Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Rajasthan Division Bench of Justice Kuldeep Mathur and Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu held that there was no illegality in considering a second application submitted with a fresh sports certificate in light of an amended advertisement. The Court dismissed the special appeal and upheld the selection of a candidate for the post of Sub-Inspector/Platoon Commander under the sports quota. The Bench directed that the selection process conducted in accordance with Rule 17(2)(a) of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989, be treated as valid and lawful. The Court concluded that the recognition accorded to the Indian Body Builders Federation (IBBF) by the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, Government of India, justified the acceptance of the certificate issued by it.

An advertisement dated 28.12.2019 was issued by the Director General of Police, Rajasthan, under Rule 17(2)(a) of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989, for direct recruitment to the post of Sub-Inspector/Platoon Commander under the sports quota. Out of 68 advertised posts, one was allocated for the sport of Body Building. The appellant applied for the said post under the EWS category. Respondent No.3 also applied but his application was initially rejected with the remark "invalid certificate."

Also Read: Supreme Court Quashes FIR In ₹3.5 Crore Land Deal | Says Criminal Case Cannot Proceed When Civil Dispute Is Pending And Criminality Is Absent

Subsequently, an amended advertisement dated 29.06.2021 was issued due to the increase in total posts to 81 and a notification dated 16.04.2021. The amended advertisement reopened the application process from 30.06.2021 to 14.07.2021. Respondent No.3 submitted a fresh application along with a new sports certificate issued by the Indian Body Builders Federation (IBBF), which led to his selection based on a higher merit score.

The appellant challenged this selection through a writ petition seeking rectification of the select list dated 25.01.2022 and appointment to the advertised post. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 10.10.2024, prompting the present special appeal.

The appellant contended that the second application should not have been entertained due to Condition No.2 of the amended advertisement, and that the certificate submitted by Respondent No.3 was invalid as the IBBF was not recognized by the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) or mentioned in Condition No.9 of the original advertisement.

It was also submitted that the appellant possessed a certificate from Maharaja Ganga Singh University, Bikaner, a member of the Association of Indian Universities (AIU), and had been awarded 25 marks accordingly. Hence, he should have been selected.

On the other hand, counsel for Respondent No.3 argued that the amended advertisement permitted new applications and that the IBBF was a recognized body under the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports. The new certificate was issued based on participation in a national championship held from 3rd to 4th April, 2021, and was submitted before the application deadline.

The State, through its Additional Advocate General, submitted that the recruitment process adhered to Rule 17(2)(a) and the sports certificate issued by the IBBF was considered valid based on lists obtained from the Indian Olympic Association and the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports. The certificate was evaluated only after due verification.

The Court stated, "From a bare perusal of the first paragraph of the amended advertisement dated 29.06.2021, it is clear that the earlier advertisement has been amended, posts have been increased and the applications have been re-invited for all the posts." It further recorded, "The earlier advertisement dated 28.12.2019 has for all purposes merged with the amended advertisement dated 29.06.2021."

On the issue of Condition No.2, the Bench observed, "Only for the purpose of convenience to the already existing applicants, the condition No.2 was inserted so as to avoid unnecessary submission of the application forms. The condition No.2 did not put a complete bar on submission of forms by the candidates."

Regarding the certificate submitted by Respondent No.3, the Court noted, "The certificate was a national level certificate which was certainly acquired after the advertisement dated 28.12.2019, but before the cut off date of submission of application form mentioned in the amended advertisement dated 29.06.2021 i.e. 14.07.2021."

Addressing the argument concerning recognition of the IBBF, the Court stated, "From a bare perusal of the letters dated 26.10.2021, 01.02.2019 and 02.06.2020, it is clear that the Indian Body Builders Federation (IBBF) is recognized by the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, Government of India." It added, "Once the body is recognized by the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, Government of India and its recognition is duly renewed, there is no reason not to recognize the certificate issued by such a body/federation."

The Bench recorded, "The Selection Board has exercised due caution and had sought the information from the Government of India and only upon receiving the authentic information, they have acted upon and have recognized the certificate issued by the Indian Body Builders Federation (IBBF)."

The Court reiterated that no illegality had been committed in the evaluation process and observed, "The respondent No.3 was entitled for higher marks as per Clause No.3 of Condition No.10(A) of the advertisement dated 28.12.2019 and he has rightly been awarded so and, as the respondent No.3 was higher in merit, he has rightly been selected and offered appointment and we find no illegality therein."

The Court concluded, "We fully agree with the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order dated 10.10.2024 which does not call for any interference by this Court, in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction."

Also Read: Patna High Court Slams Lawyers Accused In 1994 Murder Case For Delay Tactics | Refuses To Quash Bail Conditions, Upholds Trial Court’s Authority

The Division Bench, after considering all submissions and verifying the legal validity of the recruitment and certification process, held: "We find no force in the instant Special Appeal and the same is thus dismissed."

The Court thereby upheld the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 10.10.2024 and confirmed the selection of Respondent No.3 to the post of Sub-Inspector/Platoon Commander under the sports quota. It concluded that the recruitment process adhered to the applicable rules and recognized certification standards. No further directions or reliefs were granted to the appellant.

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Appellant: Mr. Kamal Kishore Dave, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. B.L. Bhati, Additional Advocate General; Mr. Manoj Bhandari, Senior Advocate with Mr. Nes Gupta, Advocate

Case Title: Garvit Vyas v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2025: RJ-JD:34054-DB

Case Number: D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 111/2025

Bench: Justice Kuldeep Mathur, Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu