State cannot arbitrarily exclude recognized sports for reservation benefits, violating Article 14.

The petitioner, a student pursuing a Master in Arts, sought to quash a communication dated October 24, 2019, and a Government Resolution (G.R.) dated July 1, 2016, along with a letter dated March 21, 2023.

He also sought a declaration that "Body Building" is a species of Gymnastics, entitling him to a 5% reservation in government and semi-government posts.

The State of Maharashtra initially issued a G.R. on April 30, 2005, reserving 5% of posts for players in Class ‘A’ to ‘D’, which included "Body Building" as an eligible sport.

Subsequent G.Rs. in 2006 and 2013 also allowed for such reservations for inter-university competitors.

However, the G.R. dated July 1, 2016, superseded earlier resolutions and introduced a note requiring that only games played in Olympics, Asiad, and Commonwealth Games, along with Chess, Kabaddi, and Kho-Kho, would be eligible for this reservation, thus excluding Body Building from the new list.

Despite his achievements in "Body Building," the petitioner was denied the benefit of reservation due to this G.R.

The petitioner highlights that the State subsequently included Chess, Kabaddi, Kho-Kho, and Mallakhamb, which do not meet the criteria of being Olympic, Asiad, or Commonwealth Games.

Whether the Government Resolution dated July 1, 2016, and specifically the note limiting eligible games for reservation, violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India due to discrimination and arbitrariness.

Whether the petitioner had a legitimate expectation of being eligible for the reservation benefits, given the inclusion of "Body Building" in earlier government policies.

The court applied the principle of judicial review for administrative actions, particularly testing policies against Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees equality and prohibits arbitrary state action.

It relied on the doctrine of legitimate expectation, as discussed in *Brahmaputra Metallics Ltd. Ranchi and another* (2023) 10 SCC 634, stating that denial of a legitimate expectation can lead to a violation of Article 14 if it is arbitrary, discriminatory, or unfair.

The court also referred to *Food Corporation of India Vs. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries* (1993) 1 SCC 71, emphasizing that the State must act fairly and non-arbitrarily in its actions, and that a legitimate expectation, while not a distinct enforceable right by itself, must be considered to prevent arbitrary decisions.

Furthermore, it affirmed that class legislation should not make improper discrimination without reasonable distinction.

The court found that the note in the G.R. dated July 1, 2016, limiting eligible sports primarily to Olympic, Asiad, and Commonwealth Games, while simultaneously including Chess, Kabaddi, Kho-Kho, and Mallakhamb (which are not part of those international events), was arbitrary and discriminatory.

This classification lacked intelligible differentia and nexus with the policy's objective of encouraging sports, thereby violating Article 14 of the Constitution.

The court noted that "Body Building" was recognized in earlier G.Rs. and nationally through awards like the Arjuna Award.

The petitioner had a legitimate expectation that "Body Building" would continue to be eligible for reservation, having dedicated his time to it since 2013.

The State's action of selectively including certain Indian games while excluding "Body Building" despite its earlier inclusion and national recognition, without a rational basis, amounted to unreasonableness and unfairness, triggering a violation of the legitimate expectation principle in conjunction with Article 14.

The court directed Respondent No. 1 to include "Body Building" in the note below Schedule 'A' of the Government Resolution dated July 1, 2016, within four weeks.

It was declared that "Body Building" is a species of Gymnastics and eligible for 5% reservation in Government and semi-Government Class ‘A’ to ‘D’ posts.

The communication dated October 24, 2019, and the letter dated March 21, 2023, were quashed and set aside.

The respondents were further directed to complete the reservation procedure for the petitioner, as per the amended G.R., within four weeks thereafter.