Master Davinder Singh & Ors. vs The Ministry Of Sports & Youth ...
2015 Latest Caselaw 5147 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                              Reserved on: 17th July, 2015
%                                         Date of Decision: 20th July, 2015

+      W.P.(C) 6249/2015

MASTER DAVINDER SINGH & ORS.              ..... Petitioners
                 Through: Mr. Sulaiman Mohd. Khan with Mr.
                          Shariq Ahmed, Advocates.

                        versus

THE MINISTRY OF SPORTS & YOUTH AFFAIRS,
GOVT. OF INDIA & ORS.                          ..... Respondents
                   Through: Mr. Rajesh Gogna, CGSC with Ms.
                            L. Gangmei, Advocate for R-1.
                            Mr. Anil Grover with Ms. Divya Jain,
                            Advocates for R-2.
                            Mr. Rajesh Katyal, Advocate for R-3
                            to R-5.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VED PRAKASH VAISH

                                 ORDER

C.M. APPL. No.11368/2015

1. This is an application under Section 151 CPC filed by the petitioners for grant of stay to the selected list of sportspersons for the 14th Special Olympics World Summer Games, 2015 and seeking direction to respondents to prepare a fresh list of selected candidates including the petitioners for the said Olympic Games further staying the departure of the Indian contingent for the said Olympic Games till a fresh list of best performers and most deserving candidates including the petitioners is prepared.

2. Succinctly stating the facts of the present case are that respondent No.3 is registered under the Indian Trust Act, 1882 in the year 2001 and is accredited by the Special Olympics International to conduct Special Olympics programme in India. It got recognition by the Government of India, Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports as a National Sports Federation in the year 2005 for the development of sports for persons with intellectual disabilities and in the year 2010 was designated as nodal agency for disables all over India. Respondent No.3 is entrusted with the job of organizing, training and competitions at local, districts, State and International level for persons with intellectual disabilities in both individual and team sports and best performers are selected to represent India for international competitive events.

3. The respondent No.3 is guided by a selection policy for international competition which provides for the selection to be transparent and fair as per the procedure laid down. The selection policy also provides for constitution of a selection committee consisting of (a) Chairman, Special Olympics Bharat (for short 'SOB') or any senior and experienced person of distinction who are Trusty/Manager familiar with the conduct of Special Olympic Programme nominated by him, (b) National Sport Director, (c) Representative from SOAP, (d) Representative from SAI as nominated by SAI (e) Two certified games specific Coaches from SOB, (f) Experienced sports person of distinction from the sports field and (g) The Area Director of host State. The Selection Committee is to maintain a record of the proceedings of the selection and ensure that they are duly signed by all the members of the committee at the site of the games. All decisions are to be made by a consensus of majority, if necessary, and the minimum quorum for selection is the Chairman/Nominee and three others. The 14th Special

Olympics World Summer Games, 2015 is scheduled to be held in Los Angeles, USA between 25.07.2015 to 02.08.2015. The Selection process for the same started in the year 2014 by way of National Championships and the best performers in the said National Championships in their respective discipline/event with previous achievements/performance were to be selected by the Special Olympics Bharat to represent India in the said Olympic Games. Four national coaching camps were organized in the process of selection for the said Olympics. The first at Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, the second at Bareilly, U.P., the third at Rohtak, Haryana and the fourth and final at Chennai, Tamil Nadu. The purpose of the said coaching camps was to select the best performers out of the eligible and fit candidates in the first three camps and give training to them and the finally selected candidates to attend the fourth and final coaching camps for further training and preparations for the said Olympic games.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner No.1, Davinder Singh participating in the National Championships held at Patiala, Punjab from 03.06.2014 to 08.06.2014 in power lifting discipline of three events i.e. bench press, dead lift and squat lift in 75-85 kg. weight and in all the said three categories he was awarded gold medal. Petitioner No.1 participated in the National Coaching Camp at Hyderabad and Bareilly and was kept as stand by for the 14th Special Olympics World Summer Games, 2015 as another candidate namely Raju was selected ahead of the petitioner No.1 for the said games. However, the said candidate Raju had issue with regard to his passport because of which his candidature was cancelled. And as the petitioner No.1 was the standby candidate, in view of Rule-3 of selection process for International Competitions, the petitioner No.1 should

