The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) has asserted that a government policy, even if made in the exercise of executive power, is subject to judicial review and can be struck down if it is arbitrary, discriminatory, and violates Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court ruled that the denial of a legitimate expectation, which was created by a consistent, long-standing policy, becomes a legally enforceable right when the superseding policy is unfair and lacks an intelligible differentia with no rational nexus to its stated objective.
Accordingly, the Court held that the arbitrary exclusion of a nationally recognized sport from a reservation scheme, while simultaneously including other non-qualifying sports, is an act of unreasonable classification and is unconstitutional.
Though emphasising that the exclusion of certain games and limiting it to the games being held at Olympics, Asiad, or Commonwealth is a matter of policy, the High Court declared that the “Body Building” is a species of Gymnastics and is eligible for 5% reservation in Government and semi-Government Class ‘A’ to ‘D’ posts. It also directed the State Government to include the game of “Body Builders” in the Government Resolution dated 01/07/2016, within four weeks.
The Division Bench comprising Justice M.S. Jawalkar and Justice Nandesh S. Deshpande observed that that the doctrine of legitimate expectation, while not a right in itself, can be invoked when its denial leads to a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Bench found that the petitioner had a legitimate expectation of being considered for a government job under the sports quota, given that “Body Building” was a recognized sport for reservation purposes from 2005 to 2016. He had dedicated precious years of his life to the sport based on the promise held out by the State’s policy.
Thus, the Bench held that when the State’s subsequent action to deny this expectation is arbitrary, it gives rise to a legally enforceable right. It found the classification of sports in the 2016 GR to be arbitrary and without any intelligible differentia. It also questioned the logic of limiting the reservation to Olympic, Asiad, and Commonwealth games while simultaneously including other Indian games like Chess, Kabaddi, and Kho-Kho, which are not part of these international events and are not affiliated with the Indian or Maharashtra Olympic Associations.
This selective inclusion and exclusion had no reasonable nexus with the stated policy objective of encouraging sports, thus violating Article 14 of the Constitution, added the Bench, while pointing out that the Central Government recognizes ‘Body Building’ as a legitimate sport, as evidenced by the conferment of the Arjuna Award on bodybuilders. It held that once the highest sporting authority in the nation accords such recognition, it is inconsistent, arbitrary, and devoid of reasonable justification for a State authority to take a contrary view and exclude the sport from reservation benefits without a cogent basis.
Lastly, the Bench affirmed that while the State has the executive power to frame policies, these policies are not immune from judicial review. Any policy or executive action must conform to Article 14, which requires the State to act fairly, transparently, and without arbitrariness. The Bench found that making an improper discrimination by conferring privileges on an arbitrarily selected class of persons (players of certain games) while excluding others who are similarly situated (‘Body Building’ players) amounts to impermissible class legislation.
Briefly, a Government Resolution (GR) from 30th April 2005 had established a 5% reservation in Government and Semi-Government posts (Class ‘A’ to ‘D’) for meritorious sportspersons, and the game of ‘Body Building’ was explicitly included in the list of eligible sports. This policy was aimed at encouraging students who might otherwise have to choose between academic pursuits and a sports career.
The petitioner, having secured the third position in the All India University Best Physique (Male) tournament, pursued the sport with the expectation of availing this reservation benefit, which was continued under subsequent GRs. However, the GR dated 01/07/2016 superseded all previous resolutions and introduced a restrictive note. This note limited the eligibility for the sports quota to only those games featured in the Olympics, Asiad, and Commonwealth Games, with an exception for Chess, Kabaddi, and Kho-Kho. This change effectively excluded ‘Body Building’ from the list of eligible sports, leading the petitioner to challenge the new GR as discriminatory and arbitrary.
Appearances:
Petitioner in person
Advocates N.R. Patil, V.V. Dahat and J.B. Kasat, for the Respondent
