Manoj Kumar Rana vs Sports Authority Of India
2015 Latest Caselaw 6990 Del

          *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                 Date of decision: 16th September, 2015.

+           W.P.(C) No.8481/2015 & CM No.18200/2015 (for stay)

       MANOJ KUMAR RANA                                ..... Petitioner
                  Through:            Mr. R.K. Kapoor and Ms. Astha
                                      Nigam, Advs.

                                Versus

    SPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA                ..... Respondent
                 Through: Mr. Anil Grover and Ms. Divya Jain,
                           Advs.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The petition was filed impugning, (i) the order dated 14th August,

2015 of the respondent Sports Authority of India (SAI); and, (ii) the

exclusion of the petitioner from ongoing camp organised from 29 th July,

2015 to 20th September, 2015 for preparation of the International

Competition scheduled in 2015 for Senior Men and Women National

Gymnastics Coaching Camp at Indira Gandhi Sports Complex, New Delhi.

Mandamus is also sought directing the respondent SAI to include the name

of the petitioner as a coach in the ongoing camp.

2. Though the petition was filed without enclosing the impugned order

dated 14th August, 2015 but when the same came up before this Court on 3 rd

September, 2015, notice thereof was issued. Counter affidavit has been field

by the respondent SAI along with the copy of the letter, and not order, dated

14th August, 2015 of the respondent SAI and to which the counsel for the

petitioner for the sake of expediency did not chose to file a rejoinder. On the

contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the term for which the camp

was being held was to expire on 20th September, 2015, the counsels have

been heard finally on the petition at this stage itself.

3. The counsel for the petitioner has argued:

(i) that the petitioner is a highly acclaimed coach in the sport of

gymnastics and is the only coach invited by World Federation

International De Gymnastique to Level-3;

(ii) that the respondent SAI also, while issuing administrative

sanctions dated 27th May, 2015, 1st July, 2015 and 10th July, 2015 for

various camps, included the name of the petitioner as a coach therein

and the petitioner participated as a coach in the said camps;

(iii) however, the respondent SAI while issuing the administrative

sanction dated 29th July, 2015 for the subject camp excluded the name

of the petitioner therefrom, without any reason whatsoever and on the

basis of an incident of September, 2014 and which had not come in

the way of the petitioner being selected as a coach vide administrative

sanctions dated 27th May, 2015, 1st July, 2015 and 10th July, 2015

supra;

(iv) that the exclusion of the petitioner as a coach for the main

sporting event of World Championship in the sports of Gymnastics is

arbitrary and illogical and for extraneous reasons.

4. Per contra, the counsel for the respondent SAI has contended:

(a) that the respondent SAI is not directly concerned with the

holding of camps for preparation for the sports and which function is

of the respective sports federations; the respondent SAI only funds the

said camps and / or provides certain facilities / amenities therein;

(b) that the task of selecting of the participants and coaches to the

sporting events and camps therefor is thus also of the respective sports

federations;

(c) however on account of the Gymnastics Federation being

derecognised, with an intent to not deprive the sports person from

participation in the sporting events in the said sport and to provide for

their preparation, the respondent SAI has been holding the camps and

selecting the candidates and the coaches for participation therein;

(d) that an inquiry against the petitioner of a charge of sexual

harassment is underway and for which reason it was not deemed

expedient to select the petitioner;

(e) that the petitioner is employed with the Services Sports Control

Board, Armed Forces Headquarters, New Delhi and the respondent

SAI had vide impugned letter dated 14th August, 2015 enquired about

the status of the complaint of sexual harassment against the petitioner

and informed that as an interim measure, the petitioner has been

expelled from ongoing camp till final report of the inquiry into the

charge of sexual harassment against the petitioner is received.

5. I have enquired from the counsel for the petitioner as to what is the

right of the petitioner to be selected as a coach for the subject camp and

which right can be said to have been infringed. Without the petitioner

establishing a right and which the petitioner has not established in the entire

petition, merely because the petitioner has not been selected as a coach for

the subject camp would not call for interference by this Court in writ

jurisdiction in the said selection by the respondent SAI. It has further been

enquired from the counsel for the petitioner as to what are the rules and

regulations governing the holding of the said camps and selection of

participants and coaches therein.

