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

CASE DISPOSED

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

No Acts Defined Section 1

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

12-05-2026
JUSTICE (TO BE NOMINATED),MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

Search Another Case