The Supreme Court on Thursday has issued notice to the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC) and the Jharkhand Government on the plea of woman sportsperson Shilpa Dalmia.

Appearing before the bench of Justice R. Subhash Reddy and Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Dalmia’s counsel Senior Advocate Manish Singhvi submitted that she secured first position in lawn tennis competition organised at the national level by the Indian Olympic Association. 

He further referred to certificates issued by the School Games Federation of India, wherein the recognition of such is being done by the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, Government of India.  

Singhvi to Bench:

“My lord, I am not claiming any false claim as a sportsperson. My case falls within condition stipulated in in the advertisement, i.e. Condition No. 1 (d) sub clause (2).”

This provision mentions  the ‘level of competition’ and ‘achievement in sports’ in case of seeking reservation by the candidates under Sports Quota.

The bench said, “Let’s see how the High Court has dealt with this aspect. We are not saying that you are making false claims.”

Jharkhand High Court had said certificates don’t add up

Shilpa Dalmia has moved the Apex Court against the order of the High Court of Jharkhand wherein her candidature under sports quota was rejected by the JPSC.

She had participated at national and university level in lawn tennis, which fulfils the condition nos. 1(d) (ii) and 1(d) (iii) for getting horizontal reservation of 3% under Sports Quota, but she was not declared successful on the ground that ‘sports certificate not produced as per advertisement,’ contends Shilpa before High Court.

Shilpa relied upon the eligibility conditions mentioned in advertisement which is given below: “Condition No. 1(d) of the advertisement provides that the candidate who is claiming benefit of Horizontal Reservation under ‘Sports Quota’ to the extent of 3 % in the light of circular issued by Govt. of Jharkhand vide Memo No. 1709 dated 12.09.2007, is required to fulfill any of the three conditions as mentioned in the advertisement at Condition No. 1(d) i.e. either candidate has achieved ‘Medal’ in the competition organized by International Olympics Committee or Competition organized by Federation attached with it; OR has secured ‘First Position’ in the competition organized at National Level by Indian Olympic Association or Federation attached with it; OR has ‘World Record’ in the competition organized at National Level; meaning thereby, in either of the three situations the candidate would be given the benefit of Horizontal Reservation to the extent of 3 % under Sports Quota.

Also Read: Supreme Court dismisses Kerala appeal against bail granted to two people accused of murder

The High Court after comparing certificates with the conditions stipulated in condition no.1 (d) of advertisement, dismissed the appeal of Dalmia, after making certain observations:

“None of the certificates produced by the petitioner has recognition by ‘International Olympic Committee or its concerned federations’ meaning thereby the case of the petitioner does not fall under condition no. 1(d) (i), which says that the achievement of ‘Medal’ in the competition has recognition by ‘International Olympics Committee or its Federation’. Likewise none of the certificates submitted by the petitioner shows that the petitioner had secured first position in the competition having recognition by ‘Indian Olympics Association or the Federations attached thereto, as such the case of the petitioner does not fall under condition no. 1(d)(ii). Moreover, none of the certificate of the petitioner shows that she has made ‘World Record’ in the competition organized at ‘National Level’, hence the case of the petitioner also does not fall under last condition, i.e. condition no. 1(d)(iii) for getting the benefit of Horizontal Reservation of 3 % under Sports Quota.”

The Supreme Court has directed the Union Public Service Commission and the Jharkhand Public Service Commission to file reply by three weeks on a petition alleging that they violated the Supreme Court order that fixed the tenure of the Director General of Police to two years.

A three-Judge Bench of Chief Justice NV Ramana, Justice AS Bopanna and Justice Hrishikesh Roy passed the order on Wednesday on a PIL filed by Rajesh Kumar through Advocate Pranav Sachdeva, stating that UPSC failed to form a panel for the selection of new DGP.

The Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the appointment of AdHoc DGP MV Rao, made by the Jharkhand Government on March 16, 2020, was impermissible, as per the directions laid down by the apex court in the Prakash Singh order, regarding the process for appointment of DGP.

“The DGPs of the State shall be selected by the State Government from among the three senior-most officers of the Department, who have been impaneled for promotion to that rank by the Union Public Service Commission on the basis of their length of service, very good record and range of experience for heading the police force,” the Supreme Court had noted in the Prakash Singh verdict.

Also Read: Orissa High Court announces creation of its official Telegram channel for convenience of advocates and litigants

“Once he has been selected for the job, he should have a minimum tenure of at least two years, irrespective of his date of superannuation,” the apex court had added.

Several petitions related to the Sixth Combined Civil Service Examination conducted by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC) were heard in the Jharkhand High Court on Monday.

During the hearing, the single-judge bench of Justice S.K. Dwivedi ordered that all parties related in the case should complete their pleading. The court will then begin a final hearing on February 3.

The court said those who have to file a reply in this case should file it through an affidavit by February 1. It is pertinent to note that eighteen petitions including that of Rahul Kumar were heard in the High Court.

Earlier, the court had directed the applicants to make the successful candidates in the Sixth JPSC exam respondents in the petition. It was submitted on behalf of some successful candidates that the vakalatnama has been received and it will be filed in the court soon. After this, the court has directed to complete all the pleadings by February 1.

Indeed, the final result of the Sixth JPSC has been challenged in the Jharkhand High Court. The petitions state that the JPSC has not concluded the final result under the rules. This has led to many disturbances. In this case, the final result should be cancelled.

Today, the court clarified that all parties should submit their reply in the court till February 3 and no time will be given after the same.

Read Also: Allahabad HC to continue hearing pleas against Uttar Pradesh conversion ordinance