Punjab and Haryana High Court reads down amended sportsmen recruitment rules

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, August 26

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has read down a provision in the Punjab Recruitment of Sportsmen (First Amendment) Rules, 2020, which had sought to restrict the eligibility of sportsmen for government jobs under the sports quota.

The Division Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma held that the amended rule could not be applied to exclude athletes who met the criteria under the original rules. The court was hearing petitions filed by Divraj Singh, Manveer Singh and Karandeep Singh Dhindsa.

They had, among other things, challenged the 2020 amendment to the Punjab Recruitment of Sportsmen Rules, 1988. The amendment restricted eligibility for Group A and B posts to those who had won medals in senior national championships or national games, thereby disqualifying athletes who had achieved success in junior categories or other recognised events.

Justice Thakur, delivering the judgment, observed: “The state, while possessing the authority to amend the recruitment rules, must exercise this power in a manner that is fair and just. The exclusion of sportsmen who have achieved success in recognised events but do not meet the stricter criteria introduced by the 2020 amendment is arbitrary and unjust.”

The Bench further noted, “The amendment to Rule 2(d)(a)(ii) of the 1988 Rules, which introduces the term ‘senior’ in relation to national championships, cannot retrospectively disqualify individuals who were eligible under the original rules. The legitimate expectations of those who qualified under the earlier criteria must be protected.”

In reading down the amended rule, the court stated: “The rule as amended cannot be applied to negate the eligibility of those who, under the 1988 Rules, were deemed to be sportsmen.”

The court ruled the petitioners’ applications would be considered under the pre-amendment criteria and the amended rule would not be applied to disqualify them. The direction would ensure that the amendment did not operate retrospectively to the detriment of individuals who had a legitimate expectation of eligibility under the previous rules.