Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 228 (PAT)

Shivani Bharti v. Additional Chief Secretary

2021-03-09

MADHURESH PRASAD

body2021
JUDGMENT : Madhuresh Prasad, J. The process of appointment to Group 'C' and Group 'D' posts was initiated by the State by an advertisement dated 25.6.2015. The advertisement and the process has been initiated to provide appointment to outstanding sport persons. The petitioner has applied on 16.7.2015 as the last date for receiving applications had been extended up to 15.2.2016 by a corrigendum which is enclosed as Annexure 2. 2. Appointment was to be as per the provisions contained in the Bihar Outstanding Sports Persons Appointment Rules 2014 (hereinafter referred to as "2014 Rules"). The Rules are meant to provide for appointment to outstanding sports persons who have certain qualifications specified in the Rules itself. The claim of outstanding sports persons under 2014 Rules has been prioritised based on merit. Assessment of merit is based on the participation of the applicant in games at various level from National Junior Championship up to the Olympic Games as also the position obtained in the games. The 2014 Rules provides the manner of assessment of inter se merit of the various applicants claiming to be outstanding sports person. One of the essential requirement is participation in specified competition/events and in support of this requirement candidates were required to submit certificates. Provisional merit list and merit list thereafter was required to be prepared on the basis of achievement in different competition as per the marks prescribed for the different categories of games/competitions contained in Schedule 2 of the Rules. 3. The admitted fact is that petitioner has submitted three certificates in support of her claim for being an outstanding sport person in the sport of Boxing. The certificates were issued by the Indian Amateur Boxing Federation (in short "IABD"): The first certificate certifies her participation in the in the 4th Junior Women National Boxing Championship organised by Boxing Association of Bihar from 10.11.2009 to 14.11.2009 wherein she secured second position in 57 Kg in C-14 Weight Category. The second certificate certifies her participation in the 5th Junior Women National Boxing Championship Organised by T. N. B. A, which was held at Erode between May 03 to 07, 2010, and The third certificate certifies the petitioner to have participated in the 6th Junior Women National Boxing Championship organised by Punjab Amateur Boxing Association at Patiala from 24.9.2011 to 29.9.2011 wherein she secured Bronze in 66 Kg weight category. 4. 4. The Art, Culture and Youth Department of the Government of Bihar has also honoured the petitioner for achievement in the field of sports by a certificate dated 29.8.2010 (Annexure 4) wherein she has been recognised for having brought laurels to the State. 5. Under a communication dated 21.10.2019 (Annexure 1) issued by the General Administration Department the authorities have denied candidature of the petitioner from the process of selection initiated under advertisement dated 25.06.2015. The reason for rejecting the petitioner's candidature is that the three certificates submitted by her in support of her candidature were issued by the National Amateur Boxing Federation, which had already been derecognised. 6. The specific case of the petitioner is that the certificates were issued much prior to the advertisement, in response to which the petitioner has applied. Prior to its derecognition IABF was in no manner incompetent to issue the certificates. As per petitioner's case in the writ petition, the IABF was suspended by Amateur Boxing International Body in the year 2012 only. The decision contained in the impugned memo dated 21.10.2019, not to accept certificates issued by the IABF is as a consequence of IABF's derecognition. Certificates awarded to the petitioner and submitted by her however are all issued by IABF up till 2011, even prior to its suspension, much less its derecognition. The decision of the General Administration Department not to accept certificate issued by the IABF does not take into consideration or indicate the date of its derecognition, which only could be the basis, or the cut off date after which certificates issued by it would not be considered as valid in support of a claim for being an outstanding sports. Rejection of petitioner's candidature is therefore arbitrary, without any basis and therefore illegal. 7. This Court had granted time to the State authorities on 11.9.2020 to come prepared with instruction whether the IABF was derecognised in December 2012, i.e. after certificates were issued to the instant petitioner, based on which she has offered her candidature in the process of selection. Counter affidavit has been filed. The same does not address the issue raised by the petitioner. Para 9 of the counter affidavit reads as follows:- "That from perusal of Report of Art, Culture and Youth Department, dated 13.3.2019, it was found that in past there was National Union, Indian Amateur Boxing Federation of Boxing Disciplines. Counter affidavit has been filed. The same does not address the issue raised by the petitioner. Para 9 of the counter affidavit reads as follows:- "That from perusal of Report of Art, Culture and Youth Department, dated 13.3.2019, it was found that in past there was National Union, Indian Amateur Boxing Federation of Boxing Disciplines. But the Recognition of the said Boxing Federation was cancelled by the Ministry of Youth Programme and Sports of India and International Boxing Association as well." 8. Annexure 'A', which has been enclosed in support of this averment actually does not support the same. Annexure 'A' is dated 13.3.2019 and it contains enclosure being the reports submitted by the Indian Olympic Association and Boxing Federation of India. The reports of the Indian Olympic Association and Boxing Federation of India are dated 6.2.2019 and 1.2.2019. Report of the Indian Olympic Association does not disclose the date of derecognition of the IABF, which issued the petitioner's certificates. Report of the Boxing Federation of India also does not disclose the date on which the IABF has been derecognised. The only detail in respect of IABF in the communication of the Boxing Federation of India (BFI) is that the same was suspended and later derecognised by the Government of India, Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports, Department of Sports as well as by the International Boxing Association. After derecognition of the IABF, BFI was formed and recognised by Government of India and International Boxing Association, with effect from 25th September 2016. BFI is also reported to be affiliated by the Indian Olympic Association. 9. From perusal of these two reports, it is apparent that prior to suspension of the IABF and its derecognition the IABF was the National Federation for the sport of Boxing. The relevant extract of the communication dated 1.2.2019 by the BFI is being quoted for easy reference:- "As you may peruse from the attached documents, earlier the National Federation for the Sport of Boxing was Indian Amateur Boxing Federation which was suspended and then derecognised by the Government of India (Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, Department of Sport) and the International Boxing Association (AIBA) subsequently the Boxing Federation Federation of India was formed and it got recognition from Government of India and the AIBA with effect from 25th September 2016 and has also been affiliated to the Indian Olympic Association." 10. Another communication of the Indian Olympic Association, which has been enclosed with the counter affidavit, is bearing Memo No. 10A/MOYS/96/2017/1915. The date on copy of this communication addressed to the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, which has been supplied with the counter affidavit at page 13 is illegible. This communication takes notice of the fact that the International Boxing Federation suspended IABF in February 2014 and that consequently its membership was invalid. Affiliation was granted to the BFI under letter dated 30.3.2017 and thereafter it is the only National Federation affiliated by the AIBA for the governance of Boxing in India. Even this communication records that the Indian Olympic Association is yet to have its next general body for ratification of this decision. Documentation for derecognition of IABF was still incomplete. From the contents of the letter it is apparent that the same has been issued at least after March 2017. 11. From these documents appended to the counter affidavit filed by the State it is clear that as per communication of the Indian Olympic Association, the IABF which has issued petitioner's certificates up till the year 2011, was suspended only in February 2014. Documentation/written decision or order of its derecognition however has been completed at least after March 2017. The materials placed by the State on record in the counter affidavit therefore, is at least, sufficient to conclude that the certificates issued by the IABF were valid till February 2014. Also that prior to its suspension IABF was the national federation for the sports of Boxing. This is clear from the undated correspondence of the Indian Olympic Association addressed to the Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports at page 13 of the counter affidavit, as also the communication of Boxing Federation of India dated 1.2.2019 to the Director of Student & Youth Welfare, Department of Art, Culture & Youth Affairs, Government of Bihar at page 11 of the counter affidavit. Both these documents are part of Annexure A to the counter affidavit. The counter affidavit of the State does not specify date of suspension of IABF, whereafter certificates issued by it would be invalid. 12. Both these documents are part of Annexure A to the counter affidavit. The counter affidavit of the State does not specify date of suspension of IABF, whereafter certificates issued by it would be invalid. 12. In view of above stated facts borne from the counter affidavit filed by the State, this Court would observe that there is no basis for the authorities not to consider the certificates issued by the IABF prior to February 2014, which have been submitted by the petitioner in support of her candidature. 