Rfn GD Wanbuddien Syngkli vs State Of Meghalaya & Ors.

H.S. Thangkhiew, J

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the action of the respondents No. 3 & 4 in not allowing the writ petitioner who is a Boxer of some standing, to participate in the selection trials and other boxing events to represent the State.

Mr. S.Thapa, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being an Army Boxer and having obtained the requisite NOC and permission, had approached the respondents No. 3 & 4 for consideration and for trial to allow him to be considered for selection to represent the State of Meghalaya which was however denied. It is further submitted that on the said denial, no reasons were afforded to the writ petitioner. He therefore, prays that appropriate directions be issued in this regard and for the respondents No. 3 & 4 to clarify as to the manner in which aspiring athletes, in this case boxing, are considered for selections.

Ms. P.Bhattacharjee, learned counsel who is representing the answering respondents No. 3 & 4, has not denied that the petitioner is a Boxer of some standing and that he had participated in the Annual Boxing Championships organised by the Meghalaya Boxing Association. However, she submits that it is not correct that the writ petitioner had offered himself for selection before the respondents No. 3 & 4. To substantiate this point, learned counsel has taken this Court to certain annexures showing the names of athletes from different Clubs who had applied for the selection. She further also submits that the writ petitioner is a qualified Coach and as such, in any event where he has been engaged as such, he will not be eligible to put himself up for selection. While closing her arguments, the learned counsel has also submitted that the selection for which the writ petitioner claims to have not been permitted to take part in, did not culminate in the sending of any athletes for the boxing event i.e. the 5th Elite Men’s National Boxing Championships, 2021 and the same was cancelled due to Covid.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, what appears to be in contention is only the matter regarding the denial of permission to the petitioner to take part in the selection process, though the same has been denied by the learned counsel for the respondents who has again reiterated her submissions that the petitioner had never approached the respondents No. 3 & 4.

Taking these circumstances into consideration, and in the interest of justice and the sporting community, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction that the respondents No. 3 & 4, in any future events where selection trials are held to represent the State, shall call for open trials, wherein interested candidates shall fill requisite forms and also indicate whether they are a Coach in that event or not. Needless to add, the candidates or athletes who apply for selection should be eligible in all respects as per the requirement of the discipline. Rejection or acceptance after the trials should be furnished or communicated to the candidates in the form of a written format.

With the above directions, writ petition stands disposed of.