have been selected for the 14th Special Olympics World Summer Games, 2015 after cancellation of the candidature of the said candidate Raju.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that, however, the petitioner No.1 was not called for the National Coaching Camps held at Rohtak, Haryana and was not selected for the 14th Special Olympics World Summer Games, 2015 and some other candidate less deserving and with lesser performance in the National Championship has been selected in the category represented by the petitioner No.1. Petitioner No.2, Puru Gupta stood first in the 300 m. roller skating Delhi State Games and participated in the National Championships for roller skating held from 06.01.2014 to 11.01.2014 at Bareilly, U.P. in two events i.e. 100 m and 2x100 m relay race. Petitioner No.2, Puru Gupta participated in the National Coaching Campus at Hyderabard, A.P., and Bareilly, U.P. and he is shown to have been dropped in the National Coaching Camp at Bareilly, U.P.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the selection of intellectually disabled sports persons for the 14th Special Olympics World Summer Games, 2015 suffers from the vice of arbitrariness, and favoritism which is in violation of the selection policy for international competitions. The selection committee is to maintain a record of the proceedings of the selection and ensure that they are duly signed by all the members of the committee at the site of the games. Rule-3 of selection process for international competitions stipulates that nominated standby candidate will replace any athlete from the final list who drops out for any reason whatsoever. Petitioner No.1 participated in the National Coaching Camps at Hyderabad and Bareilly and was kept as standby for the said World Summer Games as another candidate namely Raju was selected ahead of petitioner

No.1 for the said games. However, the said candidate had some passport issues because of which his candidature was cancelled. Therefore, as per the said Rule-3, the petitioner No.1 should have been selected for the 14th Special Olympics World Summer Games, 2015. The criterion for selection for international competitions is the performance of the sports persons in the previous competitions, domestic (national championships) as well as international competitions. The petitioners' performances at both previous international competitions and national championships have been much better than the selected candidates in their respective fields as the petitioners in their respective events have won gold medals and stood first in several events.

7. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Petitioner No.1 has won gold medals in power lifting discipline of three events i.e. bench press, dead lift and squat lift in 75-85 kg weight in the National Championship, 2014. Petitioner No.2 stood first in the 100 m. event, and was second in the 2x100 m relay race in the National Championships for roller skating 2014. Petitioner No.3 secured gold medal in three events of badminton in 2013 Special Olympics Asia pacific regional games held at Newcastle, Australia, in the women's single, double and mixed double category and also stood first in the national championship of women roller skating at Barely in January 2014. Petitioner No.4 secured gold medal in three events of badminton in 2013 Special Olympics Asia specific regional games held at Newcastle, Australia, in the single, double and mixed double in women category and stood first in the events of 300 mtr., 500 mtr. race and 2x200 mtr. relay race in the National Championship of women roller skating at Barely in January 2014. Petitioner No.5 won silver medal in 25 metre breast stroke aquatics event and bronze medal in

4x50 mtr. In 2013 Special Olympics Asia specific Regional Games held at Newcastle, Australia and secured first place in the National Championship for swimming in the 25 metre free style event at Mandaya, Karnataka in September-October 2013. The petitioner No.6 won silver medal in 200 metre event in bronze and 100 metre event in 2013 Special Olympics Asia specific regional games held at Newcastle, Australia also secured 2 nd position in the National Championship for cycling in 2 k.ms event at Bhopal in June 2014. Petitioner No.7, won gold medals in the National Championship in the three events of 100 m., 300 m. and 500 m. of roller skating in the men's categories.

8. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner No.1 was selected for two preparatory camps namely Hyderabad and Barely, petitioner No.2 was also selected for three preparatory camps namely Hyderabad, Bareily and Rohtak, petitioner No. 3, 4, 5 and 6 were not called for any training camps and petitioner no. 7 was called for only the Hyderabad preparatory camp. Performance of the candidate namely, Abhishek Saminathan who has been selected in the petitioner No.1's weight category under the power lifting head is much lower than the petitioner No.1 as he has stood second in all the three categories of squat, bench press and combination in the weight category of the petitioner No.1 whereas the petitioner No.1 has stood first in all the three categories he has represented. Petitioner No.2 was kept as a stand by candidate. Petitioner No.5 has never participated in any international event and yet has not been given a chance. The SOB is operating as a family property and have not framed a constant policy. Directive 22 has not been formerly recognized by the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports Department of Sports in the National Sports Development Code of India, 2011 which is still in force. If it is a policy

matter it has to be a part of the aforementioned code. The petitioners would have filed the case earlier had they not been misguided by the SOB who according to the counsel for the petitioners delayed the issue.

