9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 2347X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ikely 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 pate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C JUDGMENT A.K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. 1. Two accomplished shuttle badminton players of the State of Kerala are before us in these proceedings challenging their exclusion from the Women's team that was selected to represent India at the 2018 Asian Games. The event is scheduled to be held at Jakarta, Indonesia, between 18th and 29th of August 2018. 2. Aggrieved by their exclusion from the team, as well as the inclusion of two other players therein, the writ petitioners preferred W.P.(C) No. 21900 of 2018 before a Single Judge of this Court. By way of interim reliefs, directions were sought 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. The said interim reliefs were refused by the learned Single Judge, by an order dated 10.07.2018, on the finding that the last date for sending the names of players for the Asian Games was 30.06.2018, and the writ petition itself was filed only on 02.07.2018. The belated approach before this c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relied upon to contend that the presence of the 5th respondent, in the selection committee that selected the 6th respondent, is vitiated on account of bias. 4. In his challenge to the order dated 10.07.2018 of the learned single judge, refusing the interim reliefs prayed for on the ground that the writ petition had been filed belatedly, the learned senior counsel would submit that the cut-off date of 30.06.2018 is not an inflexible one, and changes can be made to the team in exceptional circumstances. It is contended that the present is a case that calls for invocation of the special circumstances, since the rights of the petitioners have been infringed pursuant to a legally flawed decision of the selection committee. 5. Per contra, Sri. Nalin Kohli learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Badminton Association of India, would submit, based on the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the said respondent, that the selection of players for the Indian Women's team was done pursuant to a transparent procedure that was followed for informing all concerned of the criteria for selection. It is stated that, the criteria fixed were in sharp contrast to the practice that was followed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Poonia v. Badminton Association of India and Ors.], order dated 6.7.2018 in W.P.(C) No. 6823/2018 and C.M. Nos. 25943 25945/2018 [Varsha Gautham v. Union of India and Others], order dated 6.7.2018 in W.P.(C) No. 6943/2018 C.M. Nos. 26340 26374/2018 [Jakka Sowjanya Reddy, Through Her Attorney v. Union of India and Others], judgment dated 9.7.2018 in W.P.(C) No. 6808/2018 and C.M. No. 25887/2018 [Balaji Vijay Shankar and Another v. Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports and Ors.] and order dated 11.7.2018 in W.P.(C) No. 6943/2018 and C.M. Nos. 26340 26374/2018 [Jakka Sowjanya Reddy, Through Her Attorney v. Union of India and Others]]. 7. Sri. Kohli would also submit that the writ petition was filed beyond the last date notified for sending the names of players to the host committee in charge of holding the Asian Games in Jakarta. Reference is made to Ext. R2(h) Badminton Sport Technical Handbook, published by the Indonesia Asian Games Organizing Committee, to indicate that the deadline for submitting entries by name is June 30, 2018. He vehemently denies the suggestion that there could be changes effected in exceptional circumstances. It is pointed out that the handbook referred above ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vit filed on its behalf, informed the players of the sport, through the respective State Associations and Public Sector Undertakings, of the conduct of two national ranking tournaments purely for the purposes of selection of the Indian Team, for Men and Women, in the Singles, Doubles and Mixed Doubles events. Based on their international ranking, four players viz. P.V. Sindhu, Saina Nehwal, Ashwini Ponnappa and N. Sikki Reddy were exempted from participating in the tournaments, thereby indicating that four slots, out of ten in the women's team, had already been filled. The competition at the two selection tournaments, to be held at Bangalore and Hyderabad, was essentially for determining the remaining six players who would constitute the Indian Women's team for the Asian Games at Jakarta. The selection committee was to meet at Hyderabad on 24.05.2018 for identifying the said six players. 11. At the selection tournaments, the writ petitioners emerged the winners in the doubles event at Bangalore and semi-finalists in the doubles event at Hyderabad. Respondents 6 and 7, who are both singles players, also fared reasonably well in the singles event, with the 6th respondent reac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Supra) no doubt mandates that fairness in any selection process would require that persons, who are likely to influence the decision of the other members of the committee, should not be constituents in a committee before which their close relatives may appear as candidates, we are of the view that, in a case such as the present, where the selection is to the national team, the Chief National Coach has to be seen as a necessary and indispensable constituent of the committee. This is because his knowledge and assessment of the skill of a player, as a Chief National Coach, based on his close supervision of their performance at national ranking tournaments, is unique, and the inputs that he provides cannot be expected from any other member of the selection committee. He is also the one who will closely associate with the players, and assess the competition that can be expected at the international events. His opinion, as to whether the need of the hour is for additional singles players or doubles players is, therefore, crucial and cannot be ignored. In the absence of any material to doubt the integrity of the 5th respondent, we are of the view that it would be unfair, if not unreason ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. 17. On a perusal of the decisions in Alchemist Limited (Supra), Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu and Ors. - [(1994) 4 SCC 711], Union of India and Ors. v. Adani Exports Limited Anr. - [(2002) 1 SCC 567], Kusum Ingots Alloys Limited v. Union of India and Another - [(2004) 6 SCC 254] and the Full Bench decisions of this court in Nakul Deo Singh v. Deputy Commandant - [1999 (3) KLT 629] and Dental Council of India (DCI) v. Dr. V. Viswanath and Ors. - [2018 (3) KHC 143 (FB)], we are inclined to agree with Sri. Kohli that, no part of the cause of action, in the instant case, arose within the territorial limits of this court. It is important to note that there is a distinction between a right of action and a cause of action ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
