offices) Last Grade Seryice (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 specifying the level of achievement in sports which can be considered for the above categories of jobs. 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 Wpe 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-Il, 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 ab'ove 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.lO7. Vide G.O.Ms.No.O5, it has been 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 ceased and allotted to open competition in the same recruitment. The sequence mentioned in the Annexure-ll of the G.O.Ms.No. 74 "Priori.ties of Sports & Games for recruitment of two percent (2o/o) reservation under Sports Quota" deterrrines the inter-se sports merit of the candidates claiming sports reservation.

41. He further submits that the respondent No. 1, Sri Gollapalli Raju, has earlier filed W.P.No.22643 of 2024 with similar grounds and the same was disposed of by this Court vide orders, dated 20.08.2024 directing the respondent No.2- TGSPSC to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated

25.O7.2024 for appointment in terms of G.O.Ms. No.74 dated

09.08.20L2 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.l 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-l Services Notification No. 02/2024, dated I9.O2.2O24 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 I Acts I Government Orders relating to the direct recruitments as on the date of issuance of Notifications. Permitting-the candidates who don't have FORM-I and who have FORM-ll, III and IV to write the Group-l Mains, would be contrary to G.O.Ms.No.74, dated O9.O8.2OL2 and all the candidates who have Form II, [I 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 Annexure II in GO.Ms.No. 74. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 26

44. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of Learned Additional Advocate General filed counter in W.P.No.32l96 of 2024 and submitted that the same counter is adopted in all the cases

45. He further submits that G.O.Ms.No.74, had notified instructions and detailed guidelines for extending the benefit of 20 reservation in Government jobs for meritorious sportspersons at all levels in all posts of State Government Departments, Educational Institutions, Local bodies, Corporations and other establishments referred thereunder, which are funded or aided by the State Government, where direct recruitment is one of the methods of appointment. The said G.O. includes Annexure-l and Annexure-Il referred to in Clause (ii), Annexure-lll and Forms referred thereunder in Clause (xii) of the notification. The annexures in the said G.O are as follows:- Annexure-l (list of recognized posts) Annexure-Il (priorities of sports and games) Annexure-Ill (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 Government jobs as specified in Clause ("ii) to ("") 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 referabie in the respective forms and the said certificates in Form-l 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 forurarded to a Committee constituted at Government level in Youth Advancement, Tourism and Culture (Sports) Department who shall finalize the proposals.

47. He further submits that the Committee shall 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 cum sports eligibility certificate. The 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 final 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, the Forms under Annexure-lll 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-IV Services (Form-III Representing a University in recognized Last Grade Service (Form-IV Representing a State School Team in the National Games for School Children) The said procedure is being followed since 2012.

49. 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 2o/o 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.O5.2O18, causing amendment to Clause No.(xviii) under para 2 of the Notification that the said reservation shall be horizontal 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 in exercise of powers under Article 3O9 of the Constitution of India, has amendbd the said Rules vide G'O.Ms.No.lO7 substituting Rule 2(2O) and amending Rule 22(11)(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 Rule that while implementing the reservation of meritorious sportspersons, the 30 gnidelines 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.5 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:- (iil The performance of the indiuiduol in hauing obtained Nledals/participation in disciplines fo, deciding a meitorious sportsperson, against ttao percent (2%) sports quota as mentioned in Annexure-Il to this order, shall be the criterion, keeptng in uiew the partictpation in recognized s-ports disciplines as per Annentre-I to this order, or as moy be retuised by the Gouernment from time to time. (xii) The appointing authorities shall call for applications bg puhlishinq in leading news papers in English/Telugu/urdu lanquaqes frorn meitoious sportspersons along tutth the certificcttes in Form-L, FortnJI, Form-III and Form-IV as the case maA be, uide Annentre III enclosed to this notification and shall submit the same to the Sports Authority of Andhra Pradesh. After sctuting bg the Sports Authoity of Andhra Pradesh, like genuineness of the certificates, uerifying medals/ranks etc., the applications will be forwarded to a Committee at Gouernment leuel in Youth Aduancement, Touism and Culture (Sports) Department and the said Committee shall finalise the proposaLs. The said Committee shall issue eltgtbilitg certificate for appointment under Sports quota. (xiii) The recommendation of the Committee for issuing eligibilitg certificate shatl be final. The Committee shall consisf of the follouing members:- (1) Prl. Secg.,/ Secg., Youth Seruices & Sporfs - Chairunan / Chairperson 31 (2) Prt. Secg.,/ Secg, Home Department Member (1) Prl. Secg.,/Secg General Admintstration (Seruices) Department Member (2) Vice Chairman & Managing Director, Sports Authoity of - Andhra Pradesh - Conuenor NOTE: A representatiue from the Telangana Olympic Association and an eminent sportsperson of the concerned sporfs discipline may be tnuited as special inuitees for their adutce as and when required bg the Committee. (xiu) The eligtbiltty certificate issued bg the Committee shall be forraarded to the Recntiting/ Agency Appointing Authoitg for appointment under sports quota in uartous categories of posts in different Departments on the basis of Merit-Cum- Sports Etigtbilitg Certificate against the notifications issued bg them. (xu) Eligibility certificates issued by the committee shall be ualid for the notification issued by Recruiting Agency/Appointing Autlority, which shall be mentioned in the certificate. From the above clauses, it is noticed that clause-ii refers to Annexure-I and Annexure-ll whereunder the performance of 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 mad.e 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-lV, as 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/ranks of the applicants. Thereafter, the said applications shall be forwarded to Committee at Government level referable to C1ause (xiii), which shall firalize 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 (>.v) 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 certificate along with Form-lII 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 eligibitity certificate to the public service 33 Commission that he was not eligibie 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- 1 & 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-Ill and forms thefe - under hnd the meritorious sportsperson shatl submit their certificate along with appropriate form which refers to the posts. Clause (xv) makes it clear that it is the etigibility certificate issued by the Committee that determines whether the candidate is eligible to be appointed for the post notified and such eligibility certificate 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-lll. 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-II, Form-ill and Form-lV, as the case may be, which would 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 Rule 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 ca,ndidates with Form-l were eligible to participate against the Group- 1 post and allowing candidates with Form-III would not only bring an illegality of allowing ineligible persons but also taking away rights of open category persons, who would otherwise become etigible 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-lll referred under Clause (xii) under Notification issued vide G.O.Ms.No.74, dated 09.O8.2O12. 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.2528 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 amenelan-ents 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.28O35 of 2024, submitted that this Court passed an interim order on 04.1O.2O24 as under: "The respondents are directed to keep one post of Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector under Sporfs Quota in Multi Zone-II uaca.rlt, 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-ll, but the petitioner was not called for final 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 the writ Petition and in view of the interim order, the unofficial respondents are going to lose their posts. Acco-rdingly, prayed to vacate the interim order 37 6L. Smt. Rachana Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, argued on behalf of Sri Mohammed Baseer Riyaz in W.P.No.344OB of 2024 that the unofficial respondents are going to lose their post because of Interim 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, and 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 LAWS 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

1. In Nirendra Kumar saha & others vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd., and othersl; "37. .Aelore parting v,ith this case I am, hoytet,er, of the considered opinton that a fev., word.s ma1, be said regarding the doctrine of comity of court which dcmands thut courts take a consistent ctnd unifornt approach tov'arcls administration of justice b.l; taking adequate care to ensure elimination of conflicting orders. The issue raised in these u,rit petitions has been substantially ansu,ered b1, no less than three High Courts and I have found no reasons to dffir u,ith them. The Hon,ble supreme cow't, in the case of lndia Household and Healtlrcare Ltd. t,. LG Household and Healthcore Ltd., reporred in 2007 (S) SCC 510, has, inter alia, held that the doctrine o.f comity or amitry requires a Court not to pass an order which u,ould be in conflict tt'ith another order passed by a competent Court o.f'l,av,. Tfurs, additionall),. I am olso of the t,ieu, that thc present case is an instance vt,here the doctrine of comity or amity o.f court is applicable, stnce courts of coordinate benches as weil cts a Divisiort Bench o.f another Irigh Court hat'e substantially addressed the issue raisecl in the present writ petitions ancl have come to uniform and consistent .findings and therefore there is no scope o/' passing any 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 quota, interpreting G.o.Ms.No.74 (which was adopted by the Government of relangana), which is contrary to the t zoog 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/ " 20. 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 can neuer 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 question in the case mentioned above is, whether MAT credit is admissible in terms of Section 1 1s-JAA against the tax payable (assessed tax) before calculating interest u/s 234 (a, b & c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 In this case, the relevant Form 115/JAA prescribed what is contrary to section 115-JAA (4) itself. '(zottl 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 consideration for the validity of Forms and Statutes. In the present case, the TGPSC prescribed 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-l (Recognized sports by the authorities), Annexure-[l (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 sportspersons", in accordance with Annexure-I and II.

3. Life In-sarance Corporation of India Vs. ESCORTS Ltd., and others;3 It is meant to indicate the ordinary procedure w.hich ma_y, be followed. Shri Nariman argued that none of the prescribed forms provided for the application and grant o.f subsequent permission. T'hat may be so for the obvtous reason that ordinarily one w,ould expect permission to be sought and given before the act. Surely, the l;orm cannot conlrgl the- a9t, 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 tatl and not the tail that wags the dog." '1rsss; 1 scc 264 47 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 und.er Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, L973 (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 Hon'ble Apex Court held that Section 29(1)(b) of FERA uses the '*,ord "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 facto). 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 2O.O8.2O24 seeking Form-I for Group-I & II candid.ates, Form-II for Group-III candidates. In the said circumstances, a Larger Bench of the Supreme Court observed 42 that "it is the dog that wags the tail and not the tail that',vags 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: l. Allahabad University ETC;, Allahabad Degree College & another Vs. Geetanjali Tiwari (Pandy) & others ETC ETC, *ON INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES Hon'ble O Chtnnappa 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 style had the occasion to ernphasize; "6. It may be n'orthwhile to restate and explain at this stage ccrtain well-known principles of interpretation o.f statutes: ll/ords are but mere vehicles thoughts. They are meant to express or convey one's thoughts. Generally, a person's words and thoughts are coincidental. No problent arises then, but, not infrequently, they are not. It is common expericncc with most men, that occasionally there are no adequate y,ords to express some of their thoughts. L{/ords which vct): nearly express the thoughts may be found but not words which w,ill express precisely. There is then a great fumbltng for words. Long-w,inded explanations and, in conversation even gestures are resorted to. Ambtguous w,ords and words which unwitttngly convey more that one meaning are used. where dffirent interpretations are likely to be put on words and a 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 thing and not the other. But if it is the legtslature that has expressed itself by making the laws and dfficulties artse in interpreting o 2024Law Suit(SC)1181 il' puoy4 aqt lo saluuortl Dqrc aW ot sp)otur lo ,{uuottQ aW ppD ot tou ato aM puo u.tad'o? ot tou puD a^ras ot tuaau arl sprol4 'Pak uaatB aq Pu nnoqs 'suDaut raUrc,Q ,fina1c'paurutaqp aq uD) Trlt 'atn1opt&a1 aqlto uo\uaru! anu arp {qn uosDar ou fi aaql saszo qons u! lam1op8a1 aqt lo uoquarut atp walap ua,ta t(nru puo [a,tuoc tou saop sptolt4 aql to Sutuoau uru1d aW ruW a1qlssod aq sauuauos rtoru y snon8rqruDun puo nalc alcot oultd aq o1 naddo sa1n1og lo sproil aql anqa ua^g 'Tunouotod s1 spro*r aW rcu puD a.tnplsl&a1 ary lo uouuarul 'saBpn{ so ilal^ sD snlfio o7 atnlolnBal aqt lo uouuatm ary ,{1tno1d taauoc o7 pa1cadxa aq tow spJo{t uro1d asnocaq fiq sptow qcns lo ssauuruld aqt ur ctSow Jo ttt,tDq? rfun s1 d.taqt asnnaq pu 'sp.totw u1o7d ol Paga aa8 plnoqs unoc Y 'uaql ot ua,v8 aq tsnu nafla snon7rquDull puo uru1d a,to safilo-ts-lo sB4a01aLfi a.tary.\ tzqi uoultrlsuoc Jb a1n.t uap1oB PanDc-os ary lo YSDq Pat aql s! s1q1 ',{os rt1u1o1d sp.tot aW pryM papuaru! atnro1s8al ary ruW pautnsa.td ttulos aq ,toru y 'saBpn[ ot so ilotDlst8a1 o7 {1toa1c so uatlods a^oq $nw spto,lt alll a"uls 'saqasu.taql .tol Toods [ptoutpto spto* t'PnS 'asuD ,lotu trtttlcnllstto) .fb uotlsanb ou stton8tqluDull puo fiap zJD Spto;rl ataq:A 'astnoc J6 'a.rnto1n&a1 atp lo uollualu! atfl ruo Pu{ ot st 'safiruts lo trotlo\a.trl"ravn aW u! 'l ava)uoc aM sD 'urloc o to 4so7 tsoutarcl aq1 is/vtttl aW lo uollolatd.ta\ut lo sarylncgff1p Sut,tlosat lo lsw aW ruoqD PS ot st.t,lo) aql a.tD ,ltoH 'sLtos.tad ryatalfp {q poorstapun ,{puatalltp 3u1aq lo alqndoc sp-,to.vt aq {ou rbrp :snonBtqtuo aq tout sp"totvt ary lpataruoc aQ ot ruDatu sl lDqnt r(a,ruoc t\awnbapo rcu tow ut!1.1 {q pasn sp)oM aW :ilD tD uotto1n&al aqt lo 71t1ds aqt ry&noc a^oq rcu tou uoutstlotp aq1 'dn dotc ot punoq an sau1ncg{rp arow 'ruDaw rbt1t totlt ruo Pu{ot st (t.rrtoc aql uouad prlry D puo (atn1o1n&a1 aqt to s7q8nory aqt sp.tow o7u1 slnd uotus{o.tp aql sn) nqtouD lo vq8noqt aql sp-to/^ o7ut slnd uostad auo lt 'll.oN 'sltnoc aqt q pailoilD s! ruDau atn\ols8al aW ruqM lno Surpurt tq s,uo1 aqt &uua.rd.raru1lo lsu atfl oS 'asuD uorvlatd.tarut to saulncg[tp sD uado sD saqasuaqt uru1dxa q p"tom-tol auoc touuDc'qDnparyu! aylpn'sam1op&al aqJ'saurucEfip asotlt aqosa) ot tls ot paysD aq puuDc atn7op13a1 D 'plps sDq atryqs!&a1 ary ruqrn EN 44 [I3J Another crisp and enlightening passdge is found in Reserve Bank of India (supra) u,here His Lordship observed asfollow.s: "33. Interpretation must depend on the text and the context. They arc the bases of interpretation. One may well say d the text is the texture, context is what gtves the colour. Neither can be tgnorr:d. Both arc important. That interpretation ,s best which makes tlze textual interpretation match the contextual. A statute is best interpreted wlrcn we knoyv why it was enacted. With this htowledge, the statute must bc read, first as a whole and then section by section, clause by clause, phrase b;t phrase and word by word. If a statute is looked at in the context of its enactment, wtth the glasses of the statute-maker, provided by such context, its scheme, the sections, clauses, phrases and words may take colour and appear different than when the statutc is looked at without the glasses provided by 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 und.er the regulations 1o(e) and 10(0(iiil 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, 20L8. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner filed a writ Petition and the learned Single 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 fited a Civil Appeal (arising out of SLP) before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that such an interpretation is unsustainable in law, and the dismissal order of the Single 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,.7+ 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. Jaishrt Laxmonrao Patil Vs. The Chief Minlster & anothersl s civil Appeal No.3123 of 2o2O 46 The Hon'ble Apex Court at para No.10 held as follows "7O. In the 183d Report of the Law Commission of India, Justice M. Jagannadha Rao obserued that a statute is a tuill of legislature conueged in the form of turt. ft is well settled principle of law that as a stafitte is an edict of the legislature, the conuentional waA of interpreting or construing the statute is fo 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 conueys the concept of 'purpose' and 'object' or 'reason' or 'approach' peruading through the statute. The process o/ construction, therefore, combines both liberal and purposiue approaches. Howeuer, necessity of interpretation would. anse only where a language of the statutory prouision is ambiguous, not clear or where two uiews are possible or where the prouision giues a different meaning defeating the object of the statute. He supported. his uieut by refering to two judgments of this Court in R.S. Nayak u. A.R. Antulay; (1984) 2 SCC 185 and Grasim Industries Ltd. u. Collector of Customs;, Bombag, (2OO2) 4 SCC 297. It was held in R.S. Nagak (supra) that the plainest duty of the Court is to 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 interpretatio_n of stafittes that the expressions used therein should ordinaily be understood in a sense in which theg best harmonise with the object of the statute, and uhich effecfinte the object of the legislature. Howeuer, the object.oriented. approach cannot be carried to the ertent of doinE uiolence to the plain language used bg re-utriting the section or stntcture words 47 in place of the actual words used by the legislature. The logical corollary that flows from the iudicial pronouncements and opinion of reputed authors is that the primary rule of construction is literal construction. If there is no ambiguitg in the prouision wlich is being construed there is no need to look beyond. Legislatiue intent which is crucial fo, understanding the object and purpose of a prouision should be gathered from the language. The purpose can be gathered from external 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'b1e 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 g{ intgrpf_g!!+g o,f _gonstruing 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, upon 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 I[, but not Annexure-Ill. In the case at hand, the authorities also misconstrued. the provision / Rules. This observation supports the petitioners' case.

