JUDGMENT Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J.—The petitioner was appointed as a Constable under a sports quota pursuant to the G.O. dated 2.1.1999 which permitted certain relaxation in the Rules for appointment of constables under the sports quota. The petitioner, being athletic, and having a medal in high jump applied for the post of the constable and was selected and was given an appointment on 17.3.2006. On 14th May, 2010, after more than four years, the petitioner was issued a notice to show cause as to why his service should not be dispensed with since he was not performing up to the mark under the sports category. 2. The petitioner submitted his reply denying the charge levelled against him. The respondent No. 4 passed an order dated 24.1.2011 dispensing the services of the petitioner. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 24.1.2011, has filed the present writ petition. 3. Clause 9 of G.O. dated 2.1.1999 stipulates that a person appointed as a Constable under the sports quota would be kept under probation for a period of two years which can be extended twice in the event the incumbent does not improve his skill in the sports category. 4. In the light of this G.O., the impugned notice was given and thereafter he was discharged. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the Court finds from a perusal of the impugned notice dated 14th May, 2010, that the performance of the petitioner had increased in the year 2009. The petitioner had jumped 1.80 meters in the year 2009 whereas he jumped 1.88 meters in the year 2010. The petitioner recorded 2.52.86 minutes for 800 meters in the year 2009 whereas he recorded 2.45.81 minutes in the year 2010. The petitioner’s performance in sprint, however, went down from 7.23 seconds in 2009 to 7.46 seconds in 2010. 6. In the light of the aforesaid facts depicted in the show cause notice, the Court finds that the impugned order discharging the service on the ground that his performance was not up to the mark appears to the patently erroneous. 7. There is another aspect. A person is appointed under a sports quota on the basis of his past performance in the area of his excellence in a particular field of sports. The appointment is given not for the reason that he would perform better in future pursuant to his appointment. 7. There is another aspect. A person is appointed under a sports quota on the basis of his past performance in the area of his excellence in a particular field of sports. The appointment is given not for the reason that he would perform better in future pursuant to his appointment. The appointment is not based on the condition that he would perform better in future. The Court further finds that Clause 9 of the G.O. dated 2.1.1999 clearly stipulates that the probation period can be extended twice after the expiry of two years of the probation period in the event the performance was not found satisfactory. Nothing has come on the record to indicate that the petitioner’s probation was extended after the expiry of two years on the ground of unsatisfactory performance. Consequently, after the expiry of two years and, in absence of any extension of the probation period, unsatisfactory performance cannot be taken into consideration, nor Clause 9 of the G.O. dated 2.1.1999 could be invoked. 8. In the light of the aforesaid, the impugned order could not be sustained and is quashed. The writ petition is allowed and a writ of mandamus is issued commanding the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue in service. Since the petitioner has not worked for this period he will not be entitled for any salary but this period would be included in the length of service. ——————