DIGVIJAY SINGH vs STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS Advocate - A.G. HARYANA — CWP/17434/2019
Case under No Acts Defined Section 1. Disposed: --DISMISSED on 12th May 2026.
CNR: PHHC010778802019
Filing Number
CWP/41423/2019
Filing Date
28-06-2019
Registration No
CWP/17434/2019
Registration Date
29-06-2019
Judge
JUSTICE (TO BE NOMINATED) , MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR
Coram
JUSTICE (TO BE NOMINATED) , MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR
Bench Type
Double
Category
97.7 - VIRES (GOVT. SERVICE HARYANA) ( 870 )
Sub-Category
( 944 )
Judicial Branch
WRITS -I BRANCH
Decision Date
12th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
DIGVIJAY SINGH
Adv. HIMANSHU ARORA
Respondent(s)
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS Advocate - A.G. HARYANA
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SPORTS AND YOUTH AFFAIRS , HARYANA
SECRETARY, HARYANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
Orders
Case Summary: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed Digvijay Singh's writ petition challenging Clause 6.2 of Haryana's Sports Gradation Certificate notification. The petitioner, who participated in the Asian Schools Basketball Championship 2009, argued that downgrading junior-level participants by one category (placing him in Category 8 instead of 7) was arbitrary and discriminatory. The court rejected this claim, holding that since tournament nature forms the rational basis of the State's classification policy, differential treatment between categories does not constitute unlawful discrimination. The court noted that merely being the sole applicant does not confer eligibility if qualifications are otherwise unmet. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed Digvijay Singh's writ petition challenging Clause 6.2 of Haryana's Sports Gradation Certificate notification. The petitioner, who participated in the Asian Schools Basketball Championship 2009, argued that downgrading junior-level participants by one category (placing him in Category 8 instead of 7) was arbitrary and discriminatory. The court rejected this claim, holding that since tournament nature forms the rational basis of the State's classification policy, differential treatment between categories does not constitute unlawful discrimination. The court noted that merely being the sole applicant does not confer eligibility if qualifications are otherwise unmet. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts