State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Halke

S.N.,"Name

   of

Department","Name of

ServiceÂ","Minimum

age limit","Upper

age

limit Â","Education/

Qualification

prescribedÂ

1,2,3,4,5,6

Â,"Sports and

Youth

WelfareÂ","1. Sports

OfficerÂ",21,35,"Graduate with

M.P. Ed./M.P.E.

and

Representation in

National Games

or recognized

Senior National

Championship.â€​

Â,Â,"2. Â Youth

Welfare

Officer",Â,Â,

Â,Â,"3.   Â

District Sports &

Youth Welfare

OfficerÂ",Â,Â,

Â,Â,"4. Assistant

DirectorÂ",Â,Â,

be normally examined by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction. It is also argued that a person who consciously takes part in the process of selection,,,,,

cannot turn around and question method of selection.,,,,,

On the other hand, learned counsel for the writ petitioners relied upon the Supreme Court judgment reported as (2014) 14 SCC 50 (Renu and others",,,,,

v. District and Sessions Judges, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi and another) to contend that an advertisement for the purposes of recruitment should be",,,,,

clear in respect of qualification and another eligibility criteria so that the candidates are aware of the requirements for the posts. The learned counsel,,,,,

for the writ petitioners also relied upon a Division Bench judgment of Rajasthan High Court in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.642/2016 (Dashrath Lal,,,,,

Meena vs. Ganesh Narayan Mali and others) decided on 25.11.2016 whereby, the question as to what is meant by National Level Tournament is",,,,,

explained.,,,,,

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and find that the order of the learned Single Bench cannot be sustained in law.Â,,,,,

The argument that the writ petitioners are estopped to challenge the selection process is not tenable. The writ petitioners are not challenging any of,,,,,

the eligibility qualifications advertised in the advertisement dated 07.02.2017. The challenge is as to whether the decision of the respondents that the,,,,,

writ petitioners have not participated in National Level Tournament is sustainable in law. The doctrine of estoppel will not be applicable to examine,,,,,

such question as the question of eligibility is required to be determined in terms of the conditions of the advertisement itself. Therefore, the principle of",,,,,

estoppel will not bar the writ petitioners to challenge their disqualification for the reason that petitioners are not participant in the National Level,,,,,

Tournaments.,,,,,

The learned Single Bench relied upon the note appended to the Circular dated 20.11.2006, but, such Circular is limited to appointment of Sports",,,,,

Instructors on contract basis on a fixed monthly salary. After the said Circular was issued, the statutory Rules have been amended prescribing the",,,,,

representation in the National Level Games or recognized Senior National Championship has been introduced.Â,,,,,

Admittedly, what are the National Games or recognized Senior National Championship, has not been defined under the statutory Rules nor any",,,,,

other instructions have been issued supplementing the Statutory Rules. Though the learned counsel for the State has relied upon 2006 Rules notified on,,,,,

28.10.2006, but, such Rules have a limited application for providing financial help, stipend and honorarium to certain category of Sports person.",,,,,

Though, in the absence of any other definition, such Rules may provide reasonable yardstick, but, we find it difficult that the State can rely upon such",,,,,

Rules in the absence of any clause in the advertisement that representation in the National Level Games etc. shall be determined in terms of such,,,,,

Rules. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the State that 2006 Rules are anyway relevant to",,,,,

determine the question raised.Â,,,,,

However, the fact remains that the writ petitioners have participated in the Inter University Competitions or the Zonal Inter University Competition",,,,,

or the West Zone Inter University Competitions.,,,,,

The Inter University Competitions are not the National Level Games at the National Level. Some of the certificates like Annexure P-6 produced by,,,,,

the writ petitioners show that petitioner â€" Divya Darshan Sharma has participated in West Zone University Competition whereas petitioner -,,,,,

Upendra Pandey has participated in Inter Zone University Competition. One certificate of petitioner - Upendra Pandey does show that he participated,,,,,

in All India Inter University Competition. Similarly, petitionerKunwarraj has also produced certificate which shows that he has participated in All India",,,,,

Inter University Competition.,,,,,

The participation in the Zonal or the Inter University Competition cannot be treated to be a representation in the National Level Games or the,,,,,

recognized Senior National Championship. The All India Inter University Championship is open to only University students, therefore, it cannot be",,,,,

treated to be a National Games or recognized Senior National Championship. A candidate qualified in Inter University Competition may further,,,,,

participate in National Games but mere participation in Inter University Competition will not make his representation in the National Games.,,,,,

Still further, as to whether a candidate satisfies the eligibility criteria is for the experts to decide. In Dr. K. Sivasubramaniyan’s case (supra),",,,,,

the Court held as under:-,,,,,

“18. The contention of the respondent No.1 that the short-listing of the candidates was done by few professors bypassing the Director and the,,,,,

Chairman does not appear to be correct. From perusal of the documents available on record it appears that short-listing of the candidates was done by,,,,,

the Director in consultation with the Chairman and also senior Professors. Further it appears that the Committee constituted for the purpose of,,,,,

selection consists of eminent Scientists, Professor of Economic Studies and Planning and other members. The integrity of these members of the",,,,,

Committee has not been doubted by the respondent-writ petitioner. It is well settled that the decision of the Academic Authorities about the suitability,,,,,

of a candidate to be appointed as Associate Professor in a research institute cannot normally be examined by the High Court under its writ jurisdiction.,,,,,

Having regard to the fact that the candidates so selected possessed all requisite qualifications and experience and, therefore, their appointment cannot",,,,,

be questioned on the ground of lack of qualification and experience. The High Court ought not to have interfered with the decision of the Institute in,,,,,

appointing respondent Nos.2 to 4 on the post of Associate Professor.â€​,,,,,

A Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.223/2017 (Shani Kumar Bhatt vs. The State of M.P. and another) decided on 06.12.2017 held as,,,,,

under:-,,,,,

“19. Bachelor’s Engineering degree in Information Technology is not qualification of Computer. Both are separate degree and courses are also,,,,,

different and the degree is also given separately. Notification/advertisement published by the MPPSC, U.P. for the post of Assistant Conservator of",,,,,

Forest Examination, 2013 cannot be applicable in the State of Madhya Pradesh because publication of notification for the post of Assistant",,,,,

Conservator of Forest Examination 2013 by the PSC in U.P. is based as per their rules for the post in question.,,,,,

Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has also placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Sohrab Khan vs. Aligarh Muslim,,,,,

University & others reported in 2009(4) SCC 555.,,,,,

It is well settled that in the field of education, a Court of law cannot act as an expert. Normally, therefore, whether or not a candidate possesses",,,,,

requisite qualifications, should better be left to the expert committee. Learned Writ Court in our opinion has therefore, rightly dismissed the writ",,,,,

petition.â€​,,,,,

Some search from the internet shows that the National Games of India comprises various disciplines in which sportsmen from different states of,,,,,

India participate against each other. The earliest National Game was held in 1924 at Lahore then called as Olympic Games. The National Games are,,,,,

organized on the lines of Olympic. The first National Games were held in 1985 in New Delhi and are held at the interval of three years. The 35th,,,,,

National Game was held in the year 2015 in Thiruvananthapuram whereas 36th National Games are proposed to be held in the month of,,,,,

November, 2018 in Goa. A Single Bench of Delhi High Court in a judgment reported as 2017 SCC OnLine Del 9744 (Arpit Singhmar v. University of",,,,,

Delhi) while considering the case of Sportsperson wherein, the candidate has participated in All India Junior Badminton Tournament and All India",,,,,

Junior Ranking Badminton Tournament, the candidature of the petitioner for admission in the sports quota for M.Com (Hons) course was rejected for",,,,,

the reason that his certificates do not fulfill the criteria which was necessary for admission to Postgraduate course. The criteria for admission was as,,,,,

under:-,,,,,

“Position and Participation in Individual Event/Team Event/s in  Senior/Junior National/National Games/Federation Cup/ Championship/,,,,,

Other Tournaments at the National Level recognized by IOA, Subject to the candidates secured I, II, III position in Inter College tournament(s).â€​",,,,,

 In view of the certificates obtained by the writ petitioners in the said case and the conditions for admission, it was held that the “Certificate",,,,,

Marking Criteriaâ€​ are the certificates which are issued by Indian Olympic Association or the 2 junior level championships i.e. Inter State - Inter,,,,,

Zonal & Junior National Badminton Championship or Sub Junior National Badminton Championship. Therefore, the writ petition for admission against",,,,,

the sports quota was dismissed.Â,,,,,

On the other hand, the judgment of Rajasthan High Court referred to by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners has no applicability to the facts",,,,,

of the present case as the qualification advertised was Bachelor of Physical Education or certificate or diploma in Physical Education (recognized by,,,,,

the National Council for Teacher Education). Still further, the Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Service Rules, 1971 has ScheduleII which",,,,,

contemplates award of marks on the basis of certificate of participation and position gained in Sports Competition. Such Schedule describes what is,,,,,

District Level, State Level, National Level and International Level tournaments. The said judgment would not be applicable to the facts of the present",,,,,

case as there is no statutory Rule or Instructions supplementing the Rules as to what is meant by representation in the National Games or recognized,,,,,

Senior National Championship. In the absence of any definition in the statute, the test to be applied is as to what is understood by a common citizen of",,,,,

the expression- representations in the National Games or recognized Senior National Championship. Such expression can never include the Inter,,,,,

University Competitions as they are not representative tournaments at the National Level where that sports person irrespective of any condition as to,,,,,

be a student of University or otherwise is able to participate. Such Inter University sports event are meant only for the Student of the University which,,,,,

are not open to all sports persons of the country. Such tournaments are not same as the National Level tournaments.Â,,,,,

The candidature of the petitioners has been rejected by the Public Service Commission presumably on the basis of opinion of experts. Generally,,,,,

speaking such decision of the experts cannot be interfered with in the writ petition as in exercise of power of judicial review, this Court does not sit as",,,,,

a court of appeal but only examines the decision making process. The decision making process cannot be said to be wanting in any manner except that,,,,,

the reasons for rejection have not been communicated.,,,,,

Therefore, while setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Bench and allowing the present appeals we direct the respondents to",,,,,

communicate reasons as to why the writ petitioners are not eligible for appointment to the post of District Sports Officer.,,,,,

The writ appeals stand disposed of in the above terms.,,,,,