CWP-86333-2014 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGGARH CWP-8633-2014 Reservedd Pronounced Uploaded Whether only Whether thet on on on the operative full judgmeent part of the is judgment is pronouncedd pronounced 19.05.20226 03.07.2026 06.07.2026 Yes/No Yes/No SIMRANNDEEP SINGH BRAR ...PETITIONERR VERSUS THE GREEATER MOHALI AREA DEVEELOPMENT AUTHORITY ANDD ORS ...RESPONDENTSS CORAMM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SSUVIR SEHGAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VVIKAS SURI Present: Mr. K.S. Khehar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.S. Khosla, Senior Advoocate with Ms. Mankreet Sangar, Advocaate, Mr. Yogender Verma, Advocaate and Ms. Abadhya Singh, Advocatee for respondents No.1 and 5. Mr. A.S. Khara, Sr. DAG, Punnjab, for respondents No.2 to 4. Mr. V.K. Sachdeva, Advocatee and Mr. Pulkit Sachdeva, Advocatte for respondent No.6. None for respondent No.7. Mr. Ranjit Singh Kalra, Advo cate, for respondent No.8. *** SHEETAL 2026.07.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh CWP-86333-2014 -2- SUVIR SSEHGAL, J.

1. Petitioner has approached thhis Court, inter alia, for issuancee of a writ of certiorari for quashing order ddated 24.02.2011, Annexure P-44/T, whereby he was declared ineligible unnder the sportsperson category for allotment of a 400 square yard residenntial plot in Greater Mohali AreaA Developmment Authority (GMADA), AAero City, Mohali. He has alsoa challenged to notification dated 11.04.22013, Annexure P-12, as well as sought a cconsequential direction for allotmment of a residential plot under the sportspersson category.

2. Petitioner claims that he reppresented India in the Asian Schhool Games inn the game of Cricket during thhe year 2001-02 and was issueed a Grade ‘AA’ Sports Gradation Certificatee, Annexure P-2/T, by the Spoorts Directoratte, Punjab. It has been contendeed that petitioner has been wronngly denied coonsideration under the sportspe rson category despite his sportting achievements. Counsel has also made a reeference to policy instructions daated 10.12.19997 as well as subsequent instructtions dated 18.08.2008 to assert thatt a uniformm gradation policy should be framed for grant of benefits to sportsperssons. It is his argument that as immpugned policy, Annexure P-122, is in contravvention of the Government instrructions, it deserves to be set asiide. A strong reliance has been placed byy counsel for the petitioner uppon judgemennt in Alamdeep Singh Versus State of Punjab and others LawL Finder DDoc ID #1561131, to urge that c ertificate, Annexure P-2/T, grannted to petitionner has been recognised by Minnistry of Youth Affairs and Spoorts, Governmeent of India and on its basis, peetitioner has been appointed to PCSP SHEETAL 2026.07.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy andOfficer (EExecutive Branch) in the sportspeerson category.authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh CWP-86333-2014 -3-

3. Writ petition has been conteested by official as well as privvate respondennts for filing separate responnses. It has been submitted thatt brochure, Annexure P-1, governing allotmment of plots specifically proviides that in ccase of sportsperson, applicantts should be a medal winnerr in international games or a mountaineer ful filling the prescribed conditionss. It has been argued that petitioner does not ssatisfy the eligibility criteria andd he is not entiitled for the allotment of a plot. 4. Counsel for GMADA has sppecifically pointed out that Scruttiny Committeee examined petitioner's case aand found that participation in the Asian Schhool Games in Cricket does not ffall within the categories prescribbed in the bro chure and therefore, petitioner's case has been rightly rejected. 5. Counsel for respondents havve placed reliance upon Rohitaash Kumar annd others Versus Om Prakash SSharma and others, (2013) 11 SCCS 451; The State of Kerala Versus M. Vijaayakumar and others, Law Finnder Doc ID ##2880837 and Harbilas Rai Baansal Versus State of Punjab anda another ((1996) 1 SCC 1. It has been sstated that judgment in Alamddeep Singh’s ccase, relied upon by petitioner, iss under challenge in LPA, whichh is pending. 6. We have heard counsel forr the parties and considered thheir submissioons besides examining the recordd relied upon by them.

