IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 16634 of 2007(E)
1. I.M.SHAKEER, SHAMOOR MANZIL,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. R.C.PRASANTH, 21/1674-A,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.V.BOSE
For Respondent :SRI.K.ANAND (A.201)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :16/06/2008
O R D E R
V.GIRI, J.
-------------------------
W.P.(C).No.16634 of 2007 E
-------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of June, 2008.
JUDGMENT
Pursuant to notification issued by the Government
inviting applications from sportsmen/women, who had made
achievements in sports/Games in various disciplines, the petitioner
and the 2nd respondent, both of whom are accomplished in the
discipline of cycle polo, applied. In listing out, the points to be
awarded to the applicant in terms of Ext.P1 Government
notification, it was found that equal number of points were
secured by the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. In such
circumstances, clause 2.10 of Ext.P1 provides the manner in which
the tie is to be broken. It reads as follows:
“2.10. When there is a tie in any of the
achievements listed above, the following
criteria in the priority listed will be
applied to break the tie.
(a) Individual achievements will be
ranked above team achievements.
(b) If a new record is created he/she
will be given next priority.
(c) captaincy in the higher
competition will be given the
next place.
(d) If there is still a tie, a
candidate who is senior in age on
the date of inviting application
will be given next priority.
(e) If a tie cannot be broken by any
of the above-mentioned criteria,
W.P.(C).NO.16634/07
:: 2 ::
percentage of marks in the
qualifying examination will be
the basis for breaking the tie.”
2. Accordingly, it was found that the 2nd respondent
was entitled to a preference over the petitioner on the premise
that he had been the captain of the team in the 26th Senior (men)
National Cycle Polo Championship, 2003-04. The petitioner
challenges the appointment of the 2nd respondent on the premise
that Sub-clause ) of Clause 2.10 of Ext.P1 norms have no
application and consequently, since there was a tie between the
petitioner and the 2nd respondent, in terms of Sub-clause (d), the
candidate, who is senior in age as on the date of application may
be given the next priority. The petitioner is senior to the 2nd
respondent. Therefore, the petitioner claims that he should have
been preferred to the 2nd respondent.
3. In the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent,
reference is made to the manner in which the priority points
were awarded to the petitioner and the 2nd respondent.
I.M.Shakeer (petitioner) Priority point.
(1) 5th World Bicycle Polo
Championship 2002 (Bronze) P.3(T)
(2) 24th Senior National Cycle
Polo championship 2001-02(Winner) P.27(T)
(3) 26th Senior (men) National Cycle
Polo championship 2003-04(Runner up) P.28(T)
(4) 25th Senior (men) National Cycle
Polo championship 2002-03(3rd place) P.29(C)
W.P.(C).NO.16634/07
:: 3 ::
Prasanth R.C (2nd respondent)
(1) 5th World Bicycle Polo
Championship 2002 (Bronze) P.3(T)
(2) 24th Senior National Cycle
Polo championship 2001-02(Winner) P.27(T)
(3) 26th Senior (men) National Cycle
Polo championship 2003-04(Runner up
& Captain) P.28(C)
(4) 25th Senior (men) National Cycle
Polo championship 2002-03(3rd place) P.29(T)
4. After referring to the above, it is contended that the
Government considered the captaincy of the petitioner and the
2nd respondent to break the tie. It was found that the 2nd
respondent’s captaincy merits him priority point No.28. The
petitioner’s captaincy merits priority point No.29. Accordingly,
the 2nd respondent was chosen. Reference in this regard is made
to priority points. The order of priority is listed in Ext.P10. Serial
Nos.28 and 29 read as follows:
“28. Representing Kerala State in Senior
National Championships for men/women
or National games and winning second
place.
29. Representing Kerala State in Senior
National Championships for men/women
or National games and winning third
place.”
5. It so happened that the team captained by the
petitioner in 2002-03 in the Senior National Championship in
the Cycle Polo won the third prize, whereas the same team
W.P.(C).NO.16634/07
:: 4 ::
captained by the 2nd respondent for the subsequent year 2003-
04 won the second prize. Therefore, this was a case where the
2nd respondent had captained a team in a higher competition.
The listing of priority and the awarding of marks and the method
used to break the tie between the petitioner and the 2nd
respondent has been correctly understood and applied by the 1st
respondent. I do not find any error in the stand taken by the
Government in this regard.
Writ petition is bereft of merit and the same is
dismissed.
Sd/-
(V.GIRI)
JUDGE
sk/
//true copy//