3. J. Venkat Balaji Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Chief Secretary, and qnother6. "WTtether the dog can uag the tail or the tail will wag the dog" is the question in this case. Factual Matrix in Brief: The petitioner is a candidate seeking employment in Group-I of the State seruices. He has cleared the preliminarg and the main written examination- He is a sportsman, who has plaged Competitiue Tennis at a certain leuel. He seeks employment under the 2% Sporfs quota. Afier qualifuing in the main examination, the petitioner utas asked to submit his eligibility certificates/ sports certificates bg an email dated 03.06.2021. The same were referred to a committee constituted bA respondent No.2. The said committee bg its order dated 31.05.2021 rejected the petitioner's case on the ground that he has not represented India in an International Competition, Multinational Competition as prescribed in Form-I of Annexure-Ill. (ix) In the quota of two percent (2%) set apart for sports reseruation for meitorious sporfs persons, indiuidual euents u w.p.No.11os7 of 202L, dt.zg.o|.zo2L 49 haue to be giuen preference ouer team euents within a pioritg. (x) Participation at higLrcr leuel shall be considered onlg when it is supported bg usinning medals at the lower leuel. "Meitoious 2(19) Meitoious Sportsman: Sportsman" means a sportsman who has represented the State or the Country in a national or international competition or Llniuersities in the Inter-Uniuersitg tourutaments conducted bg the Inter-lJniuersity Boards or the State Sclool team in the national sports/games/for schools conducted bg the All India School Games Federation in ang of the games, sporfs, mentioned belout: and ang other games/ sports as may be a specified by the Gouernment from time to time. (emphasis supplied) Relying upon the leading judgment of the Supreme Court of India in Life Insurance 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.ag-can wag-its tail and not uice uersa'. According to him, the form cannot restrict or limit the citeria that is already frxed in the notification and the G.O. 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. All 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 interim direction to participate in the examination. The observation of the Hon'ble 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. Shankarsan Dosh Vs. tlnion of Indiaz

7. It is not correct to say that if a ruumber of uacancies are iotifi.ed for appointment and adequate numbei of candidates are found fit, the success.,1frzl candidates acqtire an indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied. Ordinailg the notification merelg amounts to an inuitation to qualified. candid.ates to apptg for 'lrssry 3 scc 47 51 recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire anA right to the post. Unless the releuant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or anA of the uacancies. Howeuer, it does not mean that the State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the uacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. And if the uacancies or any of them are filled up, the State is bound to respect the comparatiue merit of the candidates, as reJlected at the recruitment test, and no discrimination can be permitted- This correct position has been consistently followed bg this Court, and we do not find anA discordant note in the d.ecisions in State of Haryana u. Subhash Chander Marutaha, Neelima Shangla u. State of Haryana, or Jatendra Kumar u. State of Punjab.

8. In State of Haryana u. Subhash Chander Maruaha' 15 uacancies of Subordinate Judges were aduertised, and out of the selection list only 7, who had secured more than 55 per cent marks, were appointed, although under the releuant rules the-eligibility condition required-onlg 45 per cent marks. since the High court had recommended earlier, to the Punjab Gouernment that onlg the candidates seanring 55 per cent marks or more should be appointed as subordinate Judges, the other candidates included in the select list utere not appointed.. Theg fited. a writ petition before the High Court claiming a right of being appointed on the ground that uacancies existed and theg were qualified and were found. suitable. The uit application was allowed. While reuersing the decision of the High Court, it was obserued bg this court that it was open to the gouernment to d.ecid.e hottt marry appointments should be made and atthough tlrc High Court had appreciated the position 52 correctlA, it had "somehow persuaded itself to spell out a ight in the candid.ates because in fact there were 15 uacancies". It was expressly ruled that the existence of uacancies does not giue a legal right to a selected candidate. Similarly, the claim of some of the candidates selected for appointment, who u.tere petitioners in Jatendra Kumar u. State of Punjab, was tumed dou.m holding that it was open to the gouernment to decide how manA appointments would be made. The plea of arbitrariness was rejected in uiew of the facts of the case and it was held that the candidates did not acquire anA ight merely bg applying for selection or euen after selection. It is tnte that the claim of the petitioner in the case of Neelima Shangla u. State of Haryana, LDas alloued by this Court but, not on the ground that she had acquired ang nght by her selection and existence of uacancies. The fact was that the matter had been referred to the Public Seruice Commission which sent to the gouernment only the names of 17 candidates belonging to the general category on the assumption that oriy 17 posts were to be filled up. The gouemment accordingly made onlg 17 appointments and stated before the court that they were unable to select and appoint more candidates as the Commission had not recommended any other candidate. In this background it was obserued that it is, of cortrse, open to the gouernment not to filt up all the uacancies for a ualid reasort, but the selection cannot be arbitrarily restricted to a few candidates notwithstanding the number of uacancies and the auailabilitA of quatified candidates; and, there must be a conscious application of mind bg the gouerrlment aod the High Court befure the number of persons selected for appointment i.s restricted". The fact that it was not for the Public seruice commission to 53 take a decision in this regard Luas emphasised in this judgment. None of these decbions, 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-Ill (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 reserved vacancies, despite having the requisite sports certificates as per the G.Os and Notifications. However, the 54 petitioners were disqualified by the Forms. After disqualification, the said vacancies are allotted to general category for want of meritorious sportspersons, which is bad in law. 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 of 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. and others Vs. Nandlo,l Jqisutal and othersa "2.3. We may first consider the question of laches or delag in filing the writ petitions because that is the question which has been decided by the High Court against the petitioners and the petitioners haue challenged the correctness of the firuding reached bg the High Court on this point. The policg decision impugned in the writ petitions was taken on December 3O, 1984. The Letter of Intent was issued in fauour of each of respondents 5 to 11 on Februarg 7, 1985 and the Deed of Agreement taas executed on February 2, 1985. Each of respondents 5 to 11 thereafier proceeded to purchase land where the new distilleries were to be located and incurred large expenditure in purchase of such land and secuitg deposit in a fairly large amount was also paid 'lrsaey 4 scc 5G6 55 by each of respondents 5 to I 1. Thereafier ciuil construction work for putting up the distillery buildings was entrusted to reputed builders and uaious sfeps were taken bg each of respondenfs 5 to 1 1 for obtaining requisite permission/ con- sent from Madhga Pradesh Pradushan Niuaran MandaL The constntction of the distillery buildings was started and in manA cases considerable progress u)as made in the constntction. 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 utith quick dispatch because the distilleries u)ere required to be ready for production by Apil 7, 1986. Each of respondenfs 5 to 11 worked indefatigably, ceaselesslg and in all earrtestness and spent considerable time, energy and resources in setting up the distilleies at the neu 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, on acquisition of land, purchase of plant and machinery, constntction of distillery buildings and other incidental and ancillary expenses. The first utrit petition uas filed by Nandlal Jaiswal on Nouember 28, 1985 about 11 months after the date of the impugned policy decision, uthile the second writ petition came to be filed bg Sagar Aganaal euen later on January 24, 1986 and the third utrit petition of M/,s Doongaji & Co. was filed when the bearing of tlrc ftrst two writ petitions was actuallg going on in the High Court. There can be doubt that the petitioners were guilty of gross delay in fiting the utrit petitions with the result that by the time the writ petitions came to be filed' respondenfs 5 to 11 had, pursuant to the policg decision d.ated December 30, 1984, altered their position bg 56 incurring huge expenditure towards setting up the distilleies.

24. Now, it is well settled that the power of the High Court to issue an appropiate writ under Article 226 of the Constitntion is discretionary and the High Court in the exercise o/ ifs discretion does not ordinarily assfsf the tardg and the indolent or the acquiescent and the lethargic. If there is inordinate delag on the part of the petitioner in filing o writ petition and such delay is not satisfactorilg explained, the High Court mag decline to interuene and grarut relief in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction. The euolution of this rule of laches or delay is premised upon a number of factors. The High Court does not ordinarilg permit a belated resort to the ertraordinarA remedy under the writ juisdiction because if is liketg to cause confusion and. public inconuenience and bing in ifs train new injustices. Tlrc rights of third parties may interuene and if the writ jurisdiction is exercised on a writ petition filed after unreasonable delay, it may haue the effect of inflicting not onl.y hardsltip and inconuenience but also injustice on third parties. When the writ jurisdiction of the High Court is inuoked, unexplained delay coupled with the creation of third partA rights in the meanwhile is an important factor which alwags weiglts with the High Court in deciding whether or not to exercise such juisdiction. We do not think it necessary to burden this judgment with reference to uarious decisions of this Court where it has been emphasised time and again that where there is inordinate and. unexplained delag and third partA rights are created in the interueniig peiod, the High Court would decline to interfere, euen if the State action complained of is unconstitutional or illegal. We maA onlg mention in the 51 passing tuto decisions of this Court one in Ramana Dayaram Shetty u. International Airport Authority of India' and the other in Ashok Kumar Misdira u. Collector. We may point out that in R. D. Shetty's case, euen though the State action tuas held to be uruconstitutional as being 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 by the petitioner more than fiue montlrc after the acceptance of the tender of the fourth respondent and during that period, the fourth respondent had incurred 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 delay is not a rigid ntle which can be cast in a strait- jacket formula, for there may be cases where despite delay and creation of third partA rights the High Court mag still in the exercise of its discretion interfere and grant relief to the petitioner. But, such cases where the demand of justice is so compelling that the High Court would be inclined to intgl[ere in spite of delay or creation of third partA-_?g would by their uery nature be few and far betuteen. Ultimatelg it would be a matter within the discretion of the court; ex hypothesis euery discretioru must be exercised fairly and justly so as to promote iustice and not to defeat it.

2. $fi. Sriniuas and. others t/s. State of Telangana and otherse *26. A conjoint reading of the aboue order of the Writ Court and one which is passed in Writ Appeal, uthich are relating to same Group-I selectiort, uthich is subject matter in the e W. P. Nos.26 O38 of 2024 a nd batch, dt- 26.12.2024 of D. B. s8 instant batch shours that the Court declined to entertain the petition on the ground of d.etay in approaching the Court. It was poignantlg held that the delay on the part of the petitioners may be of only six months, but in matter of this natltre, day-to-day delag matters and the petitioners failed to explain euen a single reason to explain the delay in approaching this Court. It is notetuorthy that Si J. Sudheer, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.32482 of 2024 urged that G.O.Ms.No.29, dated 08.02.2024, was not uploaded till 16.08.2024. Thus, this fact safisfes the aspect of delay in fiting the petitions....

28. The date of filing of petitions in preuious round before the Single Bench i.e., W.P.Nos.21239 and 22320 of 2024 is 02.08.2024 and 13.08.2024 respectiuely, whereas the preserut batch of petitions u)ere filed much afier that. The challenge to same selection process in the preuious round failed on the ground of delay. Since the petitions filed prior in time in the preuious round were not entertained on the ground of delay, it is not possible for us to persuade ourselues that subsequent round of litigation i.e., the present batch can be entertained ba ignoing much larger delay. More-so, when the order passed in W.P.No.21239 of 2024 got stamp of approual by the Diuision Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal and the SLP before the Supreme Court was also dismissed. The delag is fatal for the present petitions as well. We are not satisfied with the explanation of the delag giuen in one case as discussed aboue.

33. At the cost of repetition, it cannot be forgotten that the selection questioned. in these matters is same selection tahich became subject matter of chnllenge in the preuious round i.e., W.P.No.21239 of 2O24. If lesser delay in filing 59 preuious round of litigation was held to be fata\ it is not possible to hold that a rnuch larger delay in fiIing the present batch of petitions will fade into insignificance. The other contentions raised in the witten submissions are relating to merits of the matter which cannot be gone into in uieut of delay infiling this batch of Wit 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 filing 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 impugned policy decision. 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-I services. Moreover, the present case is filed during the selection process. However, the issue involved in the said case is the policy decision. and implementation of a 2oh 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. Moreover, once the petitioners' claim is genuine and they are seeking relief as a sportsperson, their right is legal. With regard to delay and latches, this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of htkqrqm Kana Joshi and others Vs. Maharqshtrq. Industrial Deaelopment CorTtoration and others,2Ol3 (1) SCC 353, which was decided on November 2,2012. In the said case, the petitioner 51 approached the Court after a lapse of 24 years. In the said case, Apex Court observed as follows: "12: The State, especially a Welfare State which is gouemed bg the Rule of Law, cannot arrogate itself to a sfafus beyond one that is prouided by the Constitution. Our Constitution is an organic and flexible one. Delag and latches is adopted os 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. Delay and latches is one of the facets to deny the exercise of discretion. /f is not an absolute impediment. There can be mitigating factors, continuity 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 partA interest is inuolued. Thus analysed, the petition is not hit by the delay and latches as the same is not constitutional limitation, the caus.e-of action is continuous and further the situation certainly shocks judicial conscience.

13. The question of condonation of delag is one of the discretions and has to be decided on the basis of the facts of the case at hand, as the same uary from case to case. It will depend. upon what the breach of fundamental right and the remedg claimed or and when, and how the delag arose. It is not that there is any peiod of limitation for the Courts to exercise their power under ArL 226, nor is it that there can neuer be a case where the Courts cannot interfere in a matte1 after the passage of certain length of time. There maA be a case where the demand for justice fs so 62 compelling, that the High Court would be inclined to ituerfere in spite of delay. Ultimatelg, it would be a matter utithin the discretion of the Court and such discretion, mttst be exercised fairlg and justlu so as to promote justice and not to defeat it. The ualidity of the party's defence must be tie cl upo n p inciple s sub stantially equitable.

