Govind Mathur, J. - (1.) BY this petition for writ constitutional validity of Rule 7 -C of the Rajasthan Medical & Health Subordinate Services Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1965") defining sports persons eligible for 2% sports quota is questioned. As per the provision aforesaid the term "outstanding sports persons" wherever used includes the sports persons who have participated in the games recognised by the International Olympic Committee and Indian Olympic Federation. It further provides that the sports persons participated in the Asian Games or Asian Championships, Common Wealth Games, World Championships, World Level Inter University Tournaments, SAARC Games or Olympic games as the representatives of Indian team and have secured first, second or third rank in individual item or in team competition. The International Championship in the games of Badminton, Tennis, Chess or Cricket recognised by their national level federation or board shall also be treated as outstanding sports persons. According to the petitioners the meaning given to the term "outstanding sports persons" in Rule 7 -C of the Rules of 1965 is arbitrary and as a matter of fact frustrate the purpose of extending reservation to the sports persons.
(2.) THE issue involved in this petition for writ while examining explanation to Rule 10 of the Rajasthan Rural Development and Panchayati Raj State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1998 i.e. analogous to the provision in question in the instant matter. A Division Bench of this Court in Ramesh Kumar Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., DB Civil Writ Petition No. 9673/2012, decided on 19.9.2012, considered the entire issue in lucid and held as under: - "Now, the Legislature, while providing for the meaning of "Outstanding Sportsperson" for the purpose of Rule 10, has inserted the Explanation in the Rule; and the expression has been defined as "meaning and including" such sportspersons who belong to the State and who have participated, individually or in team, in the Sports and Games recognized by International Olympic Committee and Indian Olympic Association or, in the International championships in Badminton, Tennis, Chess and Cricket recognised by their respective National Level Association, Federation or Board. The provision has been made in relation to the subordinate service in the manner that a candidate, to be entitled to claim such reservation under Rule 10, ought to have represented the country in Asian Games or Asian Championships, Common Wealth Games, World Championships, World University Games, World School, SAARC Games Or Olympic Games where he individually, or as a part of the team, had secured 1st, 2nd, or 3rd position. The contention on the part of the petitioner is that the Explanation to Rule 10 ibid. deserves to be declared invalid for it has drastically narrowed down the very meaning of "Outstanding Sportspersons" and has, thereby, defeated the object for which the Rule has been framed, i.e., encouragement of the sports activities and providing job opportunities to the sportspersons. We are unable to uphold the contentions as urged particularly when we do not find any such infirmity where for the questioned Rule could be considered offending any of the constitutional provision or any statute. The fundamentals of the law, per Article 16 of the Constitution of India, envisage equality of opportunity in the matters of public employment. Of course, exceptions are provided to the extent of permissible classification and for reservation for specific class of persons; and, as already noticed, the Rules of 1998 have otherwise provided for reservation of vacancies for various classes of persons with reference to the social welfare requirements. So far as the sports activities are concerned, may be that the legislature has thought it fit to make a provision so as to serve both the purposes of providing job opportunities to the outstanding sportspersons and at the same time, to motivate the sportspersons to excel in their respective arena and to bring laurels to the country but, for its very nature, no such intention could be perceived in this Rule as if to create another class of persons for reservation only in the name of sports activities. We need not dilate much on the philosophy behind the Rule in question but this much is clear that only some sportspersons with outstanding achievements are intended to be given the benefit and hence, the reservation itself has been provided only for Outstanding Sportspersons. As to what level of standing or achievement in the arena of sports be treated as 'outstanding' was definitely for the Legislature to provide. Broadly speaking, the explanation to the Rule puts such persons in outstanding category who have obtained some rank in the recognized international competitions. We find nothing of fault or infirmity in such a proposition." In view of the law laid down in the case of Ramesh Kumar Choudhary (supra), we do not find any wrong with the provision questioned.
(3.) THE writ petition is dismissed accordingly.;