IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 26199 of 2008(R)
1. SABEER M.
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY
... Respondent
2. ROSE MARY PRESILLA, SANTHOSH VILLA
3. KERALA SPORTS COUNCIL,
For Petitioner :SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH
For Respondent :PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHEER,SC,SPORTS COUN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :08/09/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
------------------
WP(C) No.26199 of 2008
Dated,-------------------------- 2009
this the 8th day of September,
-----------------------------
J U D G M E N T
The prayer sought in this writ petition is to quash Ext.P12
ranked list to the extent it places the 2nd respondent in the main list,
and the subsequent appointment order given to her in one of the
posts notified by Ext.P5 vacancy notification. The petitioner also
seeks a declaration that the 2nd respondent, who is allegedly a
resident of Karnataka State, is not entitled to get appointment to
posts earmarked under Sports Quota in the State service, and
consequential directions to appoint the petitioner is also prayed for.
2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the
petitioner was a national Cycle Polo prayer, and the 2nd respondent
was a Kabaddi player. Exts.P1 to P4 are the certificates produced by
the petitioner to substantiate his case that he was a National Cycle
Polo player. Ext.P5 is the notification issued by the 1st respondent
inviting applications from male/female sports persons for
appointment to various posts under the 1st respondent. As per the
WP(C) No.26199/2008
-2-
notification, among the various eligible categories, the sports men
who have represented the country in International Sports Meets, and
those who have secured first, second and third prizes in National
Sports Meets or National Games representing Kerala State are also
included. Note 2 provides that in the process of selection, the
priority of the candidates will be as indicated in Annexure IV to the
notification, which in turn shows, that those who have represented
India in Asian Championship are at serial No.17, while those who
have represented Kerala State and won first place have been
included at serial No.27. This evidently means that in the matter of
appointment, those who have represented India will have priority
over those who have represented the State. Annexure 1 to Ext.P5
indicates that for those applicants who have participated in the
events listed out at Sl.Nos.27 to 34 including Cycle Polo and
Kabaddi, only one post was reserved.
3. In response to Ext.P5, the petitioner and the 2nd
respondent applied for appointment and both were called for
selection process. The petitioner submits that he was selected and
was awaiting appointment. Later, he came to know that Ext.P12
WP(C) No.26199/2008
-3-
ranked list was published assigning rank No.1 to the 2nd
respondent, and thereupon, on the allegation that she is a resident
of Karnataka State, and therefore was ineligible to apply under
sports quota in the state of Kerala, the petitioner submitted Exts.P7
and P8 representations to respondents 1 & 3 respectively.
4. Further, invoking the provisions of the Right to
Information Act, the petitioner sought disclosure of the application
and other certificates, including nativity certificate, produced by the
2nd respondent along with the application submitted by her. To this,
by Ext.P9, he was informed that nativity certificate was not available,
and copies of the application form and the certificates submitted by
the 2nd respondent were furnished to the petitioner. It was
thereupon that this writ petition was filed challenging Ext.P12
ranked list and seeking the other prayers, as in the meanwhile, he
also came to know from Ext.P11newspaper report, that the 2nd
respondent was appointed in the State service.
5. Contentions raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioner are that being a resident of Karnataka State, the 2nd
respondent is ineligible for appointment in the posts reserved under
WP(C) No.26199/2008
-4-
the Sports Quota in the State, and that there was nothing to show
that the 2nd respondent had participated in District/State level
competitions, in which event alone, she could have qualified to
participate in International competitions. It is also stated that
Ext.P10 (i) certificate alone showed the participation of the 2nd
respondent in Asian Meet and that the said event was not one
organised by an International Apex Body, in which event alone, the
2nd respondent could have got eligibility, as per the terms of Ext.P5
notification. Lastly, it was contended that the 2nd respondent was
ineligible for the benefit of Ext.P13 special grant and that for that
reason also she was an ineligible candidate.
6. I heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for
the 1st respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd
respondent also.
7. The learned Government Pleader invited my attention to
the terms of Ext.P5 vacancy notification, and the application
submitted by the 2nd respondent. According to him, going by the
terms of the notification, and the facts disclosed in the application
and the documents produced, the 2nd respondent was perfectly
WP(C) No.26199/2008
-5-
eligible to apply in response to Ext.P5. The learned counsel for the
2nd respondent also made detailed reference to the certificates
produced by her to substantiate her eligibility to be a candidate in
response to Ext.P5.