14. No hard-and-fast rule can be laid down as to when the High Court should refuse to exercise its jurisdiction in fauour of a partg utho moues it after considerable delay and is otheruise guilty of latches. Discretion must be exercised judiciously and reasonably. In the euent that the claim made by the applicant is legally sustainable, delag should be condorrcd. In other words where circumstances justifging the conduct exist, the illegality which is manifest, cannot be sustained on the sole ground of latches. When substantial jus;tice ancl technical considerations ar7 pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserues to be preferred, for the other side, cannot claim to haue a uested ight 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. Rannesh Kumar Choudhary Vs. State of Ro,iasthantTo 'o 2oL2 scc onLine Raj 2824 53 "The petitioner offered his candidature in the recruitment aforesaid in "Backward Class" category; and also claimed LLis entitlement to be considered in other categorg as "Outstanding Sportsman" with reference to a certificate said to haue been issued by Sanskrit Education Department of the Gouerutment of Rajasthan to the effect that he had participated in the State leuel tournament of Sanskrit Colleges in Kabaddi and was part of the first ranking team. In the result of the written examination taken by the petitioner for the recruitment in question, he was assigned merit number 5OB. Howeuer, his claim for consideration in the uacancies reserued for "Outstanding Sportspersons" category was declined by the respondents on the ground that the documents submitted by him utere not certifying him to be an Outstanding Sportsperson at international leuel. The petitioner made a representation and hauing faited to get the claimed relief, has fited this writ petition seeking to challenge the ualiditg of the Dxplanation 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 10 of the Rules of 1998 as under:- "Rule 70: Reseraation of aacancies for Outstanding S p o r-t sperso ns."' Re s e ru atio n of u acancie s for Outstanding Sportspersons shall be 2% of the total uacancies outside the puruiew of the Commission in that Aear earmarked for direct recruitment. In the euent of non- auailabilitA, of the eligible and suitable Sportspersons in a particular aear, the uacancies so reserued for them shall be filled in accord.ance utith the normal procedure and such uacancies shatl not be carried forward to the subsequent 54 Aear. The reseruation for Sportspersons shall be treated as horizontal reseruation and. it shalt be ad.justed. in the respectiue categorg to uthich the Sportspersons belong. Explanation - "Outstanding Sportspersons" shall mean and include the Sportspersons belonging to the State who haue participated indiuidually or in team, in the Games recognized by the International. Olympic Committee and Indian Olympic Association ot, International championshrps in Badminton, Tennis, Chess and Cricket recognized bA their respectiue National Leuel Association, Federation or Board; uith the following desciptions for each class of the Ciuil Seruices.'-- Class of Seruice Description Subordinate Seruice Has represented India in Asian Games, Asian Championshzps, Common Wealth Games, World Championshrps, World Uniuersity Games, World School, SAARC Games or Olympic Games where he (in art indiuidual item) or his team (in a team euent) has obtained Ist IInd or III position. The learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuouslg argued that the uery purpose of Rule 10 \bid. stands frustrated by way of the Explanation where the meaning of "Outstanding Sportspersons" has been restricted onlg to the persons securing 7, 2 or 3 position in intermational - competitions. It is submitted that from the practical standpoint, the benefit of intended reseruation cannot be deriued because of the Explanation aforesaid.; and. for this reason, no candidate got selected in this category in the recruitment in question. It is submitted that the object of prouiding reseruation to the sportspersons in the 65 emploAment is to encourage the sporfs actiuities and to upttft the sportspersons but the Rule as framed, particularlg the Explanation thereof, run counter to such auouted object. It is also submitted that the Rule is essenfially a part of the tuelfare 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 that its operation and applicability uould be rather impossible. The learned counsel has referred to the decisions of the Horu'ble Supreme Court in Raheja Uniuersal Ltd. u. NRC Ltd.: (2O12) 4 SCC 148 (paragraphs 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. Dh.aram Wati: AIR 1957 Allahabad 541 (paragraph 3O). A took at the scheme of the Rules of 1998 as a whole makes it clear that part-III thereof prouides for the methods of recntitment to the posts of the seruices, i.e. Rajasthan Rural Deuelopment and Panchayati Raj State Seruices and the Rajasthan Rural Deuelopment artd -Panchayati Raj Subordinate Seruices. General prouisions in relation to the recruitment in Part lil, of course, prouide for reseruation of uacancies for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (per Rule 7); and for Backuard Classes, Spectal Backward C/asses and. Economically Backward Classes (per Rule 8). Further, 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 is the questioned Rule 10 ibid. that prouides for horizontal reseruation of 2% uacancies for outstanding sportspersons (as quoted herein before). 56 The fundamentals of the law, per Article 16 of the Constitution of India, enuisage equalita of opportunitg in the matters of public emplogment. Of course, exceptions are prouided to the extent of permissible classifi.cation and for reseruation for specific class of persons; and, as alreadg noticed, the Rules of 1998 haue otherwise prouided for reseruation of uacancies for uaious classes of persons with reference to the social welfare requiremenfs. So far as the sporfs actiuities a"re conceruted, may be that the legislature has thought it fit to make a prouision so as to serue both the purposes of prouiding job opportunities to the outstanding sportspersons and at the same time, to motiuate the sportspersons fo excel in their respectiue arena and to bing laurels to the country but, for its uera nature, no such intention could be perceiued in this rule as if to create another c/ass of persons for reseruation only in the name of sporfs actiuities. We need not dilate much on the philosophy behind the Rule in question but this much is clear that only some sportspersons with outstanding achieuements are intended to be giuen the benefit and hence, the reseruation itself has been prouided only for Outstanding Sportspersons. As to u;hat leuel of standing or achieuement in the arena of sports be treated as 'outstandinq' was definitelg for tlrc Legislature to prouid"e. Broaaiy tp"oXing, the explanation to the Rule puts s;u.ch persons in oufstaid.iig category who haue obtained some rank in the recogni^z,ed internationar competitions. We find nothing of fault or infirmity in such a proposition. We haue also examined the submissions as made on behatf of the petitioners as regards the pinciples to be applied for 67 interpretation of expression "Outstanding" as ocanrring in Rule 1O ibid.; andfind the submlsslons meitless. If we look at the normal arud basic meaning of the adjectiue "Outstanding" in the dictionaries, we find that as per Chambers English Dictionary, the assignable meaning of adjectiue "Outstanding" in the present context is "prominent: excellent, superior". As per Webster's Dictionarg, it signifies something "standing out from a group: conspianous, prominent." As per Oxford Dictionary, if is: "Noteutorthy, remarkable; exceptional". Thus, the expression "Outstanding" by itself well qualifi.es any particular person or thing as being prominent much awaA, 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 an "Outstanding Sportspersorl" has to be something ouer and aboue a mere sportsperson; and for that matte1 ought to be ouer and aboue euen a good or uery good Sportsperson. A look at the Explanation to Rule 10 ibid. makes it clear that the phraseologg employed therein is specifically of the nature as to leaue nothing to doubt or guess as to what is intended by "Outstanding Sportspersons" u.there the meaning has been assigned with the phrase "shall mean and include". Thus, euen while applging the principles in cited decisions, it cannot be taken that the phrase has been defined in the manlter 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 specifi.cation, leauing no room for d"oubt or ang other interpretation. It is clear that the definition is clear and specifi.c and no other meaning is to be assigned to the words or expressions defi.ned, then as put down in the Explanation itself. If the expression "Outstanding" is to be interpreted to a partianlar leuel which the petitioner uould suggest, like that of any rank in the Sfafes or National leuel tournamen| the scope of the rule would be unnecessarily enlarged and that too at conflict with the fundamentals of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. This particular rule is not meant for prouiding reseruation to anA person for merely being a sportsperson or for merely hauing participated in some tournament at some leuel. The idea has been to prouide limited reseruation, only to the outstanding sportsperson at international leuel; and in case of non-auailabilitg of such a candidate, to ftll up the uacancies by the other regular categories." In the above mentioned case, the entire 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, superior or remarkable. "Meritoriolls" means formal desenring reward or praise having merit. The TGPSC relied on the case about the outstanding observations as follows: 69 If tlrc expression "Otttstanding" is fo be interpreted to a partianlar leuel which the petitioner would suggest, like that of ang rank in the Stafes or National leuel tournament, the scope of the rule would be unnecessarilg enlarged and that too at conJlict with the fundamentals of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. TLis partianlar rule is not meant for prouiding reseruation to anA person for merely being a sportsperson or for merely hauing participated in some tournament at some leuel. The idea has been to prouide limited reseruation, only to the outstandi.ng sportsperson at international leuel; and in case of non-auailabilitg of such a candidate, to fill up the uacancies bg the other regular categoies." 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 requife_d-_ Wherea-s in the case on hand, vacancies will be fi-!ed__, up by the "Meritorious sportspersons" following the Annexure-I i.e. recognized list of games and Annexure-ll recognized priority list. In 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 Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dea Gupta as. PEC tlniaersitg of Technologu & otherstl: held as follorvs: o 7. Special leaue granted. This appeal challenges an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No.14594 of 2O23, dated 14.07.2023. The High Court rejected the appellant's Wit Petition which had questioned the imposition of minimum 75% aggregate marks as a.n eligibility condition (in the qualifying examination) for enabling a candidate to claim admission in engineering courses underthe 2o/o sporfs quota.

11. ....Para 2 of the policy stated that the benefit of this sports category would be auailable to those who "pass their qualifying examination from schools/ colleges recognised ba the Chandigarh administration and those who studied in Chandigarh schools or colleges for at least two years before applying for graduation certificates". The policg further stipulated that merit of the certificates, i.e, sports certificates would be graded appropriately as A, B, C and D, and in descending order. Grade A contains sporfs persons of international standing, uho represented the country or who donned the India colour in Olympic Games, World Cups, tourutaments and championshrps organised by international federations at the highest leuels, and Commonwealth Games. Grade B comprised of spoffs p ersons, who p articip ate d in World Uniu e rsitg / inte rnational tournaments and games other than those in Grade A in uthich at least 10 teams participated., including Asian Federation Cup: Schools Games or obtained first three positions in recognised National Championships, International clwnpionshipq State Federations, All India " zoz3 rNsc 695 71, Combined Uniuersities team etc. Grade C listed participation in s enior nationals / inte r-U niu e rsity tourname nts / fe de ration cup: Junior National Federation i.e. National School Games, KVS 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; participation in national school games etc...

15. This court, in Ashutosh Gupta u. State of Rajasthan explained how the reasonable classification is to be applied: "6. The concept of equality before law does not inuolue the idea of absolute equality amongst all, which maA be a pLtysical impossibility. All that Article 14 guarantees is the similarity of treatment and not identical treatment. The protection of equal laws does not mean that all lauts must be untform. Equality before the law means that among equals the latu should be equal arud should be equally administered and that the likes should be treated alike. Equalitg before the law does not mean that things which are different shall be treated as though theg were the same. It is true that Article 14 enjoins that the people similarlg sifitated. should. be treated similarly but what amount of dissimilaritg utotuld. make the people d.isentitled. to be treated equally, b rather a uexed question. A legislature, uthich hra,s to d,eal with diuerse problems arising out of an infinite uariety of human relations must of necessity, haue the pouter of making special laws, to attain partictiar objects; and for that purpose it must haue large pouers of selection or classification of persons and things upon which 72 such louts are to operate. Mere differentiation or inequalitg of treatment d.oes not "per se" amount to discrimination within the inhibition of the equal protection clause. The State has alutags the power to make classification on a basis of rational distinctions releuant to the particular subject to be dealt witlt. In order fo pass the test of permissible classification, tuto conditions must be fulfilled namely (i) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others who are lefi out of the group, and (ii) that that differentia must haue a rational relation to the object sought to be achieued by the Act. What is necessary is that there must be a nexus between tlrc basis of classification and the object of the Act. When a law is challengedas uiolatiue of Article 14,it is necessary inthe first place to ascertain the policg underlying the statute and the object intended to be achieued by it Hauing ascertained the policy and the object of the Act, the court has to apply a du.al test in examining the ualidity, the test being, whether the classification is rational and based upon an intelligiblc differentia which distinguished persons or things that are grouped together from others that are lefi out of the group, and uthether the basis of differentiation has any rational nexus or relation with its auowed policy and objects. In order that a law mag be stryck doun under this article, the inequalitg must a.irse und.er the same piece of legislation or under the same set of lanas which haue to be treated together as one enactment. Inequalitg resulting from two different enactments made bg two different authoities in relation to the same subject witl not be liable 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 indisiciminate imposition of inequalities and the classification" should 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 arises, if persons wLto are un-equals are treated as equals, thus: "Just as a difference in the treatment of persons similarly situate lead"s to d.iscrimination, so also discrimination 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 persons would be condemned qs dbcriminatory if there is absence of rational relation to the object intended to be achieued by the law."

17. In Subro;mrl.rrrio,n Swamg u Central Bureau of Inaestigatiott, this court frowned upon, and declared uoid, a classification based on status in public employment, charglgteizing_lhat it defeats the purpose of the underlging law, i.e. combating corntption: "59. It seems to us that classification 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 diffirentiation between corrupt public seruants based oru their status? Surelg not, because irrespectiue of their stafits or position, colTupt public seruants are corrupters of public power. The comtpt public seruartts, whether high or law are birds of the same feather and must be confronted with the process of inuestigation and inquiry equalty- 74 Based on the position or status in seruice, no distinction can be mad.e between publlc seruants against whom there are allegations amounting to an offence under the PC Act, 1988. On an objectiue application of the pinciples outlined aboue, th.is court is of the considered opinion that the objectiue of introducing the sports quota i.e. 2o/o of intake, t))as to promote and encourage those who excelled and gained a certain degree of prescribed proficiency and achieuement in defined competitiue sports. The introduction of this quota was to promote sporfs, and sportsmanship in educational institutions. No doubt, the state acts within its rights to prescribe a certain minimum eligibility standard or set of criteria as the threshold requirement for admission to any particular cottrse, giuen ifs peculiar requirements. The Punjab and Hargana High Court, thus, upheld the presciption of a cut off eligibilitg standard of securing minimum 15% in the qualifying examination, in Jagatpreet Kaur And Ors. us Punjab Uniuersitg": "The petitioner has himself stated that the prospectus for Purlab Engineering College had speciftcallg prouided that there would a minimum cut off aggregate of 75 marks. The respondents-Uniuersitg haue onlg introduced the criteria which erusures the bare minimum of academic excellence which would be required of a student who i,s ultimatelg to become aru Engineer. In Amardeep Singh Sahota's case (supra) the Full Bench has categoically held that these are students utho will ultimately serue humanity. Excellence in Sporfs mag be a releuant consideration, but a certain minimum academic standard is required to be maintained." The objectiue of introducing sports quota, laweuer, is not to accommodate academic meit, but something altogether 75 different: promotion of sports in the institution, the uniuersity, and ultimately, in the country. Among others, uruiuersities are the nurseies or the catchment for sportspersons, who can represent in state, national, international leuel and Olympic sports. At the same time, the state or educational institution can insisf upon a minimum eligibitity condition. That is not to say that such condition would necessanly and mandatoily haue to be uhat is applicable to general (or open category) candidates. The latter kind of criteia would tend to exclude meritorious sportspersons, and place the less (academicallg) meitorious sporfspersons, at a disaduantageous position, because they satisfy the open category candidates' criterion of higher academic merit. For instance, it is quite possible that a sportsperson, who has and continues to represent the country in international Olgmpic sports, and gained such excellence as to haue bagged a medal or tu)o, in sag, utrestling, would be altogether excluded in the euentuality of a wrestler, of the same category (but uho has neuer reached the national leuel) securing 80% marks in the qualifging examination. It exactlg this consequence which this court had warned would be the "unequal application" of a uniform citeria, a wooden equality without regard to the inherent differences, which Article 14 frowns upon, and forbids.

