As per case facts, the Petitioner, an eminent Netball player with multiple National Gold Medals, applied for a post under the Haryana Outstanding Sportspersons Rules, 2021. Her application was rejected ... citing ineligibility under Rule 4(c)(2) for not representing India in specific sporting events. She contended her eligibility under Rule 4(c)(1) for representing the State of Haryana at the national level. The question arose whether the respondent's interpretation that only Olympic sports events apply universally to all categories in the rules, leading to her rejection, was correct. Finally, the High Court held the respondent's interpretation of Rule 8(1) was a misreading, as the Olympic Games requirement was not universal across all Schedule 2 events, particularly National Games. The rejection based on Rule 4(c)(2) was flawed when her claim was under Rule 4(c)(1), which she fulfilled. The Court allowed the Writ Petition, setting aside the rejection, and directed reconsideration of her claim under Rule 4(c)(1) and Rule 8(1) & (2) within two months, with appointment and notional benefits if found eligible.