JUDGMENT : S.S.Shinde, J. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and heard finally with the consent of the parties. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to claim benefit of reservation of sportsmen category. MPSC had issued an advertisement for the posts of clerk-cum-typist, providing reservation of sportsmen category to some of the posts. The petitioner, being eligible for reservation of sportsmen, submitted an application claiming reservation of sportsmen category, in response to the said advertisement. 4. It is further the case of the petitioner that after following due process of selection, the petitioner was selected as against a post reserved for sportsmen category. In view of the selection of the petitioner as against a post reserved for sportsmen category, his claim of sportsmen category was referred by respondent no.3 to the office of respondent no. 2 for verification. It is the case of the petitioner that without verifying relevant aspects of the matter, respondent no.2 was pleased to reject claim of the petitioner as against sportsmen category, and the claims of other similarly situated candidates have been validated by respondent no.2. In the light of rejection of the claim of the petitioner as against sportsmen category, respondent no. 3 was pleased to cancel selection of the petitioner by the impugned order. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the office of respondent no.2 has verified and approved the claim of other similarly situated candidates for entitlement for additional marks/weightage of the reservation of sportsmen category. It is submitted that the petitioner was selected for the post of clerk/typist in view of the advertisement dated 20th February, 2013, and his name was recommended along with other selected candidates to the State Government. In view of the recommendation made by the MPSC, respondent no.1 has issued a Government Resolution dated 7th April, 2014, declaring list of the candidates, who have been selected for the post of Clerk/ Typist in the office of the State Government, proposing issuance of appointment order in their favour in view of their selection made by the MPSC. The petitioner’s name was at serial no. 139 in the select list published along with the Government Resolution dated 7th April, 2014. The petitioner was selected against a seat reserved for sportsmen category. The petitioner’s name was at serial no. 139 in the select list published along with the Government Resolution dated 7th April, 2014. The petitioner was selected against a seat reserved for sportsmen category. Therefore, his claim was forwarded by respondent no.3 to the office of respondent no.2 for verification by covering letter dated 22nd April, 2014. It is submitted that the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal [in short ‘MAT’] has not properly considered the contentions of the petitioner that the petitioner, being a member of successful team in the State Level Softball Championship is entitled for reservation of the sportsmen category. It is submitted that the similarly situated candidates have been granted benefit of reservation of sportsmen category, who have been participated in the softball Championship arranged by the Maharashtra State Softball Association. It is submitted that respondent no.2 cannot treat similarly situated persons in different way. Therefore, relying upon the pleadings in the Petition, annexures thereto, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, the Petition deserves to be allowed. 6. On the other hand, the learned AGP appearing for the respondent – State and State Authorities, relying upon the affidavit in reply filed by one Mr. Rajkumar Dattatraya Mahadawad, working as Deputy Director of Sports and Youth Services, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, made following submissions: 7. Respondent no. 3 vide his letter dated 22nd April, 2014, has submitted sport certificate issued in favour of the present petitioner to respondent no.2 for verification. As per the directives of Government Resolution dated 30th April, 2005, the medal winner in the State Level competition held to be eligible for the benefits of 5% job reservation under the sports category. The said competition/sport event has to be organized by the State Association of the respective sports and games, which is affiliated to the Maharashtra Olympic Association during the competition period. At the time of said competition, the Maharashtra State Softball Association does not have an affiliation of the Maharashtra Olympic Association. Therefore, in view of the provisions under the Government Resolution dated 30th April, 2005, any player who has secured medal in the said competition does not fulfill the eligibility criteria as specified in the said Government Resolution. At the time of said competition, the Maharashtra State Softball Association does not have an affiliation of the Maharashtra Olympic Association. Therefore, in view of the provisions under the Government Resolution dated 30th April, 2005, any player who has secured medal in the said competition does not fulfill the eligibility criteria as specified in the said Government Resolution. The learned AGP also invited our attention to the Government Resolution dated 14th July, 2009, issued by the School Education and Sports Department, Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai and submits that, as per the provision in the said Government Resolution, the present petitioner does not fulfill the requirement of eligibility specified therein. The Indian Olympic Association has amended its Constitution in the Annual General Assembly, held on 12th February, 2011 and accordingly the Indian Olympic Association has derecognized the National Sports Federations which includes the Softball Association of India, vide their letter dated 11th July, 2011. 8. It is submitted that the tournament in which the present petitioner has participated and secured third position, was not organized by the State Association, which is affiliated to Maharashtra Olympic Association. Further, the said tournament was conducted by the Maharashtra State Softball Association which is affiliated to Softball Association of India. However, the Indian Olympic Association vide letter dated 11th July, 2011 has derecognized the Softball Association of India. It is pertinent to note that without having recognition to Softball Association of India, Maharashtra State Softball Association has conducted the said competition during the period from 8th to 10th December, 2012. Hence, the sports certificate of the present petitioner was treated as invalid and the decision was communicated to the petitioner, and therefore, the present petitioner is not eligible to receive any benefit of 5% job reservation scheme, prescribed for the welfare of the meritorious sports person. It is submitted that the present petitioner has misread the provision in the Government Resolution dated 30th December, 2013. It is submitted that in the said Government Resolution it was made clear that with effect from 1st March, 2014, verification of the sport certificate will be done. Therefore, relying upon the averments in the affidavit-in-reply, the learned AGP submits that the Petition is devoid of merit, and the same may be rejected. 