JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. Respondent-State issued notification dated 17.7.2012 for recruitment of 400 male and 200 female constables in H.P. Police Department. 24 posts of constables (female) were to be filled in District Shimla. One post was reserved for sportsmen category. Respondent No.3 sent requisition to respondents No.1 and 2 on 9.7.2012 for sponsoring the names of eligible outstanding sports persons for the post of constable (male and female) in various Districts. Name of the petitioner was sponsored to the Police Department on 24.8.2012 on merit at Sr. No.1 from category-III for consideration. Petitioner has won two senior National Bronze Medals for being member of Himachal Pradesh Kabaddi Team, which secured 3rd position in 56th and 58th Senior National Kabaddi Championships held in the years 2008 and 2011. She has also participated in 54th and 57th Senior National Kabaddi Championships. She has also won Junior National Gold Medal for being member of Himachal Pradesh Kabaddi Team, which secured first position in 35th Junior National Kabaddi Championships held in the year 2009. She has also won Women National Silver Medal. She has also participated in National Sports Festival for Women Group-II. She has also one All India University Bronze Medal. She has also placed on record certificates to this effect vide Annexures P-3 to P-6, P-7, P-8, P-8, P-9, P-10, P-11 and P-12. 2. Petitioner was legitimately expecting that since her name has been sponsored on merit at Sr. No.1 from category-III, she will be duly selected for the post of constable (female). However, petitioner was called upon vide letter dated 30.8.2012 to appear before the recruitment board for physical efficiency test at Police Line, Bharari on 14.9.2012 at 8.00 A.M. Petitioner brought to the notice of the authorities that as per instructions of the State of Himachal Pradesh she was not required to pass physical eligibility test. On 14.9.2012, she was told that she would not be subjected to any physical efficiency test, but all of a sudden at 6.00 P.M. she was told that she was required to participate in physical efficiency test. Thereafter, written test was held on 23.12.2012. Respondent No.6 has qualified as per reply filed by the respondent-State. Petitioner has also made representations on 15.9.2012 and 19.9.2012 vide Annexures P-15 and P-16. 3. Mr. Ajay Mohan Goel has vehemently argued that respondent-State has not followed the instructions for providing reservation notified vide notification dated 9.5.1999. Thereafter, written test was held on 23.12.2012. Respondent No.6 has qualified as per reply filed by the respondent-State. Petitioner has also made representations on 15.9.2012 and 19.9.2012 vide Annexures P-15 and P-16. 3. Mr. Ajay Mohan Goel has vehemently argued that respondent-State has not followed the instructions for providing reservation notified vide notification dated 9.5.1999. He has also contended that petitioner was not required to appear in the physical efficiency and written tests once her name was placed at Sr. No.1 in category-III as per notification dated 28.5.1999, as amended from time to time. He has further contended that in northern zone and central zone, candidates whose names were sponsored by respondents No1. and 2 were not subjected to any physical efficiency and written test. They were only called for suitability cum efficiency test. 4. Mr. Neeraj Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General and Mr. B.C. Verma have argued that respondent No.6 has been selected strictly as per the norms laid down vide notification Annexure P-13 dated 28.5.1999, as amended from time to time. They have also justified the holding of physically efficiency test and written test of the candidates whose names were sponsored by respondents No.1 and 2. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 6. Clause C of Annexure P-13 dated 28.5.1999 reads as under: "C. Regulation of Reservation:- (a) Distinguished sports person will have to fulfill educational and other professional qualifications prescribed for the post. (b) Department of Youth Services & Sports will act as nodal agency for implementation of reservation all classes of posts. (c) The sports persons belonging to Category-I will be eligible for direct employment various Government departments/Boards/Corporations etc. against reserved posts. The interested department will be free to offer employment directly without any interview or any other formality. This offer will, however, have to made within one month of winning of medal. In case no department comes forward, the Director, Youth Services & Sports will sponsor name to any department against any post available under sports quota depending upon the suitability and choice of the candidate. (d) The department of Youth Services & Sports will frame rules and guidelines for determining priority etc. and choice and suitability of each candidate. In case no department comes forward, the Director, Youth Services & Sports will sponsor name to any department against any post available under sports quota depending upon the suitability and choice of the candidate. (d) The department of Youth Services & Sports will frame rules and guidelines for determining priority etc. and choice and suitability of each candidate. The recruiting department will send requisition to the Department of Youth Services & Sports for sponsoring names against sports quota whenever recruitment is to be made. The sports persons recruitment Cell will sponsoring name per vacancy from live register according to priority as per rules from category I, II and III. The requisition department will then have to recruit that person only." 7. It is evident from the plain language of clause C of notification dated 28.5.1999 that distinguished sports persons are required to fulfill educational and other professional qualifications prescribed for the post. The Department of Youth Services and Sports has to act as nodal agency. According to sub-clause (c) of clause C, the sports persons belonging to category-I are eligible for direct employment in various Government departments/boards/corporations etc. against reserved posts. The interested departments are free to offer employment directly without any interview or any other formality to this category. However, there is a rider that this offer has to be made within one month of winning of medal. In case no department comes forward, the Director, Youth Services and Sports is required to sponsor name to any department against any post available under sports quota depending upon the suitability and choice of the candidate. According to sub-clause (d) of clause C, the Department of Youth Services and Sports is required to set up a Sportsperson Employment Cell and maintain a live register with respect to all eligible sportsperson. The Department of Youth Services and Sports is required to frame rules and guidelines for determining priority etc. and choice and suitability of each candidate. The recruiting department is required to send requisition to the Department of Youth Services and Sports for