JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the criteria adopted by the respondents for filling-up the post of Constable as reserved for the outstanding sports persons by advertisement dated 20.05.2018 (Annex.-5) and corrigendum dated 04.06.2018 (Annex.-6) on district level. Prayer has also been made to quash the condition inserted by respondent No. 3 in corrigendum dated 04.06.2018 for selecting only a single candidate in each of weight/distance category in sports/games of individual and consequential relief. 2. It is, inter alia, indicted in the writ petition that the Director General of Police issued standing order dated 18.05.2018 (Annex.- 2) providing for procedure for recruitment of constables, wherein it was provided that reservation of vacancies for outstanding sports persons of Rajasthan shall be 2% and in case of non availability of the total eligible and suitable sports persons in a particular year, the vacancies so reserved for them shall be filled in accordance with the normal procedure and shall not be carried forward to the subsequent year. 3. It was also provided that the vacancies will be filled centrally by a Sports Recruitment Board as per the procedure laid down at Annex.-A from sports recognized by All India Police Sports Control Board, which inter alia included weightlifting. In Annex.-A to the standing order dated 18.05.2018, the selection process for sports persons was indicted, which provided for marks to be awarded based on the evaluation of sports certificate submitted by candidates, based on their level of representation i.e. international, national, inter-university and the rank obtained therein. For individual events, it was indicated that the candidates of each sport will be required to compete against each other in their respective weight category, if any and would be awarded marks based on the individual positions in the trials. The person standing 1st in the trial was entitled to 30 marks and those stands in subsequent positions like 2nd, 3rd and 4th were entitled to 28, 26 and 24 marks and so on. The process further indicated that the candidate was required to score at least 15 marks in individual event in the trial and that the merit list would be prepared district/unitwise on the basis of total marks obtained by the candidate with minimum of 40 marks. 4. The process further indicated that the candidate was required to score at least 15 marks in individual event in the trial and that the merit list would be prepared district/unitwise on the basis of total marks obtained by the candidate with minimum of 40 marks. 4. The petitioner to his credit had a participation certificate in All India Inter-University Weightlifting Tournament, where he had secured 3rd position in 77kg weight category. The advertisement dated 25.05.2018 (Annex.-5), indicted 2% reservation, which came to 262 vacancies. 5. A corrigendum dated 04.06.2018 (Annex.-6) was issued wherein the number of eligible sports were added and the maximum vacancies for each sport for male and female candidates were indicated, for team event as well as individual event. For weightlifting 8 posts for male and 7 posts for female, in all 15 posts were indicated as an individual event. 6. The note in the corrigendum, which is subject matter of dispute in the present writ petition reads as under:- ^^uksV & 1-^^c**& esa of.kZr [ksyksa ds izR;sd oxZ esa ,d f[kykM+h ls vf/kd HkrhZ ugha fd;k tk;sxkA 2- fdlh [ksy esa ik= vH;fFkZ;ksa ds ugha feyus dh n'kk esa foHkkx dh [ksy vko";drkvksa ds n`fVxr] inksa ds vU; [ksyksa esa iquZvkoaVu egkfuns'kd iqfyl jktLFkku }kjk fd;k tk ldsxkA 3- p;u cksMZ }kjk lHkh [ksyksa dh [ksyokj rFkk lHkh [ksyksa dh lfEefyr esfjV fyLV ;wfuV vkoaVu gsrq cukbZ tk;sxhA p;fur vH;fFkZ;ksa }kjk izkIr dqy vadksa esfjV ds vk/kkj ij mUgsa ftyk@cVkfy;u dk vkoaVu fd;k tk;sxkA^^ 7. The petitioner was called for trial in 77kg weight category for weightlifting, 3 candidates appeared in the trial against 15 posts. While one candidate appeared in 85kg category, 2 candidates including the petitioner appeared in 77kg weight category; while the petitioner secured 58 marks, the other candidate in the same category secured 60 marks and as per stipulation made in the corrigendum dated 04.06.2018, the petitioner was informed that only 1 candidate from the weight category would be selected and consequently the petitioner was not accorded appointment. 8. 8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the action of the respondents in restricting the selection to one candidate for each weight category is not justified and the said provision cannot be applied in the circumstances of the present case, which results in depriving the outstanding sports persons from getting the benefit of reservation, leaving the said post available for other candidates, whereby out of 262 posts meant for outstanding sports persons, 186 posts have not been filled with sports persons and, therefore, the action of the respondents in not according the appointment to the petitioner cannot be sustained. 9. A reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondents, inter alia, indicating that the process for selection against the posts reserved for outstanding sports persons [Annex.-A to standing order (Annex.-2)] is explicit providing for all the eventualities, the respondents have followed the said procedure and on account of the operation of the said procedure, if the petitioner did not get select, the action of the respondents cannot be termed as incorrect and, therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 10. Submissions were made that the petitioner and one Laksh Meena both participated in 77kg weight category and one Narendra Singh Rathore participated in 85kg category. In the trial, Laksh Meena was awarded 30 marks as he secured 1st position and the petitioner was awarded 28 marks as he secured 2nd position and as the overall marks obtained by Laksh Meena (60) were more than the petitioner (58), he was selected and, therefore, the action of the respondents in this regard does not call for any interference. 11. During course of submissions, by order dated 05.03.2019, when it was found apparent by the Court that the condition indicated in Note-1 in corrigendum dated 04.06.2018 (Annex.-6) restricts the grant of appointment to outstanding sports persons and in the peculiar circumstances of the present case, the same was not justified, the respondents were given time to complete their instructions. After seeking time, an additional affidavit has been filed claiming that the respondents have adopted a fair and impartial process. 12. Qua the condition No. 1, it is submitted that the condition has been inserted in order to give equal representation to all categories of a particular game and in absence of which, it would be difficult to select candidates for different weight categories of the games. 