Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a university-level Body Building Sportperson, challenged the Government Resolution dated 01/07/2016 which restricted the benefit of 5% sports quota in Government jobs only to sports played in Olympics, Asian Games, and Commonwealth Games, while selectively including certain Indian games like Chess, Kabaddi, Kho-Kho, and Mallakhamb.
The petitioner contended that Body Building was previously recognized under earlier Government Resolutions (2005 and 2013) and that its exclusion was arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. He also argued that Body Building is a recognized sport at the national level and that he had a legitimate expectation of availing reservation benefits.
The Court held that although policy decisions are generally within the domain of the State, they are subject to judicial review if found to be arbitrary or discriminatory. It observed that the selective inclusion of certain non-Olympic sports while excluding Body Building lacked any intelligible differentia and had no nexus with the object of promoting sports.
The Court further held that while the doctrine of legitimate expectation is not an independent enforceable right, it becomes enforceable when denial results in arbitrariness under Article 14.
Accordingly, the Court declared that:
Exclusion of Body Building is arbitrary and unconstitutional Body Building is a recognized sport and a species of Gymnastics The petitioner is entitled to benefit under the 5% sports quotaThe writ petition was allowed, and the State was directed to include Body Building in the Government Resolution within four weeks and extend benefits to the petitioner.
Headnote
Article 14 – Arbitrariness – Sports quota policy – Exclusion of “Body Building” – Validity State Government restricted eligibility for 5% sports quota only to games played in Olympics, Asiad and Commonwealth Games while subsequently including certain non-Olympic Indian games like Chess, Kabaddi, Kho-Kho and Mallakhamb – Petitioner (Body Building player) challenged exclusion – Held, classification is not based on intelligible differentia and has no nexus with object of policy i.e. encouragement of sports – Selective inclusion of some non-Olympic games while excluding Body Building is arbitrary and discriminatory – Violative of Article 14 – Note below Schedule ‘A’ of G.R. dated 01/07/2016 liable to be struck down to that extent. Scope – When enforceable – Policy change affecting sports quota Earlier Government Resolutions (2005, 2013) included Body Building for reservation – Petitioner acted upon policy and pursued sport – Held, legitimate expectation by itself not enforceable right, but becomes enforceable when denial results in arbitrariness under Article 14 – State action unfair and unreasonable in excluding Body Building despite earlier inclusion and national recognition – Doctrine applicable in present case. Though policy decisions are generally not subject to judicial review, interference permissible when policy is arbitrary, discriminatory or violative of fundamental rights –Held, impugned restriction in G.R. is arbitrary and contrary to object of policy – Hence liable to be interfered with. D. SPORTS LAW / SERVICE LAW Sports quota – Recognition of sport – Body Building Recognition by Central Government (e.g., Arjuna Award) indicates legitimacy of sport – State cannot arbitrarily deny same status without rational basis – Held, Body Building is a recognized sport and cannot be excluded from sports quota – Declared as species of Gymnastics and eligible for reservation.
(Paras 19, 20, 21, 22, 23)
B. DOCTRINE OF LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION / PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL
(Paras 10, 11, 13, 21, 22)
C. POLICY MATTERS – JUDICIAL REVIEW .Extent – When Court can interfere
(Paras 7, 20, 21)
(Paras 18, 20)
Premium Content
The Headnote is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now to access key legal points
Issue of Consideration: Whether the Government Resolution dated 01/07/2016 limiting sports eligible for 5% reservation to those played in Olympics, Asiad, Commonwealth games plus Chess, Kabaddi and Kho-Kho violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India by discriminating against 'Body Building' which was included in earlier 2005 policy
Premium Content
The Issue of Consideration is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now to access critical case issues
Final Decision
Writ Petition allowed – exclusion of “Body Building” from sports quota held arbitrary and violative of Article 14; State directed to include it in G.R. dated 01/07/2016 and grant consequential benefits.
