2 Dec 2023 9:51 AM GMT
The Jharkhand High Court, while rejecting a petition seeking the inclusion of sports quota benefits for the Civil Judge recruitment, emphasized that determining essential qualifications for a job is within the purview of the employer. The court reiterated that employers have the authority to specify additional or desirable qualifications, and they may choose to grant preference...
The Jharkhand High Court, while rejecting a petition seeking the inclusion of sports quota benefits for the Civil Judge recruitment, emphasized that determining essential qualifications for a job is within the purview of the employer.
The court reiterated that employers have the authority to specify additional or desirable qualifications, and they may choose to grant preference accordingly.
The above ruling came in a writ petition filed by a candidate aspiring to become a Civil Judge (Junior Division) in the State. The petitioner essentially a direction to the respondents—particularly respondent no. 3, i.e., the Chairman of the Jharkhand Public Service Commission—to implement a horizontal quota in the sports category for the Civil Judge (Junior Division) examination conducted in December 2018.
Additionally, the petitioner also prayed for the issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to take appropriate action concerning his candidature for the aforesaid post in the aforesaid examination.
The petitioner argued that the reservation benefits should only apply to residents of the State of Jharkhand in cases related to reservation. They asserted that both the advertisement and the Sports Policy lack explicit provisions stating that reservation benefits under the Sports Quota are exclusive to local residents of Jharkhand.
Additionally, it was highlighted that the rules of the National School Games specify that these games are to be organized by affiliated units of the School Games Federation of India. Notably, the 56th National School Games were organized by the School Games Federation of India, which is recognized by the Indian Olympic Association and is thereby associated with it.
Alternatively, the respondent contended that the petitioner's use of the 56th National School Games 2010 certificate to claim reservation under the Sports Quota was invalid. According to the respondent, this certificate was issued by the Directorate of Public Instructions, Government of Chhattisgarh, under the supervision of the School Games Federation of India. Importantly, it was not organized by a federation affiliated with the Indian Olympic Association.
Therefore, the respondent contended that the sports certificate provided by the petitioner is not eligible for availing the benefits of reservation as per the terms outlined in the advertisement.
The Court placed reliance on the case of Maharashtra Public Service Commission through its Secretary Vs. Sandeep Shriram Warade and others (being lead case), (2019) 6 SCC 362, wherein it was held that the essential qualifications for appointment to a post are for the employer to decide and the employer may prescribe additional or desirable qualifications, including any grant of preference.
It was further held that it is the employer who is best suited to decide the requirements a candidate must possess according to the needs of the employer and the nature of work, and the court cannot lay down the conditions of eligibility, much less can it delve into the issue with regard to desirable qualifications being at par with the essential eligibility by an interpretive re-writing of the advertisement.
“Thus, it is clear from the aforesaid discussion of facts and law that the petitioner's case is already covered by the judgment of the coordinate Bench of this Court and therefore, in due regard to the coordinate Bench of this Court, we are not inclined to hold that the petitioner is entitled to the relief he has claimed,” the Court said while dismissing the writ petition.
The above ruling was delivered by a division bench of Chief Justice Sanjaya Kumar Mishra and Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay.
Counsel/s For the Petitioner: Ms. Shivani Kapoor, Advocate
Amicus Curiae: Mr. Kumar Vaibhav, Advocate
Counsel/s For the State: Mr. Harsh Preet Singh, A.C. to G.P.-V For the JPSC: Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, Advocate Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Advocate Mr. Prince Kumar, Advocate
Counsel/s For the JHC: Mr. Sudarshan Srivastava, Advocate
Counsel/s For the IOA: Ms. Sidhi Jalan, Advocate
LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 84
Case Title: Mayank Singh Thakur @ Mayank Singh vs The State of Jharkhand and Others
Case No.: W.P. (T) No. 160 of 2021
Click Here To Read/Download Judgement