ORDER 1. Aggrieved by the common order dated 16.1.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in partly allowing the Writ Petition No.17816 of 2013 and Writ Petition No.4408 of 2014 while directing the respondents therein to consider the case of the writ-petitioners for appointment, the respondents are in appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is erroneous. That the requirement to be appointed under the sports category is that the writ-petitioners should be “Sportsmen of All India Repute”. That the certificates produced by them do not indicate the same. The learned Single Judge therefore committed an error in holding that the petitioners have to be considered as Sportsmen of All India Repute. Hence, he pleads that these appeals be allowed. The same is disputed by Shri Nitin Agrawal, learned counsel for the writ-petitioners/respondents. He relies on various certificates produced before the learned Single Judge for consideration. He contends that the learned Single Judge having considered the certificates has rightly passed the impugned order and hence no interference is called for. 3. Heard learned counsels. 4. We have considered the certificates produced by the writ petitioners. The requirement is that they should have represented the State or the Country at national or international levels. The certificates produced by each one of the petitioners except writ-petitioner No.6 namely Chandan Kumar Singh in W.P.No.17816 of 2013 would indicate that they represented their respective States in the respective sports as stated in the certificates. That they are all games wherein a team is required. Therefore, the objection of the appellants that writ-petitioners have to secure an individual medal, in our considered view, is not correct. What is important is the participation at the national or international level and not necessarily as an individual or as a team member. The certificates clearly indicate their participation on behalf of their respective States. The championships that they participated in were of national level. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has rightly held that they must be considered as Sportsmen of All India Repute. 5. So far as the writ-petitioner No.6 namely Chandan Kumar Singh in W.P.No.17816 of 2013 is concerned, the certificate produced by him would indicate that his participation at the national level was as that of a coach. The requirement is that he should have participated as a sportsman. 5. So far as the writ-petitioner No.6 namely Chandan Kumar Singh in W.P.No.17816 of 2013 is concerned, the certificate produced by him would indicate that his participation at the national level was as that of a coach. The requirement is that he should have participated as a sportsman. It does not include participation as a coach. Therefore to that effect, we find that the order of the learned Single Judge calls for interference. Employment could not be granted to writ-petitioner No.6 in W.P.No.17816 of 2013 namely Chandan Kumar Singh under the category of the “Sportsman of All India Repute” in view of the fact that he was a coach. 6. Consequently, Writ Appeal No.595 of 2020 with reference to petitioner no.6 namely Chandan Kumar Singh is allowed. The order dated 16.1.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.17816 of 2013 so far as it relates to petitioner no.6 namely Chandan Kumar Singh is set aside. His writ petition is dismissed. Writ Appeal No.595 of 2020 filed against the respondents/writ-petitioners No.1 to 5 in Writ Petition No.17816 of 2013 is dismissed. 7. So far as Writ Appeal No.598 of 2020 pertaining to Writ Petition No.4408 of 2014 is concerned, there is no material to indicate the participation of petitioner No.1 namely Lalit Prasad. There are no certificates that entail consideration of his case under the All India Repute clause. It is only in the case of petitioner No.2 Shankar Dayal Sharma, the certificate has been produced and that he will be entitled for consideration under the All India Repute clause. Therefore, for the reasons recorded in the aforesaid order, we find that the case of Lalit Prasad cannot be considered. To this extent. the Writ Appeal is partly allowed. The order dated 16.1.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.4408 of 2014, so far as Lalit Prasad is concerned, is set aside. His writ petition is dismissed. Writ Appeal No.598 of 2020 filed against the respondent/writpetitioner No.2 namely Shankar Dayal Sharma in Writ Petition No.4408 of 2014 is dismissed. 8. Consequently, both the writ appeals are partly allowed in the aforesaid terms.