8. The first contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is regarding the ineligibility of the 2nd respondent on the
basis that she is a resident of Karanata State. According to the
learned counsel, being a Kannadiga, the 2nd respondent could not
have applied for the post reserved in the State under the Sports
Quota. It is contented that all posts under Sports Quota are
reserved for residents of Kerala State alone and that since the 2nd
respondent was not a resident of Kerala State, she could not have
claimed appointment against Ext.P5 notification.
9. In my view, while assessing the eligibility of a person to
apply in response to a vacancy notification, what is relevant to be
taken into account are the terms of the notification and statutory
Rules. Apart from the contention that the 2nd respondent was
ineligible for reservation to posts earmarked under the Sports
Quota, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not placed reliance
WP(C) No.26199/2008
-6-
on any Rule or other provision of Ext.P5 notification issued by the 1st
respondent rendering the 2nd respondent ineligible, even if it is
assumed for the sake of the argument that the 2nd respondent is not
a resident of Kerala State. Therefore, nothing has been placed on
record to substantiate the contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner regarding the ineligibility of the 2nd respondent. In
addition to that, the averments in the counter affidavit filed by the
2nd respondent show that she has, on various occasions,
represented Kerala State in several sports meets. Further, in Ext.P9
application filed by the 2nd respondent her permanent address is
shown as Uppala in Kasaragod District in Kerala State. In column 8
of the application, it is stated that she belongs to Paivalike Village in
Uppala Taluk of Kasaragod District. Nothing has been placed on
record to prove that these facts are wrong. In the light of all these
facts, I am not persuaded to hold that the 2nd respondent was
ineligible to apply for the post in response to Ext.P5 notification.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to me a
judgment of this Court in Reshma v. Public Service Commission
(2008(4) KLT 301), and contended that being a resident of
WP(C) No.26199/2008
-7-
Karnataka State, the 2nd respondent could not have claimed
reservation in Kerala for appointment under the Sports Quota.
Although, as per the principle laid down in the judgment referred to
above, a person residing outside the State cannot claim the benefit
of reservation in the State, that principle can have no application in
the facts of this case. This is for the reason that in the application
that the 2nd respondent made in response to Ext.P5, she has
claimed to be a permanent resident of the State and that factual
assertion is not disproved. If that be so, the said judgment can be
of no assistance to the petitioner.
11. It was contended that nothing was produced by the 2nd
respondent to show that she had participated in District or State
Level Sports Meets to have competed in National/International
Meets. Evidently, going by the notification, if a candidate has
participated in an International Sports Meet, such a candidate is
eligible to apply. Ext.P10(i) is a certificate, which shows that the 2nd
respondent has participated in an International Sports Meet. If that
be so, Ext.P10(i) fully justifies her eligibility, and since the 1st
respondent was satisfied with the eligibility of the 2nd respondent, I
WP(C) No.26199/2008
-8-
see no reason to accept the contention now raised by the petitioner.
Further, the notification also did not require a candidate to produce
any certificate proving their participation in District/State Level
competitions to substantiate their participation in
National/International meets. If that be so, this contention of the
petitioner also cannot be accepted.
12. It was then contended that Ext.P10(i) certificate did not
show that it was organised by any International Apex Bodies. A
reading of Ext.P10(i) shows that the Asian Women Kabaddi
Championship, in which the 2nd respondent represented India and
secured first prize, was organised by Hyderabad Kabaddi
Association under the auspices of Asian Amateur Kabaddi
Federation, Amateur Kabaddi Federation of India, Sport Authority of
Andhra Pradesh, and Andhra Pradesh Olympic Association. Nothing
has been placed on record by the petitioner to prove his contention
that none of these organisations are International Apex Bodies.
13. In so far as the benefit of Ext.P13 is concerned, a reading
of Ext.P13 itself show that the benefit thereunder is available only to
the players and officials of Kerala State Associations, and not to a
WP(C) No.26199/2008
-9-
person like the 2nd respondent. If so, Ext.P13 is irrelevant.
14. On the whole, I am not persuaded to agree with the
contention of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent was ineligible to
be a candidate in response to Ext.P5 vacancy notification.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
jg