- (1.) D. S. Sinha, J. Heard Sri B. K. Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sr'i Vinay Malaviya, learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents.
(2.) A selection for appointment to the post of Constable in the Pradeshik Armed Constabulary, Uttar Pradesh was held in August, 1994. Two percent of total posts were reserved for the 'proficient sportsmen'. The petitioner appeared in the selection and claimed considera tion of his candidature against the quota reserved for 'proficient sportsmen'. But he was not found eligible for consideration against the quota reserved for the 'proficient sportsmen'. 4 The petitioner, therefore, approached this Court by means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for- issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respon dents to consider his case and appoint him on a post reserved for 'proficient sportsmen'. 5. By its order dated 14th September, 1994 the Court directed the concerned authorities to consider the candidature of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Constable in the provincial Armed Constabu lary of the State against the post reserved for 'proficient sportsmen' within the specified time or to show cause by filing counter-affidavit. 6. A counter-affidavit and a supplementary counter-affidavit on behalf of the respondents have been filed. In the counter-affidavits, the stand taken by the respondents is that the original certificates evidencing the factum of the petitioner's being a 'proficient sportsmen' were not pro duced ; that the sports wherein the petitioner alleges to have participated were not organized by the University Sports Board of a University ; that the selection has already been completed, and as no candidate was found eligible for appointment against sports quota, the vacancies meant for the candidates belonging to the category of 'proficient sportsmen' were filled in by other candidates as they could not be carried forward ;;and that in this view of the matter no relief can be granted to the petitioner in this petition. 7. Alongwith the supplementary counter-affidavit sworn and filed on behalf of the respondents a copy of the Government Order dated 11th February, 1975 has been filed as Annexure 'aa-2'. This Government Order makes provision for reservation in Class III services for good sportsmen. Two percent of the total post to be filled at a particular recruitment have been reserved for 'proficient sportsmen'. For being eligible for recruitment against quota reserved for proficient sportsmen', The Government Order provides that the candidate must have participated in one of the specified sports for a fixed number of times. The sports specified, inter alia, are Hockey, Kabaddi of National or International or Inter University level ; and that the Inter University level sports, wherein the petitioner alleges to have participated, must have been organised by the 'inter University Sports Board'. 8. It is true that the photo copy of the certificates filed by the peti tioner alongwith the petition disclose that the petitioner did participate in the sports of Hockey and Kabaddi but they do not disclose as to which authority had organised the concerned sports. Learned counsel for the petitioner admits that the sports wherein the petitioner allegedly partici pated were in fact organised by the "association of India University" and not by the Inter University Board. But the requirement was participation in the specified sports organised by the Inter University Sports Board as is evident from the Government Order dated 11th February, 1975, a copy whereof is Annexure 'aa-2' to the supplementary counter-affidavit. Thus, the petitioner did not qualify to be included in the category of 'proficient sportsmen' as envisaged by the Government Order making provision for reservation for 'proficient sportsmen'. This fact itself was enough to exclude the petitioner from consideration. 9. Apart from the controversy relating to the body organising the sports in which the petitioner allegedly participated the other ground relied upon by the respondents, namely, failure of the petitioner to produce at the interview the original certificates in support of his claim that he was 'proficient sportsmen' is also material. Production of original certificates at the time of interview, it is not disputed, was a necessary condition for consideration. Even before this Court the original 'certificates have not been produced. The petitioner having failed to comply the necessary con dition of production of original certificates at the time of interview was rightly excluded from consideration. 10. Now comes the question whether the petitioner can be granted any relief. Indisputably, ,the selection has already been completed and, in the absence of any eligible candidate, the posts reserved for 'proficient sportsmen' have already been filled by other candidates, as they could not be carried forward under the existing Government Order on the subject. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be granted any effective relief by this Court. 11. In the result, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed, no order as to costs. There is Petition dismissed. .;