6. No answer has been forthcoming.

7. Upon the same query being made to the counsel for the respondent

SAI, she states that since this is not the function of SAI and is the function of

respective sport federation, SAI does not have any rules and regulations in

this regard and has excluded the petitioner only for the reason of having

been charged for sexual harassment and enquiry therefor being underway.

8. Though I am of the opinion that the rules and regulations of the

Gymnastic Federation, and which as per the Sports Code, 2011 framed by

the Govt. of India are required to be approved by the Govt. of India, must be

providing for the manner of selection of the participants and the coaches for

a sporting event and / or for a camp and also the grounds for exclusion but

the petitioner having not based his case on the same and owing to the

urgency expressed, there is no need for this Court to enquire further into the

same.

9. In the absence of the petitioner having not been able to establish any

right for inclusion of his name in the subject sporting camp as a coach, the

only question which remains for consideration is whether the reason for

which the respondent SAI has excluded the name of the petitioner can be

said to be a valid reason.

10. The counsel for the petitioner has contended that the respondent SAI

itself having included the name of the petitioner in the three previous camps

and there being no complaint against the petitioner with respect thereto,

there is no basis for excluding the name of the petitioner this time around.

11. I am unable to accept the aforesaid as an absolute proposition. If the

petitioner was not to be included in the earlier camps and was erroneously

included, the same would not entitle the petitioner or take away the right of

the respondent SAI to exclude the name of the petitioner from the future

sporting events. Also, the good conduct, if any and / or the factum of there

being no complaint against the petitioner during the previous said three

camps cannot wash away the allegations of the past against the petitioner.

12. The counsel for the petitioner has then contended that the charge

against the petitioner of sexual harassment had got settled on the same day.

13. The respondent SAI along with its counter affidavit has filed before

this Court the report dated 18th June, 2015 of the Sexual Harassment

Committee on complaint filed with it by the female gymnastic coach against

the petitioner and against a camper under training of the petitioner. A

perusal of the said report does not show that the matter was resolved.

Though in one of the paragraphs of the narrative, it is recorded that "the

matter was resolved within the gymnastic camp and Sh. Rana proceeded on

leave from 13th to 16th September, 2014" but it is obvious from the report

that the Sexual Harassment Committee thereafter also had been proceeding

with and inquiring into the compliant inter alia against the petitioner. The

said Committee, in the said report had sought the status report from the

Gymnastic Federation of India and from the Police of the First Information

Report (FIR) of the said incident registered against the petitioner.

14. Faced therewith, the counsel for the petitioner contends that the

proceedings of the Sexual Harassment Committee cannot be permitted to go

on endlessly, marring the career of the petitioner.

15. However, that was not the intent with which the petitioner has

approached the Court. If the petitioner was aggrieved from the constitution

of the Sexual Harassment Committee or the proceedings before it, the

petitioner ought to have taken recourse thereagainst. However, it appears

that the petitioner was satisfied with the matter lingering as long as there was

no impact thereof on him. In this petition also, the challenge is only to the

exclusion from the camp and not to the proceedings in the case of sexual

harassment against the petitioner.

16. In view of the aforesaid, once the petitioner is found to be under cloud

with a charge of sexual harassment and of which inquiry under the Sexual

Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and

Redressal) Act, 2013 as well as the investigation of the FIR is pending, no

error can be found with the decision of the respondent SAI of excluding the

name of the petitioner from the coaching camp. Rather it is found that the

Sexual Harassment Act prescribes such exclusion.

17. The counsel for the petitioner has also stated that since the letter dated

14th August, 2015 uses the language of „expelling the petitioner from the

camp‟, the petitioner should not have been so expelled without hearing.

18. However, it is evident from the administrative sanction dated 29 th

July, 2015 which is impugned that the petitioner was not included as a coach

and was not „expelled‟ from the camp. All that the respondent SAI sought to

convey to the employer of the petitioner in the letter dated 14 th August, 2015

was that awaiting the information, the petitioner was being not permitted to

participate in the camp.

19. There is thus no merit in the petition, dismissed.

No costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

SEPTEMBER 16, 2015 bs ..