Delhi High Court
Zakaria Ahmed vs Union Of India And Ors. on 18 August, 2017
$- 17
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 1851/2017
Date of decision: 18th August, 2017
ZAKARIA AHMED ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Towseef Ahmad and Mr.
Shahidul Islam, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Rajesh Gogna, CGSC & Ms.
Vipra Bharadwaj, Advocate alongwith Mr.
Vivek Kumar Singh, Law Officer CRPF.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL):
The petitioner impugns the movement order dated 17th
February, 2017 by which he has been asked to report to 176 Battalion
at LOC in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The petitioner has also
impugned the order dated 15th February 2017 by which the petitioner
has been de-inducted from the Central Athletic Team of the Central
Reserve Police Force with immediate effect.
2. The respondents in the counter affidavit have pointed out that
the petitioner's performance as a sports person (athlete) had declined
with age etc. and, therefore, the petitioner has been de-inducted from
the Central Athletic Team (Men). The petitioner is today 49 years of
age. This would enable another sports person, to be a part of the
W.P. (C) No. 1851/2017 Page 1 of 3
Central Athletic Team and achieve success. We do not see anything
wrong with the de-induction.
3. Pursuant to an order of remand passed in Writ Petition (Civil)
No. 10844/2016 dated 16th November, 2016, the respondents have
passed a detailed order 15th February, 2017 highlighting the aforesaid
aspects. This order states that the petitioner was never detailed as a
Coach or Assistant Coach to train anyone. He has not been trained
and certified to work as a coach. The petitioner was asked to maintain
official records and in this connection he was detailed as the Assistant
Coach of the team by the management of the Central Athletic Team
during the All India Police Games solely for the purpose of entering
the competition area so as to maintain the said records.
4. The petitioner has been in Delhi for the last 20 years.
5. The respondents have also stated that the Central Athletic Team
has three NIS qualified coaches and one Arjuna Awardee. The four
coaches are sufficient. The Central Athletic Team does not require any
other Coach or Assistant Coach. It is pointed out that the petitioner
has not done any course or diploma in coaching. Certain other
assertions have been also made.
6. We do not think the movement order requires any interference
as it has been passed keeping in view the administrative exigencies
and to utilise the services of the petitioner.
7. Counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to OM No.
14034/1/2012-Estt.(D) dated 26th July, 2012, which states that as far as
possible, services of sportspersons should be utilised for sports related
W.P. (C) No. 1851/2017 Page 2 of 3
activities after their active sports career is over, in either coaching or
other technical areas.
8. The respondents would keep the aforesaid OM in mind and if
and when there is any suitable vacancy/post, where services of the
petitioner can be utilised, he would be so considered for appointment.
9. We may note that the transfer order/movement order was stayed
vide order dated 28th February, 2017, which records that the
petitioner's daughter is appearing in the Board examination, which
was scheduled to end on 10th April, 2017. In these circumstances, it
was directed that the petitioner shall not be disturbed from Delhi till
15th April, 2017. This order also observes that the petitioner could be
given assignment in Delhi if he cannot be retained in the Central
Athletic Team.
10. However, for the reasons stated above, we do not see any reason
to grant any relief to the petitioner, except and to the extent that the
respondents would always consider the petitioner for appointment at
an appropriate post connected with the sports.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. The stay order is
vacated. No costs.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J.
AUGUST 18, 2017/MR
