Selection cannot be invalidated without establishing a direct causal nexus to proven illegality.

Pursuant to an advertisement dated 22 December 2001, the State conducted recruitment for the posts of Sub-Inspector (Civil Police/Intelligence) and Sub-Inspector (Armed Police)/Platoon Commander (PAC), including posts reserved for skilled sportspersons and female candidates.

The petitioner participated in the selection and obtained 479 marks but was not selected. Five male candidates were selected under the skilled-sportsperson quota with marks of 544, 525, 485, 480 and 480 respectively.

The petitioner challenged the application of sports and horizontal reservation, questioned the eligibility of selected candidates, particularly respondent No.5, and asserted that a higher-merit candidate, Rajeev Rauthan, ought to have been adjusted against the general category.

In an earlier proceeding, the Division Bench permitted the petitioner to submit a representation and directed the competent authority to decide it by a reasoned order.

The petitioner’s representation was rejected on 24 February 2010, leading to the present writ petition seeking quashing of that order, reconsideration of his claim under the sports quota, and quashing of the appointments of respondent Nos.4 and 5.

The petitioner subsequently relied on RTI material and an inquiry report to challenge the genuineness of respondent No.5’s sports certificate.

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to reconsideration for appointment on the ground that the sports quota, being a horizontal reservation, had been incorrectly applied and that a higher-merit candidate should have been adjusted against the general category.

2. Whether the selection and appointment of respondent No.5 were liable to be quashed on the allegation that his sports certificate was invalid, fabricated, or unsupported by the relevant institutional records.

3. Whether the irregularities allegedly disclosed through the CBI investigation and connected proceedings established a legal defect having a direct nexus with the selection of the respondents and consequently warranted interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.

4. Whether the petitioner acquired an enforceable right to appointment merely because he claimed a higher merit position among eligible sports candidates.

The Court applied the constitutional principles governing horizontal reservation, holding that a sports quota operates across the vertical categories and cannot be treated as an independent vertical category.

It considered the principle concerning adjustment of candidates selected under horizontal reservation, including *Rajesh Kumar Daria v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission*, 2007 (8) SCC 785.

The Court further relied on *State of Uttarakhand v. Jitendra Joshi*, Civil Appeal No.3128 of 2022, arising from the same recruitment, to hold that a candidate’s asserted position in the merit list does not create an indefeasible right to appointment or invalidate another candidate’s selection.

Under Article 226, interference requires proof of a specific illegality or arbitrariness affecting the impugned selection; irregularities concerning other candidates or the recruitment process generally do not invalidate a selection without a demonstrated causal nexus to that selection.

Mere subsequent non-availability of a certificate in institutional records does not, by itself, establish that the certificate produced during selection was forged or fabricated.

The Court held that the petitioner’s argument regarding the adjustment of the higher-merit candidate did not establish that respondent Nos.4 or 5 had been illegally selected.

Since the sports quota was horizontal, the petitioner could not treat it as a separate vertical category or derive an automatic right to appointment from his own calculation of merit.

The decision in *Jitendra Joshi*, concerning the same recruitment, did not invalidate the selection or confer an indefeasible appointment right on a candidate claiming a superior position.

The Court also found that the CBI investigation and alleged irregularities did not, without more, establish illegality in the specific selection challenged in the petition. The petitioner failed to demonstrate a causal connection between those irregularities and the selection of respondent No.5.

Similarly, the RTI material showing that respondent No.5’s certificate was not available in later institutional records did not prove that the certificate was forged or fabricated, particularly in the absence of a finding by a competent authority to that effect.

Given the long passage of time since the 2001 recruitment and the absence of a specific illegality directly affecting the respondents’ selection, the Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction.

The order dated 24 February 2010 was not interfered with, and the prayers for reconsideration of the petitioner’s appointment and quashing of the appointments of respondent Nos.4 and 5 were rejected.

The writ petition was dismissed, and pending applications, if any, were disposed of.