18. The conclusion drawn bg the court fs also supported by 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 merit, usas the chosen citeion to be applied for filling the 2% sports quota. Anoth.er reason which leads this court to conclude that discrimination has resulted, is because in 76 respect of sports too, the state has lowered the criterion for those enjoging uertical classification, und"er Article 15 ft). In such euent, it was open to the state to lower the eligibility citerion, for sports quota, to other candidates too; the dissimilaity in treatment is therefore, egregious.... Lastlg, the sports policy, itself underlines that the quota would be auailable to students uho "pass their qualifying examination from schools/colleges recognised by the Chandigarh administration " or had studied in Chandigarh for tuto preceding Aears. Requiing atl candidates topossess a fulfill a certain eligibilitg standard- such as the one, prescnbed in the spolts policy, of 2O23 (alluded to) or the qu.alifying marks prescribed bA tlrc concerned Board, or uniuersity, fo pass in the concerned subjects is entirelg different from the prescription o/ a uniform standard, far higher than the such a minimum threshold. The imposition of the minimum 75% eligibilitg condition, therefore, does not subserue the object of introducing the sports quota, but is, rather destructiue of it; the criterion, irt that sense subverted the object and is discriminatory; it therefore, falls afoul of the equalitg clause, in Article 14 of the Constitution.

19. For the aboue reasons, it is held that exclusion of the petitioner and other like candidates, on the ground of their securing less than 75% in the qualifying examination, was unwarranted arud disciminatory.... These candidates houteuer should haue qualified in terms of theimmediate-ly preceding academic gear's criterion, applicable for the balance sporfs quota seat(s). At the same time, candidates who haue been selected and giuen admission are conceruted, shall not be di.sturbed. The process of filting the remaining uacant seat(s) - in the sporfs quota shall be completed within two uteeks. Nothing said in this judgment 77 shall result in inualidation of admission of candidates in other (non-sports) categ ories. " In the above case law, for implementation of sports quota respondents imposed minimum of 75o/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 75% 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-l services is nothing but discrimination in the implementation of the Sports Quota

69. To adjudicate the sports policy and implementation of the 2V" 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 79.O2.2O24 in point No.4.7 reads as follows: "The reseruation to Meritorious Sportsperson is applicable as per the amendments made to the State and Subordinate Seruice Rules, as Per G.O.Ms.No.107, 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 C/ass-D. In implementing the reseruation to Meritorious Sporfs Person, G.O.Ms.No.OS YAT&C (Sports) Department, Dt.14/ 05/ 2018 will be followed. ln the euent of non-auailability of eligible Meitoious Spods persons, tu.to percent (2%) reseruation of posts for them stand lapsed." G.O.Ms.No.74, dated 09.08.2012, issued by Youth Advancement, Tourism and Culture (Sports) Department reads as follows:

2. The Gouernment in consonance with the said sports policy hereby direct that the recruitments at all leuels will haue a sports quota reseruation of two percent (2%) for meitoious sporfsperso,ls iru all posfs of State Gouernment Departments, Educational Institutions, Local Bodies, Co rpo ratio ns, Bo ard s, Autho ritie s, Grandhalag a Samsthas, Market Committees and other establishments uthich are funded or aided by the State Gouernment where direct recruitment is one of the methods of appointment, hereinafier. The following NOTIFICATION will be published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette:- In pursuance of the Sports Policy declared in G.O.Ms.No.84, Youth Ad.uancement Tourism and Culture :(sports) Department, dated: 04-05-2000, whbrein orders were issued ertending tuto percent (2%) Sporfs reseruation in future direct recruitment in Gouernment at all leuels, the fotlowing guidelines are issued for gouerning such appointments: 79 The reseruation for recruitment under sports quota O shall applA to all the Gouernment. undertakings/grant-in- aid Institutions and other Gouernment Institutions. (it) The performance of the indiuidual in hauing obtained Medals/ participation in disciplines for deciding a meitoious sporfspersort, against two percent (2%) sporfs quota as mentioned in Annentre-Il to this order, shall be the criteion, keeping in uiew the participation in recognized sporfs disciplines as per Annexure-I to this order, or as maA be reuised by the Gouerutment from time to time. (xii) The appointing authorities shall call for applications bg pubtishing in leading news papers in Dnglish/Telugu/Urdu languages from meitorious sporfspersons along utith the certificates in Form-|, FormJI, Form-III and Form-[V as the case maA be, uide Annexure III enclosed to this notification and shall submit the same to the Sporfs Authoity of Andhra Pradesh. After scrutiny by the Sports Authoity of Andhra Pradesh, like genuineness of the certificates, ueifying medals/ ranks etc., the applications will be fonaarded to a Committee at Gouernment leuel in Youth Aduancement, Tourism and Culture (Sports) Department and the said Committee shall ftnalise the proposals. The said Committee shall issue eligibilitg certificate for appointment under Sporfs quota. (xiit) The recommendation of the Committee for issuing eligibitity certificate shall be ftnal. The Committee shall consisf of the following members:- (2) Prt. Secg.,/ Secg., Youth Seruices & Sports - Chairman / Chairperson (2)Prt. Secy.,/ Secg, Home Department - Member 80 (3 ) Prl. Secy., / Secy General Administration (Seruices) Department Member (4) Vice Chairman & Managing Director, Sports Authority of - Andhra Pradesh - Conuenor (xiu) The eligibility certificate issued by the Committee shall be forutarded to the Recntiting/ Agencg Appointing Authoity for appointment under spods quota in uaious categories of posfs in different Departments on the basis of Merit-Cum- Sporfs Eligibility Certificate against the notifications issued bg them. (xuii) In the existing 100 roster points as per rule 22(2)(e) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Seruice Rules, 1996, 49th and 98th point maA be earmarked for reseruation under Sporfs Quota.

70. Annexure to G.O.Ms.No.74, Youth Advancement, Tourism and Cnlture (Sports Department, dated 09.O8.2OL2). In Annexure-l (List of recognized Sports disciplines for 2o/o (two percent) reservation in direct recruitment in Govt. 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.,).

77. Annexure to G.O.Ms.No.74, Youth Advancement, Tourism and Culture (Sports Department, dated O9.0S.2O12). In 81 Annexure-Il priorities of sports and games for recruitment of 2% (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 f 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, Ar;,r:.exure-Ill contains the following: (for representing India in an International Form-I 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. " Form-II: For representing h State in tnaia in a 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 Secretary of the State Association. Form-III: For representing a Universit5r from A.P. State in Inter University competition at National level / Zonal level / Regional level in one of the recognized games / sports. 82 In the bottom of the Form-III there is a note 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 Officer or overall in-charge of sports / games for school in the concerned District I or District Sports Development Officer, District Sports Authority." 72 This Court is of the view that the above Forms can serve other purpose than to prove' the genuineness of the sportsperson. Several 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-lV and produce before the competent authorities. In the said circumstances, only the culture of Form-I to Form-lV is implemented. That is the reason why there is no mention of Form-I to Form-IV anyvrrhere in the Rules. They mentioned "meritorious sportspersons" only. In implementation of 2o/o Sports Quota, they have to depend upon only Annexure-l & II, which is recognized games and recognized priority list.

