Madras High Court
Master Nitin Krishna V.G. ... vs The Chairperson on 5 June, 2023
WA No.1049 of 2023
and WP No.13575 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05.06.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA , CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU
WA No.1049 of 2023 and WP No.13575 of 2023
and WMP No. 13729 of 2023 &
CMP Nos.10482, 10485 and 11429 of 2023
W.A.No.1049 of 2023
Master Nitin Krishna V.G. (Minor/17 yrs)
Rep. by Natural Guardian,
Mr.Gopalakrishnan Subramanian ... Appellant
-vs-
1. The Chairperson,
Special Olympics Bharat,
J-47, Lower Ground Floor,
Lajpat Nagar-III, Delhi 110 024.
2. The Area Director,
Special Olympics Bharat Tamil Nadu,
A3-A4, Golden Fortune,
No-1, Nolambur Main Road,
Mogappair West, Chennai 600 107.
3. The Director General,
Sports Authority of India,
Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium Complex
(East Gate), Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110 003.
Page 1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No.1049 of 2023
and WP No.13575 of 2023
4. Union of India,
Under Secretary, Ministry of Youth Affairs
and Sports, Room No.15-C,
Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi 110 001. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set
aside the order dated 17.04.2023 passed in W.P.No.11426 of 2023 on
the file of this Court.
WP.No.13575 of 2023
Master Nitin Krishna V.G. (Minor/17 yrs)
Rep. by Natural Guardian,
Mr.Gopalakrishnan Subramanian ... Petitioner
-vs-
1. The Executive Director,
Air Cmde Lalit Kumar Sharma,
Special Olympics Bharat,
J-47, Lower Ground Floor,
Lajpat Nagar-III, Delhi 110 024.
2. Union of India,
Under Secretary, Ministry of Youth Affairs
and Sports, Room No.15-C,
Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi 110 001. ... Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issue of Writ of Certiorari to call for the order dated
21.04.2023 issued by the 1st respondent in compliance of the order
dated 17.04.2023 passed in W.P.No.11325 of 2023 rejecting
consideration of the representation made by the petitioner dated
15.03.2023 and quash the same as non-est in law.
Page 2 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No.1049 of 2023
and WP No.13575 of 2023
For the Appellant and
Petitioner :: Mr.P.V.Balasubramaniam
Senior Counsel
for Mr.S.Arunkungumaraj
For 1st Respondent in
both WA and WP :: Mr.T.T.Ravichandran
For 2nd Respondent in WA :: Mr.M.Jayakumar
For Respondents 3 & 4
in WA and For 2nd
Respondent in WP :: Mr.A.Prakash
CGSC.
*****
JUDGMENT
(Made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
The appellant, Master Nitin Krishna V.G., is a minor aged 17
years old and a special child with intellectual disabilities. The issue as
raised by his father on his behalf pertains to the alleged improprieties
in the selection of the candidates for participating in the National
Coaching Camp for swimming.
2. It is the grievance of the appellant that in fact the name of
the appellant appeared in the list of selected candidates and included
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No.1049 of 2023
and WP No.13575 of 2023
for the National Coaching Camp. However, a separate selection list
was prepared dropping the name of the appellant.
3. This is the second round of litigation for the same purpose.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
appellant was selected to represent Tamil Nadu Special Olympics
Bharat Swimming at the Special Coaching Camp conducted by Special
Olympics Bharat at Mumbai between 13.02.2022 and 18.02.2022,
which was further re-scheduled because of the Covid lockdown. The
learned counsel submits that finding that the name of the appellant
has been removed in the second list prepared, the appellant's father
had filed W.P.No.17714 of 2022 to consider his representation. This
Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the respondents to
consider the representation of the appellant's father and to file a
report. Subsequently, in the said writ petition, the report was filed and
pursuant to the report, the writ petition was closed. According to the
learned counsel, as liberty was given, the report has been challenged
in the present writ petition in W.P.No.11426 of 2023 before the learned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No.1049 of 2023
and WP No.13575 of 2023
Single Judge. The said petition has been dismissed, pursuant to which
the present appeal is filed.
5. W.P.No.13575 of 2023 is filed challenging the order dated
21.04.2023 rejecting the representation of the appellant/petitioner
dated 15.03.2023 requesting to reconsider his case with respect to the
selection process to participate in the Special Olympics World Games,
2023 to be held in Berlin, Germany.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner strenuously
contends that in fact the respondents were supposed to initiate the
selection process under the supervision of the retired Judge of this
Court. The respondents flouted the same. They did not conduct the
process under the supervision of the retired Judge of this Court. It is
further submitted that under the Right to Information Act, when an
application was filed, the appellant was supplied with two lists. In one
list, the name of the appellant was included and in the other list, the
name of the appellant was dropped. This itself shows that there was
no transparency in the selection process conducted by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No.1049 of 2023
and WP No.13575 of 2023
respondents. According to the learned counsel, in an earlier round of
petition, the respondents made the Court to believe that there is only
one list and relying upon them, the earlier writ petition filed by the
appellant's father was dismissed. In fact, the same was not in
consonance with the factual matrix. The learned counsel further
submits that from tomorrow, the coaching camp is to commence at
Delhi. The appellant is a meritorious swimmer. He can bring medal
for the country and his name requires to be recommended.
7. Countering the submissions of learned counsel for the
respondents, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there
is no such rule or guideline to suggest that only two male and two
female participants can be permitted in the National Coaching Camp
from each State. The respondents cannot, as per their whims, suggest
that only two male and two female candidates are allotted to each
State.
8. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that in fact
one list where the name of the appellant was included was prepared
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No.1049 of 2023
and WP No.13575 of 2023
under influence. The same would also find support from the report
which was submitted. According to them, in the Olympics for which
the Indian team has to be sent, 12 swimmers are permitted and each
State is allotted two candidates for male and two candidates for female
for participating in the National Coaching Camp. The appellant was at
Sl.No.5 in the selection trials. His name was not included. The
influence was made by the appellant's father through one Mr.Paul and
he was suspended.
9. We have considered the submissions. It is unfortunate that
this Court is required to consider the dispute of the present nature.
10. This is not the first round of litigation between the parties for
the same purpose. The earlier writ petition was filed by the present
appellant's father wherein direction was sought against respondents to
consider the representation of the appellant's father and pass a final
order with regard to the participation of his son in the National
Swimming Coaching Camp. The representation was rejected on the
ground that the appellant was never directed to be selected for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No.1049 of 2023
and WP No.13575 of 2023
participating in the event. The appellant's father filed an appeal before
the Division Bench bearing W.A.No.1705 of 2022. The said appeal was
also dismissed. The Division Bench of this Court, under the judgment
and order dated 26.08.2022, while dismissing the Writ Appeal No.1705
of 2022 observed thus:-
"3. The learned counsel for the appellant has made a reference
of the list issued on 10.12.2021 by the Special Olympics Bharath-
Tamilnadu. The name of the petitioner's son is figured therein at Serial
No.5. The said list has not been relied by the respondents rather they
have relied on the other list, which was prepared by the authorities
competent for it. The learned counsel for the appellant could not refer
to any rules or regulations or any direction that the Special Olympics
Bharath Tamilnadu would be competent to conduct the selection and
otherwise, while issuing the letter dated 10.12.2021 by the Special
Olympics Bharath, no reference of any competition to make selection or
any relevant fact has been given other than to endorse that the
candidates named therein have been selected. The learned Single
Judge, therefore, dismissed the writ petition finding that the list issued
by the Special Olympics Bharat Tamilnadu could not have been relied
for want of authority and otherwise, a list was prepared separately by
the competent authorities. Apart from that, we found that the period of
coaching camp has already expired and therefore, the prayer to permit
the petitioner for swimming coaching camp cannot be accepted."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No.1049 of 2023
and WP No.13575 of 2023
11. It has been observed that the list issued by the Special
Olympics Bharat Tamil Nadu could not have been relied for want of
authority and otherwise, a list was prepared separately by the
competent authorities. The Division Bench also observed that the
period of coaching camp has already expired and therefore, the prayer
to permit the petitioner for the swimming coaching camp cannot be
accepted. More than a year has already lapsed after the order is
passed in the first writ petition. Moreover, the selection sheet is also
placed on record. The selection sheet, which is signed by SDAT Coach,
National Swimmer, Sports Director (SOBTN), Family Head (SOB) and
others records that the appellant has secured 5th overall position and
in freestyle, he is at Sl.No.3, but the overall position is at Sl.No.5 and
two candidates for male and two candidates for female are sent for the
National Coaching Camp. Even standing on the merit, as per the
selection sheet, where the timings are also recorded, the appellant
stands at overall position at No.5. In view of that also, it will not be
possible for us in a writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India to consider the case of the appellant more
particularly in the second round.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No.1049 of 2023
and WP No.13575 of 2023
In light of the above, no case for interference is made out. The
Writ Appeal and the Writ Petition are disposed of. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
(S.V.G., CJ.) (P.D.A., J.)
05.06.2023
Index : No
Neutral Citation : No
sra
To
1. The Chairperson,
Special Olympics Bharat,
J-47, Lower Ground Floor,
Lajpat Nagar-III, Delhi 110 024.
2. The Area Director,
Special Olympics Bharat Tamil Nadu,
A3-A4, Golden Fortune,
No-1, Nolambur Main Road,
Mogappair West, Chennai 600 107.
3. The Director General,
Sports Authority of India,
Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium Complex
(East Gate), Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110 003.
4. The Under Secretary,
Union of India, Ministry of Youth Affairs
and Sports, Room No.15-C,
Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi 110 001.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No.1049 of 2023
and WP No.13575 of 2023
5. The Executive Director,
Air Cmde Lalit Kumar Sharma,
Special Olympics Bharat,
J-47, Lower Ground Floor,
Lajpat Nagar-III, Delhi 110 024.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No.1049 of 2023
and WP No.13575 of 2023
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
P.D.AUDIKESAVALU, J.
(sra)
WA No.1049 of 2023 and
WP No.13575 of 2023
05.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
