9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 437 - HC - Indian LawsSelection process of sports persons for appointment by the Government of India - grievance of the Petitioner is that there cannot be any justifiable reason for not considering his candidature as he fulfills all the parameters - Respondents draws the attention of this Court to the fact that the Petitioner stood at 27th Rank in the 'Mid Field' category. For the three posts in 'Half Line/Mid Field' category, 19 candidates were called for the Personal Interview. Since the Petitioner's Rank was 27, he was not called for the Personal Interview - HELD THAT - On a careful consideration of the respective contentions, this Court comes to an irresistible conclusion that the Petitioner is not entitled to seek the relief as claimed by him in the present Writ Petition. Further, the shortlisted candidates viz., Karanbir Singh (Sl.No.41) -1st Place in Junior Nationals, 2018, Center Half, was awarded the total marks of 55.5 (46 9.5). Similarly, Harmanjit Singh (Sl.No.42) - 1st Place in Junior Nationals, Center Half, was awarded the total marks of 51.5 (42 9.5). Likewise, Akshay Hooda (Sl.No.43), 3rd Place in Junior Nationals, 2015, Center Half, secured the total marks of 51 (42 9). At the risk of repetition, this Court points out that the Petitioner was awarded a total mark of 34.5 (28 6.5) by the Selection Committee, based on the documents furnished by him. In fact, he stood 27th Rank in the 'Mid Field' category. Looking at from any angle, the observations of the Tribunal in negativing the Writ Petitioner/Applicant's relief as sought for in the Original application and the consequent direction issued to the Respondents to inform him of the process adopted for shortlisting including the norms and criteria under which the suitability of the candidate was assessed, based on which, he could not be included in the shortlist of the selected candidates, are without any legal flaw.
Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to the Central Administrative Tribunal's order declining employment under the Sports Quota. 2. Allegations of arbitrary and biased selection process. 3. Petitioner's qualifications and sports achievements. 4. Compliance with the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) guidelines for recruitment. 5. Petitioner's claim of right to employment and equal protection under the law. 6. Validity of the selection process and marks allocation. Detailed Analysis: 1. Challenge to the Central Administrative Tribunal's Order: The Petitioner challenged the order dated 30.07.2018 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, which declined to direct the Respondents to provide employment in the rank of Tax Assistant/Multitasking Staff in the Income Tax Department, Tamil Nadu Region, based on the Memorandum dated 04.07.2018. 2. Allegations of Arbitrary and Biased Selection Process: The Tribunal observed that the Petitioner did not make any allegations against the selection committee of personal bias, malafide intentions, or arbitrary selection procedures. The Tribunal directed the Respondents to inform the Petitioner of the process adopted for shortlisting, including the norms and criteria under which the suitability of the candidate was assessed. 3. Petitioner's Qualifications and Sports Achievements: The Petitioner, a B.A History Graduate and a hockey player, represented the Income Tax Department and various tournaments from 2010 to 2016. He belongs to the Hindu - Telugu Chetty Community, recognized as a Backward Class. He received certificates from the Hockey Unit of Tamil Nadu and the University of Madras for employment under the Central/State Governments. 4. Compliance with the DoPT Guidelines: The Respondents contended that the recruitment process consisted of Certificate Verification, Field Trials, and a Personality Test. The DoPT guidelines for recruiting meritorious sports persons do not bestow any 'Right of Employment' to freelance players. The selection was based on the merits of the applicants, strictly adhering to the DoPT O.M.No.14037/01/2013-Estt(D) dated 03.10.2013. 5. Petitioner's Claim of Right to Employment and Equal Protection Under the Law: The Petitioner argued that the denial of his candidature violated his 'Right to Employment' and 'Equal Protection of Law' guaranteed under the Constitution of India. He claimed that selected candidates did not belong to the Chennai/Pondicherry Region and had not represented the Income Tax Department in hockey matches. 6. Validity of the Selection Process and Marks Allocation: The Respondents detailed the selection process, including the allocation of marks for sports achievements, field trials, and interviews. The Petitioner was awarded 28 marks for sports achievements and 6.5 marks in Field Trials, totaling 34.5 marks. He stood at 27th Rank in the 'Mid Field' category, and thus, was not called for the Personal Interview. The selected candidates scored higher marks based on their achievements and performance in field trials. Conclusion: The Court concluded that the Petitioner was not entitled to the relief claimed. The selection process was found to be compliant with the established guidelines, and the Petitioner's grievances were not substantiated. Consequently, the Writ Petition was dismissed, affirming the Tribunal's order, with no order as to costs.
|
