K KANNAN, J
1.The petitioner who claims to be an outstanding Sports person finds himself sidelined in comparison to how the Government has treated while proclaiming the attainments of respondents 5 and 6 in rewarding them with posts in the Police Department as DSPs. The complaint of the petitioner is that he is more meritorious than respondents 5 and 6 and that the appointments offered to respondents 5 and 6 are illegal and arbitrary and seeks for a direction that respondents 1 to 4 should fill up the posts of DSPs earmarked for outstanding sports persons by giving due publication affording an opportunity of consideration to all the eligible candidates from sports quota as per law.
2.The States of Punjab and Haryana have been under arclights of adulation in the recent past when the gold and bronze medals were won at the Olympics 2008 made at China through emiment sports persons from Punjab and Haryana. The idea of rewarding emiment sports persons with Government employments accords with the lofty State policy of encouraging sports persons. Achievement in even individual events at an international level is not merely seen as personal to the sports person but brings laurels to the entire nation. Respondent No.5- Joginder Sharma wrote himself into cricketing history in T20 match at South Africa when he had "played a decisive role in the death" and helped his team and his country to gain victory. Respondent No.6-Mamta Kharab was an outstanding hockey player who captained India and decorated with 'Bhim Award' by the State Government and 'Arjun Award' by the Government of India. Ms.Kharab and Women's hockey have become syonymous after the sterling performance at Thailand in Asia Women's Hockey CWP 18405 of 2008 --2-- Tournament in 2007. The Government had decided to reward them with appointments in the police category as DSPs. The decision had been taken in a meeting of the Council of Ministers and the objection of the petitioner is that he is also an outstanding sports person and the appointments made only to respondents 4 and 5 smacked of favouritism.
3.It is an admitted case that there are provisions in the Haryana Police Rules, 2002 in the matter of appointments to the outstanding sports persons. The State Government has provided 3% of the total permanent posts of Deputy Superintendent of Police which shall be reserved for outstanding sports persons of Haryana that win medals at the Olympic games and win laurels to the country and the State of Haryana vide notification GSR.10/Const./Art/309/2008 dated 24-06-2008. The complaint of the petitioner is that there has to be a transparent policy and it cannot be done merely on a choice of some Ministers who consider among some sports persons alone as meritorious without any objective criteria. It is not denied that respondents 5 and 6 were truly emiment personalities in the arena of sports and their selection per se cannot be questioned. If according to the petitioner, he is also an eminent person and he could have also been selected, it is a matter which should be considered by the appropriate authorities and it would not be possible for us to sit in judgement as to who among the sports persons deserve appointments. Rule 18 of the Haryana Police Services Rules, 2002 reads as follows :"Where the Governor is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient to do so, it may, by order, for reasons to be recorded in writing, relax any of the provisions of these rules with respect to any class or category of persons." There is nothing vague about the rules which make room for encouraging sports through rewarding eminent persons in sports by government appointments without having to call explanations through Employment Exchange and paper advertisements. It is essentially a matter of state of largesse and unless it is shown to be a grossly discriminatory and arbitrary mode of reckoning, that should fall foul of Article 14 of the Constitution, there could be no scope for judicial intervention in the choice of persons who are rewarded with State appointments . The validity of the Rule providing for relaxation of the provisions is also not under challenge before us. We do not wish to join issues on whether the petitioner is more meritorious than respondents 5 and 6 or not. The petitioner may have good ground for consideration in his own right but the choice of respondents 5 and as having been found fit for appointment to the posts of DSPs cannot be a matter for our adjudication.Several averments made in the writ CWP 18405 of 2008 --3-- petition that the appointments of respondents 5 and 6 had been made without reference to any advertisement or writing test or any other form of physical test or interview as a ground for annulment, their appointments seem puerile. There is further no fundamental right to reservation and no person could demand that any particular posts reserved for sports persons should be considered in his favour unless he points out to a complete lack of authority for exercising the option to appoint some persons under the said category. We have already pointed out the fact that the Punjab Police Rules provide for appointments to eminent sports persons and it sets out sufficient guidelines for resorting to the rules by following the relevant procedures. 4.The writ petition is wholly without merits and deserves, therefore, to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed.