sponsoring names against sports quota whenever recruitment is to be made. The sports persons recruitment cell is required to sponsor name as per vacancy from live register according to priority as per rules from category I, II and III. The categorisation is as per Annexure-I appended to notification dated 28.5.1999. The sports persons recruitment cell is required to sponsor name as per vacancy from live register according to priority as per rules from category I, II and III. The categorisation is as per Annexure-I appended to notification dated 28.5.1999. As far as category-I is concerned, the candidate need not to be interviewed, however, for category-II and III, the other formalities are required to be gone into, including suitability cum personality test. They are not required to be put to physical efficiency and written tests since their merit is drawn as per live register and these persons are to be recruited. According to Annexure-1 annexed with Annexure P-13, the candidates who are medal winners in South Asian Federation (SAF) Games, medal winners in National Games and medal winners in recognised Senior National Championship are placed in category-III. It is not in dispute that petitioner has been placed in category-III on the basis of her achievements at the National Level. 8. The Court has passed the following order on 19.10.2012: "There will be a direction to the 4th respondent as to why in the selection to the post of Constable, Annexure P-13 Procedure, more particularly, with regard to reservation under C (d) is not followed. The affidavit shall be filed within two weeks." 9. In sequel to order dated 19.10.2012, supplementary affidavit was filed by the Superintendent of Police, Shimla. According to the affidavit filed by him, since five candidates were sponsored by respondent No. 2, in order to short list them and to decide their suitability and merit, physical efficiency test and written test were required to be conducted. According to him, there was relaxation qua category-I and not for category-II and III. It is further averred that failure to qualify ground test means that the candidate was not holding the basic qualification for the post. Respondents No.1 and 2 in their reply have specifically stated that the name of petitioner was sponsored on merit at Sr. No.1 from category-III alongwith other eligible female candidates of District Shimla. 10. The Court had passed the following order on 30.8.2013: "Respondents No.5 and 7 duly served. There is no representation on their behalf, hence, proceeded ex parte. Heard in part. Respondent-State is directed to produce the record of selection process under category of sports- persons, to the posts of Constables in the entire State, by the next date of hearing. 10. The Court had passed the following order on 30.8.2013: "Respondents No.5 and 7 duly served. There is no representation on their behalf, hence, proceeded ex parte. Heard in part. Respondent-State is directed to produce the record of selection process under category of sports- persons, to the posts of Constables in the entire State, by the next date of hearing. For continuation, list on 5.9.2013. In the meanwhile, it shall be open for the respondent-State to file a supplementary affidavit regarding exact procedure for recruitment to the posts of Constables." 11. In sequel to order dated 30.8.2013 in addition to respondents No.1 and 2, Director General of Police has also filed the response. Respondents No.1 and 2 have reiterated their stand filed to writ petition. The Director General of Police in his supplementary affidavit filed on 18.9.2013 has specifically admitted that as per information collected from the Inspector General of Police, Northern Range, Dharamshala, who was the Chairman of Recruitment Board for the Districts of Northern Range, the sports persons of category-III were not subjected to physical efficiency test. Similarly, the Inspector General of Police, Central Range, Mandi has intimated that only two candidates of category-III were sponsored by the Director Youth Services and Sports for the post of constables in Hamirpur District and as per the instructions, these candidates had not been subjected to any physical efficiency test and written test and they were only called for suitability cum personality test. It is intriguing to note that in southern zone altogether different yardstick has been adopted. It is not discernible why the physical efficiency and written tests were held for the candidates whose names were sponsored for the post of female constable as per merit in the southern zone and the same were not held for the same category in northern zone and central zone. The candidates were selected only after their names were sponsored by respondent No.2 in northern and southern zones. The same criteria ought to have been followed qua the zone to which petitioner belongs, i.e. southern zone. Respondents No.1 and 2 ought to have sponsored the name from the live register of only one candidate instead of five candidates. Petitioner as per the norms prescribed was at Sr. No.1 in the merit. She was wrongly asked to appear in the physical efficiency test on 14.9.2012. Respondents No.1 and 2 ought to have sponsored the name from the live register of only one candidate instead of five candidates. Petitioner as per the norms prescribed was at Sr. No.1 in the merit. She was wrongly asked to appear in the physical efficiency test on 14.9.2012. She was only to be called for suitability cum personality test. The three categories have been prepared to encourage sports in the State of Himachal Pradesh. Process for filling up the post throughout the State must be uniform. In case different yardsticks/norms/indices are adopted for different zones, it would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is not in dispute that in the present case name of petitioner was sponsored at Sr. No.1 according to the merit. The action of respondent-State to ask the petitioner to undergo physical efficiency test and written tests was contrary to the norms prescribed. 12. Mr. Neeraj Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General has vehemently argued that only respondent No.6 has qualified the ground test as well as written test held on 23.9.2012 and secured 41.00 marks in written test. However, the fact of the matter is that selection of respondent No.6 was in contravention of the norms prescribed and by not following the uniform procedure. The Recruiting Department cannot deviate from the norms and in the instant case two sets of norms have been adopted for filling up the post reserved for sports person. 13. Accordingly, in view of discussion and analysis made hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed. Selection of respondent No.6 to the post of constable under sportsmen category is quashed and set aside. Respondents No.3 and 4 are directed to offer appointment to the petitioner to the post of constable under sportsmen category within a period of three weeks from today by holding suitability cum personality test. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. No costs. Petition allowed.