LI Network
Published on: December 02, 2023 at 17:30 IST
The Jharkhand High Court has dismissed a writ petition seeking the inclusion of sports quota benefits in the recruitment process for Civil Judges (Junior Division).
In its ruling, the court emphasized that the determination of essential qualifications for a job falls within the jurisdiction of the employer, who has the authority to specify additional or desirable qualifications and grant preferences accordingly.
The writ petition was filed by an aspiring Civil Judge, seeking a directive to implement a horizontal quota in the sports category for the Civil Judge (Junior Division) examination conducted in December 2018.
The petitioner urged the court, particularly the Chairman of the Jharkhand Public Service Commission, to take action in this regard and ensure fair consideration of candidates under the sports quota.
The petitioner argued that reservation benefits should be limited to residents of Jharkhand, contending that neither the advertisement nor the Sports Policy explicitly stated that these benefits under the Sports Quota were exclusive to local residents.
Additionally, the petitioner claimed entitlement to reservation benefits based on a certificate from the 56th National School Games, organized by the School Games Federation of India and recognized by the Indian Olympic Association.
However, the respondent contested the validity of the certificate, asserting that it was not issued by a federation affiliated with the Indian Olympic Association.
The court, citing the case of Maharashtra Public Service Commission vs. Sandeep Shriram Warade, held that essential qualifications for a post are at the discretion of the employer.
It emphasized that the court cannot dictate eligibility conditions or reinterpret advertisements to equate desirable qualifications with essential eligibility.
The division bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjaya Kumar Mishra and Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay dismissed the writ petition, stating, “The petitioner’s case is already covered by the judgment of the coordinate Bench of this Court, and therefore, we are not inclined to hold that the petitioner is entitled to the relief he has claimed.”