9. It is submitted that in the said Government Resolution it was made clear that with effect from 1st March, 2014, verification of the sport certificate will be done. Therefore, relying upon the averments in the affidavit-in-reply, the learned AGP submits that the Petition is devoid of merit, and the same may be rejected. 9. We have given careful consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned AGP appearing for the Respondent – State. With their able assistance, perused the pleadings and the grounds taken in the petition annexures thereto, affidavit in reply and annexures thereto. Admittedly, the petitioner’s selection was in the year 2014. There is no force in the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the similarly situated candidates have been extended benefit of 5% reservation from the sports category. It is not the case of the petitioner that the candidates who have been granted benefit of the Government Resolution dated 30th December, 2013 were selected from the selection process which was conducted after issuance of the said Government Resolution. 10. It is true that by the Government Resolution dated 30th December, 2013, as one time measure the Government of Maharashtra decided to reexamine the certificate if submitted prior to 28th February, 2014, by the concerned Department, since at the relevant time the sports persons were not aware about the decision taken by the Indian Olympic Association withdrawing recognition to the National Sports Federations under whose supervision the sport activity was conducted and the certificates are issued in favour of such candidates. However, in the said Government Resolution itself, it was made clear that from 1st March, 2014, no verification of the sports certificate will be done. Therefore, upon perusal of the contents of the said Government Resolution, it appears that as one time measure the said exemption was granted to the sports person who participated in the selection process for reverification for their sports certificate provided that if certificate is submitted through the concerned Department on or before 28th February, 2014. The petitioner’s case is not from the same selection process of the candidates to whom aforementioned exemption has been granted. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that there is discrimination by the respondents, deserves no consideration. It is not necessary to reiterate the contentions raised by respondent nos. 1 and 3 in their affidavit in reply. The petitioner’s case is not from the same selection process of the candidates to whom aforementioned exemption has been granted. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that there is discrimination by the respondents, deserves no consideration. It is not necessary to reiterate the contentions raised by respondent nos. 1 and 3 in their affidavit in reply. Suffice it to say that those are keeping in view the decision taken by the Indian Olympic Association and the decision taken by the State Authorities. 11. The contentions raised by respondent no.2 in the affidavit in reply opposing the Petition are in consonance with the relevant Government policy prevailing at the relevant time. It has come on record that the Maharashtra State Softball Association does not have an affiliation of the Maharashtra Olympic Association and also the Indian Olympic Association has derecognized the National Sports Federations which includes the Softball Association of India in the year 2011. 12. The respondent has placed on record inter se communication between the Secretary General, Indian Olympic Association addressed to the National Sports Federations, dated 11th July, 2011, [ExhibitR2 Page69]. The contents of the said letter reads thus: IOA/Recogn./107/2011/316 July 11, 2011 To, The National Sports Federations (List attached) This is to inform you all that the Constitution of the Indian Olympic Association was amended in the Annual General Assembly on 12th February, 2011. As per the amended Constitution, the National Sports Federations and State Olympic Associations (list at annexure ‘A’) which are affiliated with the Indian Olympic Association will only be its members and none else. There shall be no category of recognized members henceforth. Amended Constitution has been uploaded in the website www.olympic.ind.in. Yours faithfully, (Randhir Singh) Secretary General Therefore, what decision is to be taken by the Indian Olympic Association is within the domain of the said Association, and aforementioned decision was taken by the said Association in the year 2011 itself. Upon perusal of the letter dated 7th August, 2014, written by the Joint Director, Sports and Youth Activities, Maharashtra State, Pune to the Controller, Rationing & Director of Civil Supply, Mumbai, it clearly mentions in clause 9 (2) of the said letter as under: True translation of the clause 9 (2) of the said letter done by the Translator, is as under: 9 (2). When the Sport Certificate is verified, the recognition of said Sport Organization has been withdrawn by I.O.A. vide Circular dated Feb.2011. Therefore this certificate is invalid. Hence the candidate Shri. Vivek Balkrishna Mahajan is not fulfilling the sport related qualification required under reservation provided to the Posts. Upon careful perusal of the aforementioned portion from the said communication, it is abundantly clear that there is reference to the communication by the Secretary General of Indian Olympic Association wherein as per the amended Constitution, the said Indian Olympic Association decided to treat their members of those National Sports Federations and State Olympic Associations whose names are mentioned in the list at Annexure A of the communication, which are affiliated with the Indian Olympic Association will only be its member and none else. Therefore, one such decision was taken by the Indian Olympic Association in the year 2011, it was not possible for the respondent college to grant benefit to the sport event/activity performed by the petitioner. The contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that keeping in view the object of the Government Resolution dated 30th April, 2005, issued by the School Education and Sports Department, the weightage of 5% available to the sports event / activity wherein the petitioner participated ought to have been continued deserves no consideration which sport activity / event to be considered for giving 5% marks would fall within the domain of the respondent and it is not for the Courts to rewrite the policy of the Government. 13. Though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance on the unreported judgment in the case of Vinod Khandoji Bhandare Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others in Writ Petition NO.10280/2015 decided on 21st December, 2015, by the Bombay High Court Bench at Aurangabad. Said judgment in the case of Vinod Khandoji Bhandare is in total different facts situation and has no relevance in the context of the factual aspects involved in the case of the petitioner. In that view of the matter, we are unable to persuade ourselves to grant any relief to the petitioner, hence, Petition stands rejected. Rule discharged.