13. The decision of the Department which has been relied upon to support rejection of petitioner's candidature, which is impugned in the instant writ proceeding, also does not consider or specify the date subsequent to which the certificates issued by IABF were invalid and unacceptable, either in view of its suspension, or dercognition. On the contrary these communications show that the IABF was the national federation for the sports of Boxing prior to the Boxing Federation of India having been formed. Also the fact that IABF was suspended in February 2014 and conclusively derecognised at least after March 2017. There is no basis to deny the three certificates issued by IABF up till 2011, which have been submitted by the petitioner. Still the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected by the authorities. 14. Such arbitrary and baseless rejection of the petitioner's candidature frustrates the very purpose of the 2014 Rules which is meant to provide for appointment of outstanding sports persons, like the petitioner. Had the certificates been issued by the IABF after February 2014 and prior to documentation of its derecognition, issue may have been different as competence of IABF to issue certificates at least after February 2014 may have been doubted. But, it is not the case here and therefore this Court would not express any conclusive finding on this point. In view of the pleadings and documents, which are on record, this much is clear that prior to February 2014, i.e. when IABF was suspended, as per respondents' stand in the counter affidavit, certificates issued by it cannot be considered as invalid. 15. Rejection of the petitioner's certificates, issued by the IABF resulting in the disqualification of her candidature, is clearly unsustainable. 15. Rejection of the petitioner's certificates, issued by the IABF resulting in the disqualification of her candidature, is clearly unsustainable. The memo dated 21.10.2019 issued by the General Administration Department, in so far as the decision to reject certificates issued by the IABF on grounds of its derecognition, without specifying the date of derecognition is quashed. Respondents are directed to consider the petitioner's candidature in the process of selection initiated under advertisement dated 25.06.2015 without raising any objection regarding validity of the three certificates submitted by her in support of her candidature issued by the IABF up till the year 2011, on the ground of IABF being derecognised; in accordance with law. 16. Having concluded so, this Court would consider it appropriate to take note of the manner in which the State has filed counter affidavit/s in the instant proceeding. The issue in the instant case is whether the certificates of IABF submitted by the petitioner in support of her candidature for appointment were acceptable or not in view of its derecognition. The date of its derecognition, however has not been brought on record. In para 7 of the counter affidavit the authorities have referred to a meeting of the selection committee dated 24.9.2019 and that in the said meeting "following decisions (emphasis mine) had been taken by the committee for recruitment of boxing discipline". Having said so the authorities have withheld the "decisions" from this Court in the counter affidavit. In para 9 of the counter affidavit it has been stated as follows:- "That from the perusal of Report of Art, Culture and Youth Department, dated 13.3.2019 it was found that in past there was National Union, Indian Amateur Boxing Federation of Boxing Discipline. But the Recognition of the said Boxing Federation was cancelled by the Ministry of Youth Programme and Sports of India and International Boxing Association as well." 17. The date of cancellation of recognition, however, of IABF has not been specified. 18. In para 13 of the counter affidavit there is reference to the final merit list under Memo no. 14325 dated 21.10.2019 (which is impugned in the instant writ petition). It is stated that as per this final merit list, the decision which has been taken by the selection committee regarding Boxing sports discipline has already been published on the departmental website. 14325 dated 21.10.2019 (which is impugned in the instant writ petition). It is stated that as per this final merit list, the decision which has been taken by the selection committee regarding Boxing sports discipline has already been published on the departmental website. The decision regarding sports discipline in the final merit list referred to in para 13 of the counter affidavit however is as follows:- 19. From the statements made in the counter affidavit it is not possible to ascertain the date of suspension or derecognition of the IABF. Clearly the authorities are clueless in this regard or they have deliberately withheld such relevant information from this Court, while filing their counter affidavit(s). 20. This Court would observe that State authorities are responsible to ensure efficacy of the justice dispensation system. Filing of such vague counter affidavit, withholding relevant and material information so as to create ambiguity rather than facilitating resolution of the dispute, has been disapproved by the Apex Court in the case of R. Vijayakumar & ors. vs. Commissioner of Excise & ors., (1994) Supp2 SCC 47 (Supplement II). 21. This Court would refrain from saying anything more. 22. The writ petition is allowed.