73. To implement tkre 2% Sports quota, every authoiity has to follow Annexure-l and Annexure-ll. At the time of filling out the sports quota, they must verify whether the sports certificate is genuine or not, with the Form-I to Form-IV which is recognized by competent authority. 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 qualificzrtion for any post. For the said post, the authorities must verify whether the candidates possess the minimum qualificzr.tion 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-l services, only Form-I sportsperson is eligible. If such is the rule, it is nothing but 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 Bducational Institutions and classification in above terms in against the spirit of the sports policy

74. In 2o/o sports quota, while following the Annexure-I and II, in Annexure-[l, there are 90 priorities. While filling up the vacancies under sports quota, they have to follow the priority list only. For Example:- There are four vacancies under the sports quota. While applying the priority 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 II respectively. It did not discuss about Forms- I to IV because the Forms are in no way connected with the recruitmgnt. - Fgr the purpose of genuineness to curb the lake sports certificates, this system is adopted. Moreover, Rule 22 reads as follows: "22. Special Representation (Reseruation):- (1) Reseruations may be made for appointments to a seruice, class or category in fauour of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tibes, Sociallg and Educationally Backward Classes, Women, Persons with Dis abilitg, "Meritortous Sports m,atto, Ex- Se ruice men and such otlwr categoies, as mag be prescribed by the Gouentment from time to time, to the extent and in the manner specified hereinafier in these rules or as the case mag be, in the special 86 rules. Tlrc pinciple of reseruation as hereinafier prouided shall applA to all appointments to a seruice, class or category:- (t) (ii) bg direct recntitment, except where the Gouernment, by a general or special order made in this behalf, exempt such seruice, class or category. Otheruise than by direct recntitment the pinctple of reseruation in the matter of promotion and appointment by transfer inuoluing promotion in so far it relates to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tibes only shall apply to such seruices, class or category whose total cadre strength of the posf is more than fiue. Perusal of the above ruie makes it clear that there is no discussion with regard to Forms.

76. Erren the G.O.Ms.No.74, also with regard to Forms, is misunderstood by the authorities. In the said G.O. clause-ll observed as "deciding 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 recognized sports disciplines as per Annexure-I to this order." In the said expression, there is also no discussion with regard to the Forms. 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 filling 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 authority 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 ente rtaining discrimiuation. 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, Assistant Director, cadreposts etc., ) Group-II Seruices : (Da.Tahsilda1 EO, PR & RD etc.,) Group-III Seruices: (Clericalposfs in the HOD oJfices) Group-M seruices : (Clericalposfs in the Districts / Subordinate offices) Last Grade Seruices; (Class IV posts like olfice subordinates etc.) 88

78. If the above system follows, again, there must be discrimination among the sportspersons. To that extent, there is no clarity in the policy. Authorities have mistakeniy compared 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-Il directly indicates the list from the top "meritorious sportsperson" to the low "meritorious sportsperson." If the authority follows the Annexure-ll, justice will be done to the sports quota. Otherwise, the very purpose of giving the sports quota wiil be vitiated.

79. As per G.O.Ms.No.5, dated 14.O5.2O18, the amendment clause reads as follows: In the said guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.74, YAT & C (Sports) Department, dated O9.O8.2O12 for existing clause No.(xuii) the follouting shall be substituted, namely. (xuii) Prouide 2% reseruations to meritorious sporfsperson horizontally in Direct recruitment in the exbting 1OO roster poi;nts as per Rule-22(2)(e) of the f.S._ s.nd. Subo_rdinate Seruice Rules, 1996, 48th and 98th points meant for open competition shall be earmorked to reseruation under Sports Quota in Direct recruitment and the said reseruation shall be horizontal. Further, in the euent of Non-auailability of eligible sportspersorts, 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 candidates 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-I & 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 C.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 (priority list) itself stating that priority structure is not correct and the priority list mentioned under Annexure-Il has not been structured in alignment with the Form categories outlined in Annexure-Ill. However, in order to prove their contention, no 90 documentary evidence is placed before this Court to consider the same. As such, their contention is rejected. B 1. In view of the aforesaid discussion, based on the Rules and the said G.O.Ms.No.74, dated 09.O8.2OL2, G.O.Ms.No.5, dated 14.O5.2O 18 and G.O,Ms.No.lO7 , dated 27.O7.2O 18, these Writ Petitions 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 pLrrsuant to the Interim Order of this Court and fiIl up the 'u,acancies if they are found eligible in accordance with Annexure-I and II. b. The respondent authorities are further directed to fiIl up the vacancies which were directed to be kept vacant pu.rsuant to the Interim order of this Court, if they are founcl 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 authorities shall adhere to Annexures I and II respectivety wfrite filling uplhe 27" Sports quota. The authorities shall also ask the candidates to produce Forms (I to IV) in relation to their respective sports certificates to veriff their genuineness and grading so as to ensure a fair and transparent selection process under the sports quota. There shall be no order as to costs Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. //rRUE coPYtt '31,!I'^"-TH'[BiHIA b SECTIOMFFICER / \ \ One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble Sri Justice NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO (For His LordshiPs Kind Perusal) To SA BS 1

1. The Principal Secretary to Government Youth, Advancement, Tourism and Cuiture (Sborts) Department, Secretariat Building, State of Telangana at Hyderabad. 2. The Secretary, Telangana Public Service Commission, Pratibha Bhavan, M.J 3. The Vice Chairiran and [Vlanaging Director, Sports Authority oj-Te-la19ana State, L.B. Stadium, Fateh naaioan, Abids_, Hyderabad - 500 457, T.S. 4. ifre Crincipal Secretary to Government, GeneralAdministration Department Road Patel Nagar, Goshamahal, Nampally Hyderabad - 500 001. Secretariai auilding, Siate of Telangana at Hyderabad' Affairs, New Delhi Hyderabad. [O-UT] Hyderabad. [OUTI Buildings, Hyderabad. Telangana at HYderabad [Q-UT] of Telangana at HYderabad LOUI

5. 11 LR Copies. 6. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia Ministry of Law, Justice and Company 7. The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association Library, High court B. Two Cds to'Cp FOR SERVTCES-II, High Court for the State of Telangana at 9. Two CCs to ADVOCATE GENERAL, High Court for irre State of Telangana at 10.Tft; CCs to'cC rbn SCHooL EDUCATI9N, High Court for the State of 1 1. Two Ccs to Gp'FoR crNEnnl ADMlNtsrRATloN, High court for the state 1 2. o ne cc-to sRl P. v. KRI SH NAIAH. AQv_og{? t9f!91 i5.on" CC to SRt P.S.RAJASEKHAR (SC FoR TGPSC^)r-Advocate (oPUC) i4.on; Cc to sRl KoNGARA RAJKUMAR, Advocate (oPUC) 15.One CC to SRI J.SUDHEER, Advocate (OPUC) ^. i6.On. CC to M/s UMA DEVI NAMA, Advocatg- (Q.PUC) 17.One CC to SRI M.SRINIVAS, Advocate (OPUC) iA.On. CC to SRI G.SATISH REDDY, Advocate (OPU-C) 19.One CC to SRI RAMESH CHILLA, Advocate (OlUq) ZO.One CC to SRI P.V.KRISHNAIAH, Advocate (OPUC) 21.One CC to SRI S.GOUTHAM, Advgcalg(OfqC) iZ.On" CC to SRt PRABHAKAR CHIKKUDU, Advocate (OPUC) 23.One CC to SRI ALLIKA SURESH, Advocate (Of^U-q) - i4.On" CC to SRI V.RAVICHANDRAN, Advocate (OPUC) 2s.f*o CD Copies - Nv : :;1. .:i r r 'l -..-;:i:::...j... .._:: HIGH COI..!RT DATED :1411012025 l I i 1HE.\-]J,tl fJ ?g rif i T: @ * .Dt'.. hrrngEO I COMMON ORDER W.P.NOS: 34446, 14675, 1 6684, 167 15, 24113, 25028, 26477, 26909, 2717 5, 28035, 28446, 2g969, 2Bg7B, 307 41, 32196, 32519, 32687, 34147, 3244A8,35677 AND 36422 oF 2024 AND W.P.NOS.4995, 9198, 92A2 AND 9704 0F 2025 DISPOSING OF ALL THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS. ? I -r.at(;