Sale Deeds Must Be Interpreted Literally When the Language is Clear and Unambiguous: Supreme Court    |     Non-Signatory Can Be Bound by Arbitration Clause Based on Conduct and Involvement: Supreme Court    |     Right to Passport is a Fundamental Right, Denial Without Justification Violates Article 21: Allahabad High Court    |     Insurance Company's Liability Remains Despite Policy Cancellation Due to Dishonored Cheque: Calcutta High Court    |     Deductions Under Sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act Are Independent and Cannot Be Curtailed: Bombay High Court    |     Diary Entries Cannot Alone Implicate the Accused Without Corroborative Evidence: Supreme Court Upholds Discharge of Accused in Corruption Case    |     MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     If Two Reasonable Conclusions Are Possible, Acquittal Should Not Be Disturbed: Supreme Court    |     Kalelkar Award Explicitly Provides Holiday Benefits for Temporary Employees, Not Subject to Government Circulars: Supreme Court Upholds Holiday and Overtime Pay    |     NDPS | Homogeneous Mixing of Bulk Drugs Essential for Valid Sampling Under NDPS Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     POCSO | Scholar Register Is Sufficient to Determine Victim’s Age in POCSO Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court    |     Abuse of Official Position in Appointments: Prima Facie Case for Criminal Misconduct: Delhi High Court Upholds Framing of Charges Against Swati Maliwal in DCW Corruption Case    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Gift Deed Voided as Son Fails to Care for Elderly Mother, Karnataka High Court Asserts ‘Implied Duty’ in Property Transfers    |     Denial of a legible 164 statement is a denial of a fair trial guaranteed by the Constitution of India: Kerala High Court    |     Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Fraud on the Courts Cannot Be Tolerated: Supreme Court Ordered CBI Investigation Against Advocate    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand High Court    |     Prima Facie Proof of Valid Marriage Required Before Awarding Maintenance Under Section 125 Cr.P.C: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Interim Maintenance Order    |    

The Impugned Government Order Is Arbitrary, Perverse, and Irrational – Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Ten-Year Limit on Sports Achievements for Government Jobs

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that the ten-year restriction on considering sports achievements for eligibility under the sports quota for government jobs is arbitrary, lacking a rational basis, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Facts and Issues: The petitioner, Chandu Nagarjuna, challenged Government Order No. 8 issued by the Youth Advancement, Tourism and Culture (Sports) Department, dated 23.11.2020. This order limited the consideration of sports achievements to a period of ten years preceding the date of the recruitment notification. Nagarjuna’s sports achievements, particularly in archery from 2005-07, were excluded from consideration due to this time limit, impacting his eligibility under the sports quota for a government job.

Rational Nexus: The court observed that the ten-year limitation did not support the intended policy outcome of ensuring that appointed sportspersons represent their departments for at least five years. This restriction was deemed not to have a rational nexus with the policy’s objectives, thereby failing the test under Article 14 of the Constitution.

Judicial Review: Despite the general principle of non-interference in executive policy, the court noted exceptions apply when a policy demonstrates arbitrariness or lacks a reasonable basis. The court found that the ten-year rule was not justified by the reasons provided, rendering it unconstitutional.

Policy Analysis: The court pointed out inconsistencies between the government’s sports policy goals, which aim to promote widespread participation and benefits from sports, and the restrictive ten-year rule which undermines these goals by disqualifying achievements older than ten years.

Examples and Illustration: The judgment illustrated its points by examples showing that the rule arbitrarily disqualified older but recent achievements while allowing less recent ones, simply based on age, which failed to meet the ‘fresh blood’ argument posited by the state.

Decision: The High Court allowed the petition, quashing the impugned provision of Government Order No. 8 regarding the ten-year limitation on considering sports achievements. The court directed that the petitioner’s sports achievements be considered for eligibility without reference to their date of attainment. No order as to costs was made, and all pending miscellaneous applications were closed.

Date of Decision: 3rd May 2024

Chandu Nagarjuna v. Chief Commissioner of Land

Similar News