Saket Wali vs Union Of India And Ors
2014 Latest Caselaw 3836 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                      Date of decision: 21st August, 2014.

+      W.P.(C) 4956/2014 & CM No.9926/2014 (for interim directions)

       SAKET WALI                                        ..... Petitioner
                          Through:     Ms. Roma Bhagat, Adv.

                                     Versus

    UNION OF INDIA AND ORS                    ..... Respondents
                  Through: Mr. Jasmeet Singh, Adv. for R-1&2.
                           Mr. Ashwani Kumar Dubey, Adv. for
                           R-3.
                           Mr. D.P. Singh & Mr. R.P. Vyas,
                           Advs. for R-5.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. This petition filed as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) impugns the

selection trials held on 14th to 17th July, 2014 at Indian Squash Academy,

Chennai for selection of Men's contingent for Squash World University

Championship scheduled to be held in Chennai from 1st to 7th September,

2014. The petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondent Association of

Indian Universities (AIU) to immediately re-notify the selection trials, as per

the Eligibility Rules, at a neutral venue outside Tamil Nadu with a Neutral

Referee / Selection Committee.

2. It is inter alia the case of the petitioner:

(i) that the respondents AIU, Indian Olympic Association (IOA)

and Squash Rackets Federation of India (SRFI) are conjointly, from 1st

to 7th September, 2014, organizing at Chennai the event known as

Squash World University Championship in which players studying in

Universities across the globe are eligible to participate, if they fit, the

criteria of AIU / Federation Internationale du Sport Universitaire,

Lausanne, Switzerland;

(ii) that participation in the said event was to be decided through

open selection trials which were scheduled to be held at Chennai in the

end of July, 2014;

(iii) that the criteria for participation in the said event is of not being

more than 28 years of age, having completed or being in the process of

completing his/her B.A. within 5 years of finishing 10+2 /

matriculation and 4 years from completion of post graduation

irrespective of time taken to complete the said B.A. provided that the

player must be a bona fide regular student studying in the country of

which he/she is a national and must not have failed more than once in

any given year and not more than twice during the entire duration of

the course in question;

(iv) however even before holding any open trials for selection, the

National Coach started informing that the Indian contingent would

consist of Mr. Harinder Sandhu, Mr. Ravi Dixit, Ms. Deepika Pallikal

and Ms. Anaka Alankamony;

(v) that though communication was sent by the respondent AIU to

various Universities of the trial scheduled at Chennai from 14 th to 17th

July, 2014 but at that time a number of Universities were closed for

summer break or were going through a process of fresh admissions

and had very little time to participate in the selection;

(vi) that even otherwise since everybody was informed that the team

had been pre-selected, the players were reluctant to participate;

(vii) that the participation was also not encouraged by not paying

TA/DA;

(viii) that one Mr. Rahul Kumar objected to the inclusion of Mr. Ravi

Dixit, Mr. Harinder Sandhu in the team as well as inclusion of

American students Anaka Anakomany;

(ix) that though in the previous year one Mr. Ramit Tandon was

taken in the team for higher grade Senior World Men Team

Championship but he was not even called for the selection trials;

(x) that Mr. Ravi Dixit and Mr. Harinder Sandhu do not fit into the

undergraduate participant's category as they completed their

matriculation in 2007 and 2008 respectively and Mr. Ravi Dixit had

failed his first year M.A. Economics exam, the results of which were

declared on 21st July, 2014;

(xi) that Mr. Ravi Dixit is also not a bona fide regular student of the

college of which he claims to be a student;

(xii) that there is no grievance redressal mechanism in this regard;

(xiii) that though the petitioner lodged protest, but to no avail.

3. The petitioner admittedly is not the potential participant in the event,

selection whereof is impugned. We have thus enquired from the counsel for

the petitioner as to what is the locus of the petitioner to bring this petition

interfering with the selections held by the bodies aforesaid competent to

select and which interference, by creating uncertainty, may affect the level

of preparation for the event. We have further enquired as to why none of the

potential participants in the event, who may be aggrieved from the selection,

have neither lodged any protest nor raised a grievance.

4. The counsel for the petitioner except for stating that "they are

reluctant", has no answer.

5. We are unable to agree. The Courts are inundated with challenge to

various selections for sport events by persons who consider themselves to

have been wrongly denied an opportunity of being selected and / or to have

been wrongly rejected in the trial. We therefore cannot accept the argument

that the aggrieved persons if any have any disability in approaching the

Court.

6. Without any aggrieved person being before this Court, we are

reluctant to entertain this petition purportedly filed in public interest at the

instance of a person who has filed the same on the basis of what the

aforesaid Mr. Rahul Kumar is stated to have informed him. Mr. Rahul

Kumar has hesitated from himself approaching the Court and of which also

there is no explanation.

7. We therefore dismiss this petition on this ground alone, making it

however clear that the same will not prevent this Court from examining the

matter at the instance of any aggrieved person.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

CHIEF JUSTICE AUGUST 21, 2014 bs