Delhi High Court
Sandeep Kalra & Anr. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 27 September, 2018
$~47.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 27th September, 2018
+ LPA 553/2018 & CM Nos.39958/2018, 39960/2018
SANDEEP KALRA & ANR. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr.Shyam Moorjani, Adv. with
Mr.Rajeev Narayan, Adv.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, CGSC for
UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
JUDGMENT
Rajendra Menon, Chief Justice (Oral)
C.M.No.39959/2018 (exemptions)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
LPA 553/2018
2. Seeking exception to orders dated 4th September, 2018 and 12th
September, 2018 passed by the learned writ Court in W.P.(C)
No.9292/2018. This appeal has been filed under Clause 10 of the Letters
Patent. The writ petition was filed by the Appellants impugning an order
dated 30th August, 2018 passed by the Secretary, Ministry of Youth Affairs
and Sports, Government of India by which the claim of the appellants to
include them in the Indian contingent to participate in the Para Asian
Games, 2018 to be held in Indonesia from 6th October, 2018 to 13th October,
2018 has been rejected.
3. Even though various grounds are raised in the writ petition and before
us also it was argued that in an arbitrary manner contrary to the guidelines
dated 10th March, 2015 and ignoring the recommendations of the Table
Tennis Federation of India (TTFI), the Appelalnts' candidature has been
rejected, we find that on the basis of an order passed by this Court in an
earlier writ petition filed by the petitioners being W.P.(C) No.8811/2018 on
24th August, 2018, the matter was remitted for consideration to the Secretary
of the Sports Ministry and the said Secretary rejected the claim of the
Appellants as is evident from the communication made by the Secretary in
his order dated 30th August, 2018. The Secretary in the order goes on to
hold that since the Paralympic Committee of India (PCI) has included 9 th
and 10th rank players to compensate lack of foreign exposure, he did not find
any reason to make any indulgence into the matter. In fact in para-5 of the
order impugned passed by the Secretary on 30 th August, 2018 after
evaluating various factual aspects, he has indicated the reasons for rejected
the claim and the same reads as under:-
"5. In light of the above, I decide the following:
i. Based on the contention of the TTFI that the Para TT
players have not been able to achieve rankings laid down by
this Ministry in absence of International exposure, I restrict my
decision on only those players who were recommended by the
TTFI but nor considered by the PCI.
ii. There also does not appear any reason to interfere with
the final list sent by the PCI, especially since the PCI has also
included 9th and 10th ranked players, which, it is felt
compensates for the lack of foreign exposure.
iii. However, if any other player recommended by the TTFI
happens to rank upto 10th in Asian rankings shall be included in
the final contingent by PCI. Similarly, if any player of higher
class of disability has defeated a player of lower class of
disability, as has been done in the case of Mr. Sandeep Dangi,
such player shall also be included in the final contingent by
PCI."
4. All these aspects have been considered by the learned writ court and
the learned writ Court found that the aforesaid decision cannot be termed as
arbitrary and the impugned decision cannot be interfered with by the learned
writ Court. In doing so, the learned writ Court as relied upon a decision of
co-ordinate Bench of this Court rendered on 18th April, 2018 in LPA
208/2018, Paralympic Committee of India vs. Naresh Kumar Sharma and
has found that in such matters indulgence of writ Court cannot be made.
5. We see no reason to take a different view from the one taken by the
learned writ Court with regard to the selection of sports persons to
participate in an international event. It is the experts in the field of sports
who have to take a decision and a writ Court exercising jurisdiction under
Article 226 would normally not substitute its decision to that of the expert
authorities until and unless arbitrariness or violation of statutory rules or
provisions are found or the same amounts to curtailing the fundamental
rights available to a person. In the present case, if we evaluate the reasons
that weighed with the authorities as is detailed hereinabove, we find that a
reasonable decision based on due consideration of various factors have been
taken and we see no reason to interfere in to the matter.
6. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed along with other pending
applications.
CHIEF JUSTICE
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
SEPTEMBER 27, 2018
'anb'
