Confirmation after training fixes DSP seniority, HC dismisses sportspersons’ plea

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Mamta Kharb and other sportspersons appointed as Deputy Superintendents of Police (DSPs) in Haryana under the sports quota after holding that their seniority cannot be reckoned from the date of initial appointment.

“We are of the considered view that the action of the State in granting benefit of confirmation to petitioners in first writ from the date of their successful completion of training is just, legal and fair. The consequential determination of seniority also merits no interference,” the Bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor asserted.

Kharb and others petitioners –  all international athletes who had brought “laurels” to Haryana and India in Olympic Games, Commonwealth Games, Asian Games, World Championships and other major events – had contended that their seniority should flow from the date of their initial appointment.

The Bench observed that they were aggrieved by denial of seniority from the date of their initial appointment by virtue of Rule 12 of the Haryana Police Service Rules, 2002, which provided for seniority from the date of confirmation in service and not from the date of initial appointment.

“Ordinarily, it would be the situation where the recruitment itself is made in accordance with the Rules, and such course is otherwise reflected from the scheme of the Rules,” the Bench asserted. The court noted that the sportsperson-DSPs could not complete their training within the stipulated two years, or even the extended period of one year. Their confirmation was eventually granted on November 23, 2023, from the date of their satisfactory completion of training.

“The State was cognizant of the fact that one of the reasons for delay in completion of training may have been the fact that petitioners were participating at different forum representing the State or the nation,” the Bench asserted, adding that training remained “an essential part to be completed by the probationers before they could be confirmed on the post of DSP.”

The court also dealt with another petition filed by Ashish Chaudhary and other petitioners recruited through the regular selection process. They completed training earlier and were confirmed before the sportsperson-DSPs, despite being appointed later. The Bench in the matters were, among others, assisted by senior advocates D.S. Patwalia, Akshay Bhan and Sanjeev Manrai.

“The mere fact that the petitioners in second writ though were appointed later, as probationer, but on account of their satisfactory completion of training earlier have been granted confirmation before the petitioners of first writ does not result in any illegal or arbitrary situation.”

Dismissing the discrimination argument raised by sportspersons, the Bench clarified: “So far as petitioners in first writ (Kharb and others) is concerned, they have not been appointed on the strength of their merit in the recruitment test as per recruitment Rules of 2002. Rather, they have been appointed on account of their exceptional merit in the field of sports. The petitioners in the second set, however, are persons who have secured appointment on the strength of their merit in the recruitment examination, and have also completed their training earlier in point of time. These two sets of petitioners, therefore, cannot be placed on the same footing nor the ‘principle of equality’ can be pressed against each other.”

Holding that the State’s action was “legal and fair”, the court dismissed the first writ petition filed by the sportsperson-DSPs. The second petition filed by the regular recruits was allowed.