Judgment :- Petitioner seeks Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order passed by the Respondent in Na.Ka. SC.2.No.323/Rect/2006-Appn-Rejn. dated 15.06.2007, rejecting the Petitioners Application for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police under the Sports quota and to direct the Respondent to allow the Petitioner to participate in the requirement of Sub-Inspector of Police. 2. Brief facts, which led to the filing of the Writ Petition are as follows: (i) Petitioner is a Volleyball player. From 1995 to 2003, Petitioner participated in various Inter-school, Inter-college, All India Inter-Universities and National Competitions and also got several certificate and medals for the said competitions. In 2004-2005, Petitioner completed Diploma in Volleyball Sports Coaching in the Sports Authority of India, Netaji Subhas National Institutes of Sports at Bangalore. In 2005, Petitioner participated in Senior State Volleyball Championship (State Level Volleyball Match) held at Udhagamandalam between 112. 2005 and 112. 2005 conducted by Tamil Nadu State Volley Ball Association, representing Income Tax Recreation Club, Chennai. Presently, the Petitioner is giving coach to the St. Louis College for the deaf and dumb at Adyar, Chennai. (ii) On the Orders of Government, a Notification was published on 210. 2006 through Dailies calling for applications from the eligible candidates, who fulfill the eligibility criteria prescribed therein for the post of 73 Sub-Inspectors (63 men and 10 women) under 10% Sports Quota for the year 2006. (iii) Petitioner applied for the post of S.I. and his application was rejected by the Respondent on the ground that the Petitioner is over aged (viz., born before 01.07.1982) and that he has not played within 2 years preceding the date of notification viz., on 210. 2006. Aggrieved, the Petitioner preferred the Writ Petition challenging the order passed by the Respondent in Na.Ka, SC.2.No.323/Rect/2006-Appn-Rejn. dated 15.06.2007, rejecting the Petitioners Application for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police under the sports quota. 3. Opposing the Petition, Respondent has filed counter stating that application of the Petitioner was rejected for two reasons (i) he is over aged and (ii) he has not played within two years preceding the date of Notification on 210. 2006 as per the norms prescribed by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.626 Home (Police-III) dated 27. 2003. 4. Mr. 3. Opposing the Petition, Respondent has filed counter stating that application of the Petitioner was rejected for two reasons (i) he is over aged and (ii) he has not played within two years preceding the date of Notification on 210. 2006 as per the norms prescribed by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.626 Home (Police-III) dated 27. 2003. 4. Mr. P.R. Thiruneelakandan, learned counsel for the Petitioner has contended that Petitioner had participated in the State/National University Championship and secured medals and while so, Petitioners application was unjustly rejected on the ground that he has not played within two years preceding the Notification. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that during 2005, Petitioner has also played for Income Tax Recreation Club which was not considered by the Respondent. 5. Mr. N. Senthilkumar, learned AGP would submit that Petitioners application was rejected as he is not a deserving candidate as per the norms stipulated in the Government Order and Notification. Learned AGP would further submit that only in cases of exemplary achievements, Respondent would consider the case for relaxation and the Petitioners case was not a deserving case for any relaxation. 6. Notification was published through dailies on 210. 2006 calling for applications from the eligible candidates who fulfill the eligibility criteria for the post of 73 S.I. of Police (63 for men and 10 for women) and 10% Sports Quota for the year 2006. Apart from the educational qualifications, age and physical fitness, the following Sports achievements were required:- Sports Achievement Certificate : Must have participated (individual as well as team) at any one of 14 games including Volley Ball specified in G.O.Ms.No.626 Home (Police-III) Department dated 27. 2003 and they must have played the game within 2 years prior to the publication of Notification dated 210. 2006. i) International Level by representing the Country. ii) National Level by representing the State/All India Organizations like Services, Railways, etc. iii) State Level Games representing the District/University. iv) University Level Games representing the College. 7. Petitioner who is a Volleyball player has produced innumerable documents showing that he has played Volleyball at State and National level. Petitioner has produced Form – 2 to show that he has played representing the State in a National competition. While the Petitioner was a student in St. Josephs College, Tiruchirapalli, he has represented Bharathidasan University during 2000-2003 in various Inter-University competition and National competition. Petitioner has produced Form – 2 to show that he has played representing the State in a National competition. While the Petitioner was a student in St. Josephs College, Tiruchirapalli, he has represented Bharathidasan University during 2000-2003 in various Inter-University competition and National competition. To that effect, Bharathidasan University has issued Form – 3 certificate. Representing Bharathidasan University, Petitioner also participated Volleyball in Inter-University competition, South Zone. In 2003, while the Petitioner was pursuing M.P.Ed., he represented Annamalai University in the Inter-University competition and to that effect Annamalai University has issued Form -3. 