7. The controversy lies in a narrow compass. The terms anda conditionss contained in brochure, Annexxure P-1, constitute the governning criteria foor allotment of residential plotss. As per the brochure, 2% of the plots havve been reserved for “sports peersons who are medal winnerss of SHEETAL 2026.07.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy andOlympicss, Commonwealth or Asian Gammes, mountaineers who have scaaledauthenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh CWP-86333-2014 -4- Mount Evverest and possess the requisiite certificate from the compettent authority””. Under the heading reserved caategories, brochure further proviides as under:-- “xi. in case of SSports Persons, the applicant shoould be Medal Winner (FFor Gallantry Award Winner) of Olympics, Commonweaalth or Asian Games, Mountaineeers who have scaled Mounnt Everest and possess the requiisite certificate awarded by the Indian Mountaineeers Foundation duly coun tersigned by the Ministry of Yoouth Affairs and Sports Goveernment of India.”

8. A perusal of the above repproduced clause shows that it has restricted the eligibility under the sportspperson category to medal winnerr of Olympicss, Commonwealth Games oor Asian Games and certtain mountaineeers. Petitioner does not claim tto be a medal winner in any of the specified events. His claim rests upon paarticipation in Asian School Gammes in Crickeet and possession of a Grade ‘A’ Sports Gradation Certificate, Annexuree P-2/T. Merely because he posseesses a Sports Gradation Certificcate does not iipso facto confer a right to allottment upon him. The eligibility for allotment is required to be tested strictly in accordance with the brochuree. It is well seettled that terms of a scheme o r advertisement are binding on all participannts and cannot be altered after thee process has commenced. 9. Record shows that petitioneer's application was examined byb a Scrutiny CCommittee and he was found too be ineligible as his sporting evvent did not satisfy the eligibility condition prescribed for the reserved spoorts person c ategory. No material has beeen placed before this Court to demonstraate that this decision suffers fromm arbitrariness, mala fides or pattent illegality, warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitutionn of SHEETAL 2026.07.06 17:33I attest to the accuracy andIndia. authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh CWP-86333-2014 -5-

10. Reliance placed by petitionerr upon the judgment in Alamdeeep's case (suppra) is misconceived. This judgeement is clearly distinguishablee on facts as wwell as in law. In Alamdeep's caase (supra), a Single Bench of thist Court wass dealing with appointments madde under the Punjab Recruitment of Sportsmenn Rules, 1988 (for short “1988 RRules”). The issue before the Coourt was wheether certain candidates satissfied the statutory definition of “sportsmaan” contained in aforesaid rule s for purpose to civil service anda connectedd posts. This Court examinedd the scope of 1988 Rules anda eligibilityy of selected candidates with reference to statutory regulattory frameworrk. 11. In the present case, dispute does not arise from recruitmentt to civil serviice under 1988 Rules. Rather, it concerns allotment of a residenntial plot undeer a housing scheme governned by an independent brochhure prescribinng separate eligibility conditionss. This Court is not concerned withw the broadeer concept of sportsman under sstatutory recruitment rules, but withw the comppliance of the express condittions contained in the brochuure. Thereforee, the ratio of Alamdeep's casee (supra) cannot be mechanicaally extended to override the eligibility criteeria expressly incorporated in the brochure ggoverning the present allotment..

12. Petitioner participated in AAsian School Games whereas the brochure specifically contemplates med al winners of international sennior events succh as Olympics, Commonwealthh Games or Asian Games. Once the eligibilityy condition is clear and unambigguous, the Court cannot rewrite the scheme b y enlarging the category of eliggible candidates nor can the Coourt SHEETAL 2026.07.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy anddirect thee official respondents to reframme the scheme to suit a particuularauthenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh CWP-86333-2014 -6- applicant.. Doing so would amount to sub stituting judicial wisdom for pollicy choices coonsciously made by the competeent authority.

13. Challenge to notification ddated 11.04.2013, Annexure P--12, also doess not merit acceptance. This nootification was issued pursuantt to deliberatioons undertaken by the goverrnment and no ground has been establisheed to hold that the policy decision suffers from maniffest arbitrarineess or constitutional infirmity waarranting judicial review. Reference made to the policy instructions dated 110.12.1997 as well as 18.08.20008 would noot advance the petitioner's casee as these instructions specificaally provide fofor reservation of seats for sporttspersons in technical and mediical institutes as well as preferential treaatment in services of the Sttate Governmeent. These policy instructions ccannot be extended to apply to the policy fraamed by the government for rreservation of residential plots for sportspersson. Challenge to notification, AAnnexure P-12, is therefore repellled. 14. For the afore-going reasons, this Court does not find any meritm in the wri t petition, which is dismissed. 15. Pending miscellaneous appllication(s), if any, shall also staand disposed oof. (SUVIR SEHGAL) JUDGE (VIKAS SURI) 03.07.20226 JUDGE sheetal Whether Speaking/reasoned Yees/No Whether Reportable Yees/No SHEETAL 2026.07.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh

CWP-86333-2014 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGGARH CWP-8633-2014 Reservedd Pronounced Uploaded Whether only Whether thet on on on the operative full judgmeent part of the is judgment is pronouncedd pronounced 19.05.20226 03.07.2026 06.07.2026 Yes/No Yes/No SIMRANNDEEP SINGH BRAR ...PETITIONERR VERSUS THE GREEATER MOHALI AREA DEVEELOPMENT AUTHORITY ANDD ORS ...RESPONDENTSS CORAMM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SSUVIR SEHGAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VVIKAS SURI Present: Mr. K.S. Khehar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.S. Khosla, Senior Advoocate with Ms. Mankreet Sangar, Advocaate, Mr. Yogender Verma, Advocaate and Ms. Abadhya Singh, Advocatee for respondents No.1 and 5. Mr. A.S. Khara, Sr. DAG, Punnjab, for respondents No.2 to 4. Mr. V.K. Sachdeva, Advocatee and Mr. Pulkit Sachdeva, Advocatte for respondent No.6. None for respondent No.7. Mr. Ranjit Singh Kalra, Advo cate, for respondent No.8. *** SHEETAL 2026.07.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh CWP-86333-2014 -2- SUVIR SSEHGAL, J.

1. Petitioner has approached thhis Court, inter alia, for issuancee of a writ of certiorari for quashing order ddated 24.02.2011, Annexure P-44/T, whereby he was declared ineligible unnder the sportsperson category for allotment of a 400 square yard residenntial plot in Greater Mohali AreaA Developmment Authority (GMADA), AAero City, Mohali. He has alsoa challenged to notification dated 11.04.22013, Annexure P-12, as well as sought a cconsequential direction for allotmment of a residential plot under the sportspersson category.

2. Petitioner claims that he reppresented India in the Asian Schhool Games inn the game of Cricket during thhe year 2001-02 and was issueed a Grade ‘AA’ Sports Gradation Certificatee, Annexure P-2/T, by the Spoorts Directoratte, Punjab. It has been contendeed that petitioner has been wronngly denied coonsideration under the sportspe rson category despite his sportting achievements. Counsel has also made a reeference to policy instructions daated 10.12.19997 as well as subsequent instructtions dated 18.08.2008 to assert thatt a uniformm gradation policy should be framed for grant of benefits to sportsperssons. It is his argument that as immpugned policy, Annexure P-122, is in contravvention of the Government instrructions, it deserves to be set asiide. A strong reliance has been placed byy counsel for the petitioner uppon judgemennt in Alamdeep Singh Versus State of Punjab and others LawL Finder DDoc ID #1561131, to urge that c ertificate, Annexure P-2/T, grannted to petitionner has been recognised by Minnistry of Youth Affairs and Spoorts, Governmeent of India and on its basis, peetitioner has been appointed to PCSP SHEETAL 2026.07.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy andOfficer (EExecutive Branch) in the sportspeerson category.authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh CWP-86333-2014 -3-

3. Writ petition has been conteested by official as well as privvate respondennts for filing separate responnses. It has been submitted thatt brochure, Annexure P-1, governing allotmment of plots specifically proviides that in ccase of sportsperson, applicantts should be a medal winnerr in international games or a mountaineer ful filling the prescribed conditionss. It has been argued that petitioner does not ssatisfy the eligibility criteria andd he is not entiitled for the allotment of a plot. 4. Counsel for GMADA has sppecifically pointed out that Scruttiny Committeee examined petitioner's case aand found that participation in the Asian Schhool Games in Cricket does not ffall within the categories prescribbed in the bro chure and therefore, petitioner's case has been rightly rejected. 5. Counsel for respondents havve placed reliance upon Rohitaash Kumar annd others Versus Om Prakash SSharma and others, (2013) 11 SCCS 451; The State of Kerala Versus M. Vijaayakumar and others, Law Finnder Doc ID ##2880837 and Harbilas Rai Baansal Versus State of Punjab anda another ((1996) 1 SCC 1. It has been sstated that judgment in Alamddeep Singh’s ccase, relied upon by petitioner, iss under challenge in LPA, whichh is pending. 6. We have heard counsel forr the parties and considered thheir submissioons besides examining the recordd relied upon by them.

