AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Amit Rawal, J
Petitioner is an athlete and a bonafide full time student in Bachelor of Physical Education (BPEd) of School of Physical Education and Sports Sciences under the University of Kannur. Secondary Education was completed in the year 2014 and did his Bachelor of Arts and graduated in the year 2017. All India Inter University Athletic competition was participated by the petitioner, resulted into accolades including the prize.
The factum that the petitioner is a full time student of BPEd is evidenced from the certificate dated 7.9.2021, Ext.P1. He is below the age of 25 years as on 1st July of the academic year 2020-21 as evidenced from Ext.P2. Respondent No.1, Association of Indian Universities (Sports Board) had come out with eligibility rules for participation of students/athletes in National University Games, 2017-18 onwards, which was under challenge in this Court vide various writ petitions. This Court vide judgment dated 16.12.2019, Ext.P5 quashed the aforementioned conditions and held that splitting up the 8 years period prescribed under Rule 4 of the Revised Eligibility Rules of the Association of Indian Universities has no nexus sought to be achieved, and therefore classification could not stand the twin test of reasonableness and direction was issued to permit the students to participate for a period of 8 years between the age of 17 and 25 years.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent contended that a communication, pursuant to the direction of this Court contained in Ext.P5 had been sent to all Universities. Despite that certain universities are not permitting the students, resulting into perpetual filing of the writ petitions like W.P.(C) No.6882 of 2021, Ext.P6 whereby by way of interim order, direction has been issued to participate Sepak Takraw competitions for the year 2020-21 provisionally.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Kannur University submitted that in the absence of any communication from the first respondent the objection has been raised in compliance of the regulations Ext.P4 dated 28.7.2017.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book. It is a classic case where both the contesting respondents have indulged in blaming each other without noticing the fact that the regulation Ext.P4 has only to be struck down being not in compliance of doctrine of reasonable classification much less any nexus to be achieved. Once there is already direction to a candidate, who is below the age of 25 years, ie., 17 and 25 can be permitted to participate and he is a graduate in 2017 itself, almost 8 years have gone cannot be barred from participating in the sports/athletic competition for 2020-21.
In view of such lack of communication between respondent No.1 and 2, this Court cannot be flooded with spate of writ petitions as it came to the knowledge of this Court that the other writ petition is already pending. I thus allow the writ petition by issuing directions to the respondent No.2 to permit the petitioner to participate in the forthcoming athletic competition 2020-21, as he fulfills the eligibility in terms of the directions given by this Court. It is made clear that the Respondent No.1 would flash the message or alleged communication be sent to all the Universities on their website and also e-mail to all the Universities. The aforementioned compliance would be enough for all the Universities to permit such type of similarly situated students in participating in any of the sports competition, if they are found to be eligible as per the direction of this Court, Ext.P5. This direction has been issued for inuring benefit to all similarly situated persons in order to avoid multifariousness of the litigation. The writ petition is allowed.