12. Qua the condition No. 1, it is submitted that the condition has been inserted in order to give equal representation to all categories of a particular game and in absence of which, it would be difficult to select candidates for different weight categories of the games. 13. Further submissions have been made that initially 15 posts were reserved for the sport of weightlifting, which were later on revised to 10 posts, 5 each for men and women. 14. Submissions have been made that the peculiar situation of the present case, wherein only three candidates have applied for weightlifting could not be anticipated by the respondents and, therefore, based on the said circumstance, the provision cannot be questioned. An additional submission has been made that 125 posts were advertised for district-Churu and after applying 2% reservation, two posts were reserved for outstanding sports persons and the said posts have been filled by two candidates from Athletics. 15. Further submissions have been made that 9 posts left unfilled from the weightlifting game have been filled by normal process and presently no posts are vacant. 16. Submissions have also been made that in case of non availability of candidates from various categories of the game or from a particular game, the seats reserved for such category or game cannot be transferred to other games as the same will create chaos and, therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 17. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 18. Insofar as the stipulation made in Note-1 regarding restricting one candidate per category in individual events is concerned, per se the said provision is reasonable and the same cannot be said to be arbitrary. 19. However, the provision does not contemplate a situation like in the present case, wherein initially 15 posts for weightlifting were reserved, which were reduced to 10 posts, and though in weightlifting, there are several weight based categories, only three candidates applied and unfortunately for the petitioner, two candidates applied in the same category i.e. 77kg. In trials, the other candidate Laksh Meena performed better and against the said category, he got selected. 20. In trials, the other candidate Laksh Meena performed better and against the said category, he got selected. 20. The provision apparently was enacted to ensure that candidates from different categories of the same game must get the benefit of reservation and candidates in one category/few categories only should not get selected, however, a situation that there may not be sufficient eligible candidates applying/available for a particular sport in different categories has not been contemplated by the provision. 21. When in a case like the present one, for weightlifting sport despite 10 vacancies, only 3 candidates have applied and the respondents have accorded appointment to one candidate only despite availability of meritorious eligible candidate, which action if approved, would result in deprivation of a candidate, who is otherwise eligible belonging to outstanding sports persons category. 22. It is true that shifting of vacancies from one sport to other sport may lead to chaos as it cannot be determined as to which sport, the vacancies should be transferred and may lead to allegations of arbitrariness etc., insofar as non-availability of candidates in a particular sport even to the extent of posts advertised, should not pose any kind of problem to the respondents as in that case, those who have obtained the requisite minimum marks can of course be accorded benefit of reservation, which does not hurt any other outstanding sports persons. 23. In the present case interestingly, the other candidate of 77kg category Laksh Meena does not even belong to the same district/commissioner ate for which the petitioner has applied and in the district of the petitioner, he is the only candidate in weightlifting category. 24. As the provision in Note-1 in corrigendum dated 04.06.2018 (Annex.-6), does not contemplate all possible scenarios and the same has resulted in depriving the eligible outstanding sports persons from getting benefit of reservation, the same to the extent of not providing for other possible eventualities/scenarios, cannot be sustained so as to justify exclusion of eligible meritorious candidates and as the very purpose of providing reservation to outstanding sports persons stands frustrated on account of rigid implementation of the said provision, the provision/action of the respondents in this regard cannot be sustained. 25. 25. The plea sought to be taken in the additional affidavit regarding only two posts being available qua the outstanding sports person at district-Churu and the same having been filled by the respondents and further plea that the seats remaining vacant in the outstanding sports persons quota have been filled-up by general candidates, cannot be used for depriving the petitioner of his legitimate due as by interim order dated 12.10.2018 in presence of the counsel for the respondents, the respondents were directed to keep one post in the category of outstanding sports persons vacant and in violation thereof, if the respondents have filled-up the said post, the onus lies on the respondents to rectify the situation for implementing the relief to the petitioner. 26. In view of the above discussion, as it is apparent that the petitioner is eligible in terms of the procedure (Annex.-A to Annex.-2) pertaining to the selection of outstanding sports persons, the action of the respondents depriving the petitioner the benefit of reservation on account of implementing Note-1 in corrigendum dated 04.06.2018 (Annex.-6), which as noticed hereinbefore for absence of contemplating various other possible scenario/situation is unsustainable, the petitioner is entitled to be accorded appointment on the post of Constable (GD) in the outstanding sports persons category. 27. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The action of the respondents in denying appointment to the petitioner as outstanding sports persons category in the game of weightlifting is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to accord appointment to the petitioner in the outstanding sports persons category, if he is otherwise eligible. 28. The petitioner would be entitled to all consequential benefits from the date person of his category/weightlifting sport, has been accorded appointment by the respondents. However, monetary benefits shall be paid to the petitioner from the date of appointment. 29. The needful may be done by the respondents within a period of four weeks.