7. The controversy lies in a narrow compass. The terms anda conditionss contained in brochure, Annexxure P-1, constitute the governning criteria foor allotment of residential plotss. As per the brochure, 2% of the plots havve been reserved for “sports peersons who are medal winnerss of SHEETAL 2026.07.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy andOlympicss, Commonwealth or Asian Gammes, mountaineers who have scaaledauthenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh CWP-86333-2014 -4- Mount Evverest and possess the requisiite certificate from the compettent authority””. Under the heading reserved caategories, brochure further proviides as under:-- “xi. in case of SSports Persons, the applicant shoould be Medal Winner (FFor Gallantry Award Winner) of Olympics, Commonweaalth or Asian Games, Mountaineeers who have scaled Mounnt Everest and possess the requiisite certificate awarded by the Indian Mountaineeers Foundation duly coun tersigned by the Ministry of Yoouth Affairs and Sports Goveernment of India.”

8. A perusal of the above repproduced clause shows that it has restricted the eligibility under the sportspperson category to medal winnerr of Olympicss, Commonwealth Games oor Asian Games and certtain mountaineeers. Petitioner does not claim tto be a medal winner in any of the specified events. His claim rests upon paarticipation in Asian School Gammes in Crickeet and possession of a Grade ‘A’ Sports Gradation Certificate, Annexuree P-2/T. Merely because he posseesses a Sports Gradation Certificcate does not iipso facto confer a right to allottment upon him. The eligibility for allotment is required to be tested strictly in accordance with the brochuree. It is well seettled that terms of a scheme o r advertisement are binding on all participannts and cannot be altered after thee process has commenced. 9. Record shows that petitioneer's application was examined byb a Scrutiny CCommittee and he was found too be ineligible as his sporting evvent did not satisfy the eligibility condition prescribed for the reserved spoorts person c ategory. No material has beeen placed before this Court to demonstraate that this decision suffers fromm arbitrariness, mala fides or pattent illegality, warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitutionn of SHEETAL 2026.07.06 17:33I attest to the accuracy andIndia. authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh CWP-86333-2014 -5-

10. Reliance placed by petitionerr upon the judgment in Alamdeeep's case (suppra) is misconceived. This judgeement is clearly distinguishablee on facts as wwell as in law. In Alamdeep's caase (supra), a Single Bench of thist Court wass dealing with appointments madde under the Punjab Recruitment of Sportsmenn Rules, 1988 (for short “1988 RRules”). The issue before the Coourt was wheether certain candidates satissfied the statutory definition of “sportsmaan” contained in aforesaid rule s for purpose to civil service anda connectedd posts. This Court examinedd the scope of 1988 Rules anda eligibilityy of selected candidates with reference to statutory regulattory frameworrk. 11. In the present case, dispute does not arise from recruitmentt to civil serviice under 1988 Rules. Rather, it concerns allotment of a residenntial plot undeer a housing scheme governned by an independent brochhure prescribinng separate eligibility conditionss. This Court is not concerned withw the broadeer concept of sportsman under sstatutory recruitment rules, but withw the comppliance of the express condittions contained in the brochuure. Thereforee, the ratio of Alamdeep's casee (supra) cannot be mechanicaally extended to override the eligibility criteeria expressly incorporated in the brochure ggoverning the present allotment..

12. Petitioner participated in AAsian School Games whereas the brochure specifically contemplates med al winners of international sennior events succh as Olympics, Commonwealthh Games or Asian Games. Once the eligibilityy condition is clear and unambigguous, the Court cannot rewrite the scheme b y enlarging the category of eliggible candidates nor can the Coourt SHEETAL 2026.07.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy anddirect thee official respondents to reframme the scheme to suit a particuularauthenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh CWP-86333-2014 -6- applicant.. Doing so would amount to sub stituting judicial wisdom for pollicy choices coonsciously made by the competeent authority.

13. Challenge to notification ddated 11.04.2013, Annexure P--12, also doess not merit acceptance. This nootification was issued pursuantt to deliberatioons undertaken by the goverrnment and no ground has been establisheed to hold that the policy decision suffers from maniffest arbitrarineess or constitutional infirmity waarranting judicial review. Reference made to the policy instructions dated 110.12.1997 as well as 18.08.20008 would noot advance the petitioner's casee as these instructions specificaally provide fofor reservation of seats for sporttspersons in technical and mediical institutes as well as preferential treaatment in services of the Sttate Governmeent. These policy instructions ccannot be extended to apply to the policy fraamed by the government for rreservation of residential plots for sportspersson. Challenge to notification, AAnnexure P-12, is therefore repellled. 14. For the afore-going reasons, this Court does not find any meritm in the wri t petition, which is dismissed. 15. Pending miscellaneous appllication(s), if any, shall also staand disposed oof. (SUVIR SEHGAL) JUDGE (VIKAS SURI) 03.07.20226 JUDGE sheetal Whether Speaking/reasoned Yees/No Whether Reportable Yees/No SHEETAL 2026.07.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh