2018 (7) TMI 2347 - HC - Indian Laws

Exclusion from the Women's team for the 2018 Asian Games - Interim reliefs and timing of the writ petition - Selection criteria and alleged bias in the selection process - Territorial jurisdiction of the court - seeking directions to the Badminton Association of India to refrain from sending the select list of players to the Indian Olympic Association, as also to restrain the said respondents from permitting the two included players - arrayed as the 6th and 7th respondents in the writ petition - to participate in the Asian Games. HELD THAT - It can be seen from the composition of the committee that the Chief National Coach is an important constituent thereof, for he is the person most suited to speak on the inter-se merit among players who equally merit inclusion in the national team. Equally important is his choice of the event for which players must be included. As a national coach, his assessment of the ground realities that are likely to be faced in the upcoming international event has to be given due weightage. He is, in other words, an indispensable constituent of the selection committee. We make this observation because we are faced with a challenge to the composition of the selection committee in the instant case, on account of the fact that the 6th respondent, who was chosen for inclusion in the women's team, happens to be the daughter of the Chief National Coach. Whether, in the absence of bias, the decision of the selection committee can be said to be vitiated on any other ground. In this connection it must be noted that the selection procedure that was followed was a fair and transparent one. The players aspiring for inclusion in the national team were informed of the basis on which they would be awarded points, and the tournaments in which they had to participate in order to earn those points. That having been done, the decision as to whether the last two slots in the team had to be filled by two singles players or a doubles pair has to be seen as one that was within the discretion of the selection committee. We are of the view that, in the absence of any material to suggest mala fides or patent illegality, we must defer to the wisdom of the selection committee, the expert body in these matters, for they are better suited to take decisions on the relative merit of players, more so in national interest. It is pointed out, the exclusion of the petitioners from the Indian team happened at the meeting of the selection committee in Bangalore and hence, only the High Court of Karnataka would have the jurisdiction to adjudicate this case. Per Contra, Sri. Bechu Kurien Thomas would contend that the applications for participation at the selection tournaments, which was the criteria for seeking selection to the Indian team, had to be routed through the respective State Badminton Associations and hence, insofar as the applications of the petitioners' were routed through the 3rd respondent, located in Kozhikode, a part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court. It is clear that the challenge to the exclusion from the national team depends, for its success, on the establishment by the petitioners', of factors that would vitiate the decision of the selection committee. Territorial jurisdiction of the court The deliberation of the selection committee having been at Bangalore, we would think that the High Court at Karnataka would be more suited to adjudicate upon this issue. We cannot accept the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners' that, merely because the applications for participation at the selection tournaments were routed through an authority in Kerala, the said fact would clothe this court with territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate this matter. The routing of the applications, or even the participation in the selection tournaments at Bangalore and Hyderabad, were not required to be proved for establishing the right claimed by the petitioners' viz. a right to preferential selection from among players, all of who were found equally eligible, after their participation at the selection tournaments. In the result, we find no reason to interfere with the decision of the selection committee, impugned in these proceedings. Consequently, we dismiss the Writ Petition and the Writ Appeals.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Exclusion from the Women's team for the 2018 Asian Games.
2. Interim reliefs and timing of the writ petition.
3. Selection criteria and alleged bias in the selection process.
4. Territorial jurisdiction of the court.

Summary:

1. Exclusion from the Women's team for the 2018 Asian Games:
Two accomplished shuttle badminton players from Kerala challenged their exclusion from the Women's team selected to represent India at the 2018 Asian Games. They contended that their performance in the selection tournaments was superior to that of the included players, respondents 6 and 7, and alleged bias due to the involvement of the Chief National Coach, who is the father of the 6th respondent.

2. Interim reliefs and timing of the writ petition:
The writ petitioners sought interim reliefs to prevent the Badminton Association of India from sending the select list of players to the Indian Olympic Association and to restrain respondents 6 and 7 from participating in the Asian Games. The Single Judge refused the interim reliefs on the ground that the writ petition was filed belatedly, after the cut-off date of 30.06.2018. The petitioners then filed W.A. Nos. 1410 and 1411 of 2018, which were brought before this court for final decision.

3. Selection criteria and alleged bias in the selection process:
The petitioners argued that the selection committee's decision to prefer two additional singles players over a doubles pair was influenced by bias, as the 6th respondent is the daughter of the Chief National Coach. The court, however, found that the selection procedure was transparent and based on objective criteria. The Chief National Coach was deemed an indispensable constituent of the selection committee due to his expertise and close supervision of the players. The court upheld the decision of the selection committee, finding no material to suggest bias or mala fides.

4. Territorial jurisdiction of the court:
The respondent argued that the High Court of Karnataka had the territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter, as the selection committee met in Bangalore. The court agreed, stating that the cause of action arose in Bangalore, and the mere routing of applications through an authority in Kerala did not confer jurisdiction on this court.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition and the writ appeals, finding no reason to interfere with the decision of the selection committee. The court expressed sympathy for the petitioners but emphasized the need for them to move on and take defeat in their stride.