Acceptance of appointment under sports quota exhausts the right to seek subsequent consideration for alternative posts.

The applicant, Romit Kumar, an outstanding sportsperson (Silver Medalist, 16th Senior National Wushu Championship), applied for appointment under the Jammu and Kashmir Appointment of Outstanding Sports Persons Rules, 1998 (SRO 349/1998).

Based on his BCA qualification and sports credentials, the Selection Committee recommended him for the post of Teacher.

On 24.10.2014, he was appointed as a Teacher in the pay scale of Rs. 5200-20200 with Grade Pay of Rs. 2800/-.

The applicant accepted the appointment and joined service on 18.02.2015.

Subsequently, on 06.01.2016, he filed a representation seeking a change of cadre/post to a higher non-gazetted post (e.g., Sub-Inspector) on the grounds of parity with other sportspersons who were allegedly granted higher grades.

The respondents rejected this representation via order dated 14.12.2016, asserting that his right stood exhausted upon acceptance of the initial appointment.

1. Whether an outstanding sportsperson, having accepted and joined a specific post under SRO 349/1998, can subsequently claim appointment to a different or higher post under the same quota.

2. Whether the denial of a change in cadre/post constitutes a violation of the guarantee of equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

Jammu and Kashmir Appointment of Outstanding Sports Persons Rules, 1998 (SRO 349), as amended by SRO 376 of 2004, which provides a special mode of appointment for sportspersons subject to vacancy availability and committee recommendations.

Principle of "Approbate and Reprobate," holding that a person cannot accept a benefit and subsequently challenge its conditions.

State of Bihar v. Upendra Narayan Singh (2009): Article 14 does not envisage "negative equality".

Union of India v. M.K. Sarkar (2010): Repeated representations do not create a fresh cause of action for settled claims.

The Tribunal reasoned that SRO 349/1998 does not vest an absolute right in a candidate to demand a post of their choice; it only guarantees fair consideration.

The applicant’s right to consideration was fully satisfied when the Selection Committee evaluated his credentials and recommended him for the post of Teacher, which he voluntarily accepted without demur in 2014.

The Tribunal noted that the phrase "may be considered" in the Rules is directory, not mandatory, and does not impose a duty on the State to appoint every graduate to the highest possible non-gazetted grade.

Regarding the plea of discrimination, the Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove a complete identity of circumstances with the cited precedents, emphasizing that each sports appointment depends on shifting variables like specific sports achievements and contemporaneous vacancy positions.

Seeking a second benefit under the same quota after joining service was deemed an attempt at "post-shopping" not supported by statutory rules.

The final holding affirmed that the impugned order dated 14.12.2016 was legally sound and did not suffer from arbitrariness; the Transfer Application was dismissed.