Facts: The petitioner, a Kabaddi player, was granted an eligibility certificate in 2019, recognizing her eligibility for a 5% reservation in State Government services as a meritorious sports person, based on her runner-up position in the All India Agricultural Universities Sports & Games Meet. This certificate was later cancelled by the Deputy Director, Sports & Youth Services, Pune Division, on the ground that her participation was not in the category of "Akhil Bharatiya Inter-University Sports Competition" as required by the Government Resolution.
Procedural Posture: The petitioner challenged the cancellation of her eligibility certificate by filing a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, arguing that the Deputy Director's interpretation of the Government Resolution was too narrow. The petitioner had also filed an appeal, which was rejected.
Issue: Did the Deputy Director err in cancelling the petitioner's eligibility certificate by narrowly interpreting the term "Akhil Bharatiya Inter-University Sports Competition" in the Government Resolution, thereby excluding the "All India Inter-Agriculture Universities Sports Competition" in which the petitioner participated?
Holding: Yes, the High Court held that the Deputy Director's interpretation was too narrow and pedantic. The Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the cancellation order and reinstating the petitioner's eligibility certificate.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the term "Akhil Bharatiya Inter-University Sports Competition" should be broadly construed to include competitions like the "All India Inter-Agriculture Universities Sports Competition," especially considering the different categories of universities in the country. The Court noted that the purpose of the Government Resolution was to provide reservation to meritorious sports persons, and a narrow interpretation would defeat this purpose. The Court stated, "In our clear opinion, the reason to reopen the petitioner's case and cancel the eligibility certificate for the aforesaid reasons was arbitrary and in fact not supported by the Government Resolutions in question, which was sought to be differently interpreted from the manner it was initially interpreted and applied in rightly issuing eligibility certificate to the petitioner." The Court emphasized that the petitioner's application was appropriately examined initially, and the subsequent cancellation was unjustified.