JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. 1. The appellant, who was respondent No.3 before the writ Court, is aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned writ Court whereby both the writ petitioner and the appellant herein, were held to be ineligible to be considered for appointment in general (sportsman) quota. 2. The facts in brief, may be noticed. Advertisement No. 11/2007 was got issued by respondent No.1 on 6.7.2007 inviting applications for filling up the posts of Junior Engineer (Electrical) and last date for receipt of the application was 14.8.2007. The respondents conducted a written screening test. The claim of the writ petitioner was rejected by the learned Single Judge and the findings have attained finality. Insofar as the appellant is concerned, he initially was not a party to the writ petition and vide CMP No.5723 of 2009 he had sought his impleadment on the ground that he was already selected and the learned writ Court vide its order dated 4.4.2012 impleaded the appellant by passing the following order: "CMP No. 5723 of 2009 Heard. Since the applicant is a selected candidate, he is permitted to be arrayed as respondent No.3. Registry is directed to carry out the necessary corrections in the memo of parties. The application stands disposed of." Now what appears from the perusal of the aforesaid order is that the precise case of the appellant was that he had been selected and therefore, ought to be appointed." 3. When the matter came up before the learned Single Judge on 18.4.2012, then on the request of the writ petitioner, the Director (Youth & Sports) was added as a party respondent No.4 and was directed to file supplementary affidavit as to whether the petitioner and respondent No.3 (appellant herein) were eligible for being considered under the category of sportsman, as per criteria adopted by respondent No.1. 4. In compliance to the directions issued by the learned writ Court, the Director (Youth & Sports) i.e. respondent No.4 filed supplementary affidavit, the relevant portion whereof reads as follows: "1. It is submitted that the State Government has provided 3% reservation to the distinguished sportspersons in various services under the Government vide Notification No. 2-11/72-DP (A-II) dated 28th May, 1999, No. PER (AP)-C-F(I)-3/2011 dated 22nd January, 2002, No. PER (AP)-C-F(I)-3/2001 dated 2.8.2008, No. YSS-C(15)3/2008 dated 24.7.2009 and No. YSS-A(4)1/2008-Loose dated 10th February, 2011. It is submitted that the State Government has provided 3% reservation to the distinguished sportspersons in various services under the Government vide Notification No. 2-11/72-DP (A-II) dated 28th May, 1999, No. PER (AP)-C-F(I)-3/2011 dated 22nd January, 2002, No. PER (AP)-C-F(I)-3/2001 dated 2.8.2008, No. YSS-C(15)3/2008 dated 24.7.2009 and No. YSS-A(4)1/2008-Loose dated 10th February, 2011. The names of distinguished sportspersons are registered in the Sports Cell and on receiving of requisition from any of the recruiting Department names were sponsored from amongst the eligible sports persons, fulfill the required educational and essential professional education prescribed under the R & P Rules for any of the post. Under the 3% reservation scheme, criteria for selection of outstanding sportspersons who will be eligible for employment in Govt. Department/Boards/Corporations and Universities is as under: The various sports competitions will be classified as follow: Category No. I I. Medal winners of Olympic Games/Winter Olympics. II Commonwealth Games III Medal winners of Asian Games/Winter Asiad. Category No. II I. Participation in Olympic Games. II. Participation in Commonwealth Games. III. Participation in Asian Games. Category No. III I. Medal winners in South Asian Federation (SAF) Games. II. Medal winners in National Games. III. Medal winners in recognised Senior National Championship. Category No. IV I. Medal winners in All India Inter Versity Sports Tournaments. II. Medal winners in All India National School Games, All India Rural Sports Tournaments and National Sports Festival for Women organized under the PYKKA competitions. III. Medal winners in recognised Jr. National Sports Championships. IV. Participation in South Asian Federation (SAF) Games. V. At least three times participation in National Championship and Senior National Championship. (Copy annexed vide Annexure R-I). 2. The sports achievements of the petitioner and respondent No.3 as per record provided and those are recognised events are as under: 1. Rajinder Singh (Petitioner) 1. 1st place in 10th H.P. State Athletics championship held at Sundernagar on 23-24/12/1998. 2. 1st place in 15th H.P. State Athletics meet held at Sundernagar on 1/1994. 3. 2nd place in H.P. State Sub-Junior Boxing championship held at Shimla on 28-30/8/1992. 2. Arvind Bhardwaj (respondent No.3). 1. Participated in 51st Sr. National Ball Badminton championship held at Quilan (Kerala) on 8-11th February, 2006. 2. 1st place in State Handball championship held at Una on 7- 9/2/1997. 3. State Level Cricket tournament held at Chamba in 1998-99. 4. State Level Cricket tournament held at Nahan in 1999-2000. 3. 2. Arvind Bhardwaj (respondent No.3). 1. Participated in 51st Sr. National Ball Badminton championship held at Quilan (Kerala) on 8-11th February, 2006. 2. 1st place in State Handball championship held at Una on 7- 9/2/1997. 3. State Level Cricket tournament held at Chamba in 1998-99. 4. State Level Cricket tournament held at Nahan in 1999-2000. 3. There fore, as per criteria fixed for eligibility of sports persons under 3% reservation policy, these both candidates do not falls under distinguished sports persons category and are not eligible for appointment under the scheme. The minimum eligibility for sports persons is at least 3 times participation in National championship and Sr. National championship in one game. It is also submitted for the information of the Hon'ble Court that during 2009 respondent No.3 Sh. Arvind Bhardwaj attended this office for getting his name sponsored for the post of J.E. (Electrical) to Chief Engineer (Operation) North, HPSEB, Dharamshala under 3% sports quota. He has been informed vide this office letter No. 6-1/2006-YSS-1870 dated 2.4.2009 (copy annexed vide Annexure R-II) and letter No. 6-1/2006-YSS-2902 dated 29.6.2009 (copy annexed vide Annexure R-III) that his claim for appointment under sports quota can not be considered since, he do not fulfill the required criteria prescribed under the 3% reservation policy. A copy of the scheme has also been provided to him by this office on his demand." Further in para-5 of the supplementary affidavit, it has been averred: "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that as stated in present Supplementary Affidavit to this case, it is humbly stated that this Department sponsor the names of eligible sportspersons for all requisitioned post on the basis of their sports achievements and suitability for any of the post. The names of the petitioner and respondent No.3 are not registered with the cell since they do not fulfill the criteria specified under 3% reservation policy" Based upon the aforesaid contents of the supplementary affidavit, the learned writ Court dismissed the writ petition. 5. The names of the petitioner and respondent No.3 are not registered with the cell since they do not fulfill the criteria specified under 3% reservation policy" Based upon the aforesaid contents of the supplementary affidavit, the learned writ Court dismissed the writ petition. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the learned writ Court has not taken into consideration the fact that there are two modes of recruitment for the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) out of which one is on batch-wise basis wherein the quota and posts are reserved for sports person and secondly through the competitive examination in which the posts are reserved for sportsman and filled up by way of examination held by the Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Board. The appellant falls in the latter class and had appeared in the competitive examination and despite having secured highest marks he had not been offered appointment. According to appellant, the learned writ Court has wrongly applied the procedure applicable to candidates, who were to be appointed on batch wise basis to the case of the appellant and thereby reached a wrong conclusion. He would further contend that the appellant was meritorious sports person and was required to be appointed since he had participated in the games recognised and notified by the respondents themselves. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records carefully. 7. There is inherent fallacy in the argument of the appellant that he had been selected and, therefore, ought to have been appointed. No doubt, the petitioner appeared in the screening test and qualified that, but that in itself would not entitle him for appointment. In order to be selected, he was further required to fulfill the eligibility criteria in terms of the notifications referred to by respondent No.4 in the supplementary affidavit (supra). This criteria of selection was applicable to the categories not only of the batch-wise selection but even to the case of candidates, who appeared in the competitive examination and passed the same. The merit of the appellant was not to be judged solely on the basis of screening test as this was only for the purpose of judging the basic eligibility of the candidates, thereafter the selection under a specified category i.e. sports was to be carried out in accordance with the criteria laid down for the same. The merit of the appellant was not to be judged solely on the basis of screening test as this was only for the purpose of judging the basic eligibility of the candidates, thereafter the selection under a specified category i.e. sports was to be carried out in accordance with the criteria laid down for the same. 8. The other contention of the appellant that he possessed certain merit certificates wherein he had excelled in sports and, therefore, ought to have been appointed is again without any force. The mere fact that the appellant possessed certain certificates would not ipso facto entitle him to be appointed under the sports quota because unless and until the petitioner did not fulfill the criteria of selection under this category as had been laid down by the respondents, he could not have been selected. The respondent No.4 after taking into consideration all the certificates produced by the appellant has not found the appellant to be fulfilling the required criteria prescribed under 3% reservation policy as he did not fall in distinguished sportspersons category. 9. For the detailed reasons stated above, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Appeal dismissed.