8. Petitioners application was rejected on the ground that he has not played within two years preceding the date of Notification i.e. on 210. 2006. Petitioner is said to have completed M.P.Ed. in 2003-2004. After graduating from the University, Petitioner might not have had opportunity of representing the University or the State or at the National level. In the counter, it is averred that after 2004, Petitioner was pursuing his academic studies. It is not as if the Petitioner was pursuing his course without playing. From July 2004 to May 2005, Petitioner attended Diploma course in Sports Coaching (Volleyball) as is seen from the certificate issued in Sai Netaji Subhas Southern Centre, Bangalore and Petitioner has produced the certificate showing that he has obtained Diploma in Sports Coaching in Volleyball from the said Institution. 9. Notification calling forthe post of Sub Inspectors was published on 210. 2006. Though, Petitioner has not played representing University/State, Petitioner pursued in achieving excellence in Volleyball by obtaining Diploma in Sports Coaching. Respondent ought to have taken into consideration the Diploma course which the Petitioner undertaken from July 2004 to May 2005. The fact that Petitioner has obtained Diploma in Sports Coaching (in Volleyball) coupled with the fact that Petitioner played at State/National level Volleyball competitions, this Court is of the view that the Petitioner has fulfilled the eligibility criteria. 10. It is not as if the Petitioner has not at all played within two years preceding from the date of Notification. Petitioner has participated in Senior State Volleyball Championship for Men and Women held at Udagamandalam from 112. 2005 to 112. 2005 representing Income Tax Recreation Club. 11. According to the Respondent, such participation representing Income Tax Recreation Club cannot fall under the norms. Petitioner has participated in Senior State Volleyball Championship for Men and Women held at Udagamandalam from 112. 2005 to 112. 2005 representing Income Tax Recreation Club. 11. According to the Respondent, such participation representing Income Tax Recreation Club cannot fall under the norms. Though it may not fall under the norms prescribed by the Government, the fact remains that Petitioner has been playing in the recognized tournament within two years preceding the date of Notification. 12. Petitioner hails from mofussil area – Vozhai kollai, Chidambaram taluk. If the Petitioner is a resident of town/city, he might have find ways and means by being a member of a team and playing at State/National level. If the application of the Petitioner was rejected on the ground that he has not played within two years preceding the date of Notification, I am afraid that the talents of the Petitioner might go unrecognized. This is all the more so, when Petitioner has been trying to achieve excellence in Volleyball by obtaining Diploma in Sports Coaching. 13. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has also drawn attention of the Court to ban for recruitment for a period about 5 years. Having regard to the representations from both employed and un-employed youth, in G.O.Ms.No.152 P & A.R.(S) Dept. dated 19. 2006, the Government has relaxed upper age limit by 5 years. When there was a ban for recruitment, Petitioner cannot be expected to have played within two years as and when Notification was obtained. 14. Even in the counter, it is averred that vacancy for the post of S.I. of Police arose in 2002-2004. G.O. was issued in the year 2003 vide G.O.Ms.No.626 Home (Police-III) Dept. dated 27. 2003 for the selection of S.I. of Police under 10% Sports quota for the year 2006. Actually, Notification was issued only on 210. 2006. Had Notification been issued in the appropriate time, Petitioners application would not have been rejected on the ground that he has not played within two years preceding the date of Notification. 15. Petitioners application is said to have been rejected on the ground that he was over aged (i.e. he was born before 7. 1982). In the impugned order, this ground has not been pointed out by rounding the column. However, since the vacancies for the year 2003-2004 was issued only on 210. 15. Petitioners application is said to have been rejected on the ground that he was over aged (i.e. he was born before 7. 1982). In the impugned order, this ground has not been pointed out by rounding the column. However, since the vacancies for the year 2003-2004 was issued only on 210. 2006, it may not be proper to reject the Petitioners case on the ground that he was over aged. 16. It is also relevant to note that there is a clause in G.O.Ms.No.626 Home (Police-III) Dept. dated 27. 2003. When there is a clause for relaxation of age, in my considered view that Respondent ought to have exercise his discretion in relaxing the age. 17. Within the limited sphere and opportunities available to him, Petitioner has tried to excel in the Volleyball. While so, Respondent was not justified in rejecting the Petitioners application on the ground that Petitioner has not played within two years preceding the date of Notification dated 210. 2006 and that Petitioner was over aged and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 18. By interim order dated 23. 2008 in M.P.No.1/2007, this Court has directed the Respondent to keep one post vacant until further orders. 19. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order in Na.Ka.SC.2 No.323/Rect/2006-Appn-Rejn dated 16. 2007 is set aside. Respondent is directed to appoint the Petitioner in the post of S.I. of Police in 2006 batch. Petitioner may be placed as junior most in 2006 batch. Petitioner may imparted requisite training along with next batch. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed.