ORDER I. A. No. 45 of 2017 This Interlocutory Application has been filed for amendment/modification in the prayer portion of the writ petition, wherein clause 3(ii)(d) has been wrongly typed as clause 3(ii)(b). Prayer is allowed. 2. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of accordingly. C.W.J.C. No. 11260 of 2015 3. The writ petitioner has challenged the vires of Clause 3(ii)(d) of the Bihar Outstanding Sportsperson Appointment Rules, 2014, as being arbitrary and unreasonable. 4. In exercise of powers conferred by proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Rules have been framed which is titled as “The Bihar Outstanding Sportsperson Appointment Rules, 2014”. Clause 3 thereof describes the qualification for sportsperson to be called outstanding sportsperson for the purposes of appointment in the services of the State Government. The qualification for being an outstanding sportsperson inter alia is that he should be a resident of the State of Bihar and for the sports disciplines in category A4 and A5, as described in Scheduled 1 of the Rules, he ought to have obtained 1st/ 2nd / 3rd prize or of his having participated as a player in three consecutive years as State representative in the games/competition of the sports. We are not referring to any other clause of the Rules, as this is the only clause, which is under challenge. 5. The challenge to the above clause of rule of 2014 is limited to the condition of any sportsperson participating in three consecutive years as State representative in the games, which according to the petitioner is manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable and does not take in account that a sportsperson can sufer injury in one competition, thereby disabling him/her to appear in another consecutive competition or games. The other ground for holding the aforesaid requirement of having participated in three consecutive years as arbitrary is that in other States, such onerous condition has not been fixed and thus the aforesaid clause of the rule of 2014 ofends Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 6. The occasion for the petitioner to challenge the vires of the aforesaid clause of the rule of 2014 arose when an advertisement was issued for appointment of outstanding sportspersons in government service on 23.06.2015. Because of the aforesaid Clause 3(ii)(d) of Rules of 2014, the petitioner was disentitled for applying under the aforesaid advertisement. 6. The occasion for the petitioner to challenge the vires of the aforesaid clause of the rule of 2014 arose when an advertisement was issued for appointment of outstanding sportspersons in government service on 23.06.2015. Because of the aforesaid Clause 3(ii)(d) of Rules of 2014, the petitioner was disentitled for applying under the aforesaid advertisement. The petitioner had not participated in the Ball Badminton the game which he played and which falls in the sports category of A4/A5 of the schedule, for three consecutive years, as he had played in the 50th, 54th and 57th Senior National Championship. 7. It may be noted here that in the erstwhile Rule of 2009, there was no such requirement for having participated in three consecutive games for being rated as outstanding sportsperson; rather in the 2009 Rules, the requirement for being an outstanding sportsperson was even more onerous as a person had to obtain 1st / 2nd / 3rd position in the championship/games for being held as outstanding sportsperson. The Rules were changed in the year 2014 wherein such sportsperson who did not obtain 1st, 2nd or 3rd prize in such games or events, but had participated as player in three consecutive years as State representative in the particular categories of sports were held to be outstanding sportsperson. 8. Thus, with the change in the Rules, the requirement for being called outstanding sportsperson has been made rather easy and capable of being taken advantage of by such persons, who may not have obtained 1st, 2nd or 3rd position, but have only participated in such events. 9. There is no doubt that subordinate legislation also can be tested on the anvil of reasonableness, but for a subordinate legislation to be struck down as ultra vires, the Rule is question has to be manifestly arbitrary and unreasonable. 10. The test of reasonableness pervades all spheres of life and especially with respect to plenary and subordinate legislation as also executive action. The test of reasonableness, as has often been held and recounted is that the classification should be reasonable and must bear nexus with the purpose sought to be achieved. 11. In the present case, outstanding sportsperson are given government service and therefore in the Rules in question, a qualification has been prescribed for a person being rated an outstanding sportsperson for being eligible to get service under such quota. 11. In the present case, outstanding sportsperson are given government service and therefore in the Rules in question, a qualification has been prescribed for a person being rated an outstanding sportsperson for being eligible to get service under such quota. We have examined the earlier Rule of 2009 as also the Rule of 2014 which is under challenge. 12. The requirement of participating in three consecutive games is neither arbitrary nor disproportionate and satisfies the test of reasonableness. The purpose of introducing such requirement is to ensure that a person does not only casually dabbles in sports but is a regular player, showing keen interest in the game which he pursues. Playing consecutively for three years is further reflection of a sportsperson being in form. It is not at all unreasonable for classifying an outstanding sportsperson only when he has played in a particular game for three consecutive years. 13. The aforesaid Clause 3(ii)(d) of Rule of 2014 perhaps has disentitled the petitioner from applying in the advertisement of 2015. However, that cannot be the reason for striking it down. 14. No good ground has been made out by the petitioner for declaring Clause 3(ii)(d) of the Bihar Outstanding Sportsperson Appointment Rules, 2014 as ultra vires. 15. For the aforesaid reasons, the present writ petition stands dismissed.