IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2011 / 15TH ASHADHA 1933 WA.No. 2268 of 2009 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.26199/2008 Dated 08/09/2009 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: --------------------------- SABEER M., AGED 29 YEARS,S/O.MYTHEENKANNU,MYTHEEN MANZIL, T.C.8/1746/1,LAKSHMI NAGAR,THIRUMALA P.O., THIRUMALA VILLAGE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU SRI.JAGAN GEORGE SRI.K.A.NOUSHAD SRI.P.G.PRAMOD RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL ADMINISTRATION, (SERVICES),THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ROSE MARY PRESILLA, SANTHOSH VILLA,BOLWAR P.O., PUTTUR,MANGALORE. 3. KERALA SPORTS COUNCIL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,REP.BY ITS SECRETARY. R1 BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. BENNY GERVACIS. R2 BY ADV. SRI. C.A. CHACKO R3 BY ADV. SRI. PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHEER,SC,SPORTS COUNCIL THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A. No. 2268 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT Ramachandra Menon, J. The challenge is against the judgment dated 08.09.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby interference was declined with regard to the prayer sought for, to place the writ petitioner in the rank list for appointment under Sports Quota, in place of the selection and placement given to the 2nd respondent. 2. The case put forth by the petitioner is in three fold. Firstly, it is contended that the 2nd respondent does not belong to State of Kerala, she being a 'Karnatakite' and hence not entitled to be considered for appointment under sports quota in the State pursuant to Ext.P5 notification. The second one is that, as per the prescribed norms, the 2nd respondent does not satisfy the specific requirements so as to have reckoned her candidature, in preference to the writ petitioner and hence the selection and placement given to the 2nd respondent is wrong. It is further W.A. No. 2268 of 2009 -:2:- contended that the 2nd respondent has consciously given a wrong address, as if she belongs to the State of Kerala and in the said circumstance, she should not have been considered by the State for giving public employment in view of the settled position of law by way of binding judicial precedents deprecating the stand of such aspirants in this regard. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the the learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent and the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State. 4. It is relevant to note that the appointment is under a particular Scheme evolved by the State to give employment to outstanding sportsmen/women. The Scheme was the result of a policy decision. The State issued G.O.(P) No.361/85/GAD dated 22.08.1985 prescribing the relevant norms in this regard. As per the norms fixed by the Government, the following persons are eligible for appointment under the Scheme as given in Annexure I: “(i) Those who have represented the Country in W.A. No. 2268 of 2009 -:3:- International Competition viz., Olympics, Asian Games, Common Wealth Games. (ii) Those who have represented the State in national Meets and won places. (iii) Those who have represented the University in All India University Games (Inter-zonal) and won first place. (iv) Those who have won first place in State Championships.” 5. The appellant is a 'National Cycle Polo player', while the 2nd respondent is stated as having proficiency in 'Kabaddi'. The averments and allegations raised in the writ petition have been sought to be rebutted by filing detailed counter affidavits by respondents 1 & 2, while the 3rd respondent has filed it in the Writ Appeal, producing copies of the relevant documents, pointing out that, it has no role. 6. With reference to Ext.P10(i), it is brought to the notice of this Court that the 2nd respondent had participated in the First Asian Women Kabaddi Championship organised by the Hyderabad Kabaddi Association under the auspices of Asian Amateur Kabaddi Federation, Amateur Kabaddi Federation of India, Sports Authority of Andhra Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh W.A. No. 2268 of 2009 -:4:- Olympic Association which was held between 08.07.2005 and 10.07.2005. The learned Government Pleader submits that the said event is very much an international event, though only three countries participated in the said Asian Championship which was being held for the first time. 7. Clause 2(3) of Ext.P5 notification indicating the selection procedure reads as follows: “2.3 Approved World Competition means the competition organized by the International Apex Bodies of the discipline concerned and in which the national teams are sponsored by the National Apex Bodies and cleared by the Sports Authority of India/Government of India.” Obviously, the 2nd respondent satisfied the norms and had participated in the international event, which was the First Asian Games of its type and came out successful, having won the first prize on behalf of the Nation. It was in the said circumstance, that the 2nd respondent was considered and she was given placement at Sl.No.17, whereas the writ petitioner got placement only at Sl.No.27 by virtue of her representing the State. 8. With regard to the nativity, it is stated that W.A. No. 2268 of 2009 -:5:- nowhere in Ext.P5, has it been notified that selection will stand confined only to the 'Keralites'. The factual position in this regard is further reiterated in paragraphs 8 and 11 of the counter affidavit filed by the State which read as follows: “8. It is respectfully submitted that in the Ext.P5 notification Government have not mentioned that the sports persons belonging to Kerala only will apply for getting appointment under Sports Quota. Therefore there is no question of verifying the address of the 2nd respondent who has given an address in the Kasargod district. xx xx xx xx xx 11. It is humbly submitted that the 2nd respondent belong to Kasargod district and she had represented India and Kerala in sports events. She maybe studied in Bangalore or her parents are now settled in Karnataka. Government have thoroughly scrutinized her application in terms of Ext.P5 notification before giving appointment to her.” 9. The learned counsel for the appellant fairly concedes that no 'specific stipulation' is there in Ext.P5 notification whereby such exercise is confined to the persons belonging to the State of Kerala, however contending that the practice was something else. In the said circumstance, we W.A. No. 2268 of 2009 -:6:- thought it fit to call for the relevant Government Order bearing Number G.O.(P) No.361/85/GAD dated 22.08.1985, a copy of which has been placed for consideration by the learned Government Pleader. 10. On going through the above Government Order, we find that the selection for the appointment of outstanding sportsmen/sportswomen is not stipulated as confined to the candidates belonging to the State of Kerala; but for the necessity to have proven the merit and mettle by participating in the events as mentioned hereinbefore (as given in Annexure 1). There is a specific case for the 2nd respondent that after the marriage she is residing in Kasargod District which is the home district of the husband of the 2nd respondent and that she has been representing the State as well as the Kasargod district right from the year 2001. No material has been produced before this Court to rebut the said averment, referring to the permanent address at Kasargod, as given in Ext.P9. In any view of the matter, since it is brought to the notice of this Court that there is no stipulation anywhere in Ext.P5 or in the relevant Scheme for W.A. No. 2268 of 2009 -:7:- appointing the outstanding sportsmen/sportswomen that the person should belong to the State of Kerala, it is not necessary to probe into, the 'nativity' of the 2nd respondent in this regard. In the above facts and circumstances, we find that the finding and reasoning given by the learned Single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition is perfectly in order. No interference is warranted and the Writ Appeal is dismissed accordingly. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice. P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge. ttb