Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Vennam Jyothi Surekha, vs The Union Of India, on 5 January, 2024
Author: Ninala Jayasurya
Bench: Ninala Jayasurya
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
MAIN CASE No: W.P.No.268 of 2024
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl. OFFICE
DATE ORDER
No NOTE.
2. 04.01.2024 NJS, J Transfe
I.A.No.1 of 2024 rred to
io
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, who folder
before
appeared through online.
correcti
Mr.Jupudi V.K.Yagnadutt, learned counsel ons.
B/o.
takes notice on behalf of the 1st respondent.
Referring to the various averments made in
the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition as
also the material filed along with the same, the
learned counsel made elaborate submissions. While
fairly stating that the petitioner is not alleging mala
fides but only aggrieved by the selection process,
which is not in consonance with the scheme for the
'Major Dhyan Chand Khel Ratna Award', he further
submits that the 2nd respondent has been
impleaded by name as the Hon'ble Minister-in-
charge for Youth Affairs & Sports is the competent
authority for relaxation of any clause as provided
under Para 11.12 of the said scheme.
Drawing the attention of this Court to the
documents evidencing various awards including
Arjuna Award to the petitioner, the learned counsel
submits that as per the list of medals won by the
petitioner and the points earned as per the criteria
fixed by the Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports, the
petitioner is eligible for 148.74 points, whereas the
respondents 15 and 16 would be eligible for 58.5
points. While contending that the petitioner is
aggrieved by the action of the Selection Committee
in ignoring/not taking into consideration the relevant
factors, he submits that the denial of Award to the
petitioner is without any rationale and contrary to
the policy.
Referring to the judgment in Tatpal Singh
Jaggi v. Union of India, reported in 2015 SCC
OnLine Del 11602, the learned counsel made
further submissions that a Division Bench of the
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in similar
circumstances, interfered with the selection of the
respondent No.5 therein for 'Rashtriya Khel
Puraskar Award'. The learned counsel submits that
the object of the scheme, would be defeated if a
meritorious sports personality like the petitioner is
ignored. The learned counsel also submits that the
petitioner had made a representation dated
14.12.2023 to the Hon'ble Union Minister for
Sports/2nd respondent setting out all the relevant
aspects and the petitioner being a sports personality
right from the age of 5 years is against any acts of
disrepute to the sports, expecting necessary action
on the said representation, but the same did not
yield any response. He submitts that under the said
circumstances, the petitioner is constrained to
approach this Court.
Having considered the submissions made by
the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing
the material on record as also the judgment on
which reliance is placed, prima facie, this Court see
that there is justification in the grievance of the
petitioner. However, the matter needs to be
examined further.
Therefore, issue notice to respondents 3 to
Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted
to take out personal notice to respondents 3 to 16
by RPAD and file proof of service by the date of
next adjournment.
List this case on 05.02.2024.
In the meanwhile, considering the submission
that a representation dated 14.12.2023 is made to
the Hon'ble Minister of Sports & Youth Affairs, New
Delhi/2nd respondent herein, this Court deems it
appropriate to pass an interim order providing that
necessary action on the same be taken, as
expeditiously as possible, before 08.01.2024.
______
NJS, J
Note: Furnish C.C. today.
B/o.
BLV