9. Per Contra, learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 to 5 contend that the mission of Special Olympics is to provide year round sports training and athletic competition in a variety of Olympic type sports for children and adults with intellectual disabilities, giving them opportunities to develop physical fitness, demonstrate courage, experience joy and participate in a sharing of gifts, skills and friendship with their families, other Special Olympic athletes and the community. Every two years, the world transcends the boundaries of geography, nationality, political philosophy, gender, age, culture and religion, to come together for the largest sporting and humanitarian event on the planet. The Selection of the candidates have been made on the basis of performance and IQ level. The 214 athletes so selected for this event are necessary and proper parties and should have been impleaded with the main petition. No prayer has been made against directive no. 22/2011 and therefore the petitioner can't look for an interim order at this stage of the dispute. Petitioner No.3, 4, 5 and 6 have not been selected for the preparatory camps, so how can they be selected for the Special Olympics.

10. It was lastly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3 to 5 that elaborate arrangements have been made, sponsoring has already been made. If such alterations are made, they would be made at an international level which would seriously prejudice the reputation of Indian contingent at the International level. It was also submitted that candidature of respondent No.7 has already withdrawn. The Coach has already opined

that conduct of petitioner No.2, Puru Gupta was not proper and, therefore, he is not eligible.

11. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that respondent No.3 is a recognized National Sports Federation (for short 'NSF') which is an autonomous in its functioning and responsible for development of Sports for persons with intellectual disabilities. The recognition and de-recognition of the NSF is the prerogative of respondent No.1.

12. It has been admitted by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 that respondent No.3 is also bound to adhere to the NSDC, 2011. The role of answering respondent in entire selection process of players is limited only to the extent of deputing a government observer on the prior request of the concerned NSFs to oversee the selection of players so as to prevent any unfair or foul practice, however the final decision on selection lies with respondent No.3 and the final list of selected players is issued by respondent No.3 only.

13. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 that respondent No.3 submitted a proposal to respondent No.2 for participation in the World Summer Games. Thereafter, it was decided in consultation with the representatives of respondent No.3 that they should restrict the participation of only those athletes who hold first position in the individual events of the national championships. The final list of athletes was examined in the Ministry and with the approval of the competent authority, the Ministry vide letter F.No. 97-2/2014-SP-I dated 12.06.2015 conveyed the approval of the government of participation of athletes/coaches/officials as full cost of the government. Respondent No.1 has no role in the selection of players.

14. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the material on record.

15. Learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 5 while establishing his contentions has relied upon directive No.22/2011 of SOB. However, this directive does not find any mention in National Sports Development Code of India, 2011. Therefore, reliance placed upon this directive does not find favour with this Court. However, the petitioner has not challenged the said directive in the present petition, therefore, the validity of the directive is a question to be determined by way of a separate petition.

16. There were four preparatory camps organized for selection of candidates for 14th Special Olympics World Summer Games, 2015. The first preparatory camp was held in September, 2014 at Hyderabad, second camp was held in October, 2014 at Bareily, third camp was held in March, 2015 at Rohtak and the fourth preparatory camp was held in May, 2015 at Chennai. Petitioner Nos.3, 4, 5 and 6 were not selected in any of the preparatory camps. Since, the first preparatory camp was held in September, 2014, the statutory legal right to raise a dispute arose in September, 2014. The petitioners had considerable time to approach the Court but they chose not to do so. Further, the last preparatory camp was held in May, 2015 at Chennai and the list of selected candidates was announced on 12.06.2015. The petitioners even then had the option to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court after May, 2015 but they chose not to do the same.

17. At this stage, if the petitioner Nos.3, 4, 5 and 6 are allowed without attending any of the aforesaid preparatory camps, it will cause serious prejudice to the Nation as the petitioner Nos.3, 4, 5 and 6 are going to represent India at an international platform.

18. In addition, petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 7 have only attended the preparatory camps. As far as petitioner No.2 is concerned, it may be mentioned that Mr. Jaswinder Singh, Head Coach has specifically made an observation that petitioner No.2, Puru Gupta has behaviour problem and shows aggression at times and has suggested that he may be kept as an alternate. Therefore, in view of the remarks made by the Head Coach in respect of petitioner No.2, it would not be appropriate to allow him to attend the 14th Special Olympics World Summer Games, 2015. So far as petitioner No.7 is concerned, his father Shri Tejvir Singh has already withdrawn his candidature from said International Games.

19. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the view that petitioner No.1 is allowed to attend 14th Special Olympics World Summer Games, 2015 and the respondents are directed to make necessary arrangements for participation of petitioner No.1, Master Davinder Singh in addition to the already prepared list of candidates for the 14th Special Olympics World Summer Games, 2015.

20. The application stands disposed of.

21. A copy of this order be given dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.

W.P. (C) No.6249/2015

Renotify on 12.08.2015.

(VED PRAKASH VAISH) JUDGE JULY 20th, 2015 hs