- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1557/2009 Gunwantrao Vijay Salunke. ...Petitioner.. Versus The State of Maharashtra & two others. ...Respondents... ..... Shri M.S. Deshmukh, Advocate for petitioner. Shri V.D. Godbharle, AGP for respondent nos.1 & 2. Shri S.V. Natu, Advocate for respondent no.3. ..... CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR & S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATE: 04.02.2010 - 2 - PER COURT: 1] Heard counsel for the parties. 2] By this petition, the petitioner prays for direction against the respondent no.3 to recommend his name by executing appropriate form and affidavit in relation to certificate awarded in favour of the petitioner on 3.5.2006 and further direct the respondent no.2 to issue order of appointment as Fitter Instructor in favour of the petitioner pursuant to his selection against that post, which was reserved for sports category. 3] The petitioner had placed reliance on certificate issued by the respondent no.3 dated 3.5.2006, which mentions that he has participated in the 10th Capt.S.J. Ezekiel Memorial Maharashtra State Shooting Championship (Novice) conducted by Mumbai City District Rifle Association held on 1.5.2006 to 7.5.2006 and obtained result in relation to Open Sight Standard Rifle 3 Pos securing 311 / 600 score and third position. Besides, it mentions that the petitioner was awarded bronze medal. This certificate was sent for verification to the respondent no.3 – association, who in turn responded in the following words: “We are in receipt of your application dated 06.01.2009 regarding recommendation by State Associations – for jobs to Meritorious sportspersons for employment in group C/D services under the State - 3 - Government. On scrutiny of your application, copy of certificates and our record, we find that: [1] You have participated in the Open Sight Standard Rifle 3 Position (M) event in the 10th Capt.SJ.Ezekiel Memorial Maharashtra State Shooting Championship (Novice). [2] You have achieved 311/600. As per our norms (please refer circular of 10th Capt.SJ.Ezekiel Memorial Maharashtra State Shooting Championship (Novice) para 11] you were entitled for only participation certificate, as your score is less than the Minimum Qualifying score required for winning a medal. (Minimum score required to win a medal in your event is 425/600 whereas you have achieved only 311/600). [3] We have inadvertently issued a certificate which incorrectly mentions you as a Bronze medalist of 10th Capt.SJ.Ezekiel Memorial Maharashtra State Shooting Championship (Novice) in Open Sight Standard Rifle 3 Position. We regret the error on our part. We regret that due to the above cited reasons we are unable to recommend your case to the Department of Sports, Govt. of Maharashtra. You are requested to return the original of the above mentioned certificate to the MRA.” 4] Essentially, two contentions have been raised before us. Firstly, that the certificate clearly mentions that the petitioner had participated in the event referred - 4 - to therein and secured 311 out of 600 points. According to the petitioner, as per the scheme, the petitioner was rightly awarded bronze medal having secured third position, as mentioned in the certificate. Emphasis was placed on the scheme reproduced in document (Exh.F) at page 43, relevant portion whereof reads thus: “ Eligibility for Participation in the 10 th Capt.SJEMMSC: A shooter who has not previously shot the scores shown in the chart `A’ - on page 3 – (Please note the new scores) in any National level Competition conducted by NRAI including All India G.V. Mavlankar Shooting Championship, Maharashtra State Shooting Championship and Capt.S.J.Ezekiel Memorial Maharashtra Shooting Championship and has not won any medals at the State Championship – MSSC or National Championship – NSCC in that event, is eligible to participate in the above mentioned competition in that event. A shooter who has shot any peep sight rifle events at the MSCC / NSCC cannot shoot open sight rifle events.” 5] On plain language of the above said clause, in our opinion, the same relates to eligibility for participation in the 10th Capt.SJEMMSC event. The fact that the petitioner was allowed to participate in the said event does not necessarily mean that he has secured any medal. As per the scheme, the petitioner would have become qualified to secure medal only on scoring the minimum 425 points out of 600 points, which is the norm specified in the scheme, in particular Chart A - 5 - thereof. Admittedly, the petitioner secured only 311 points, for which he did not qualify for the medal. That is the position stated in the communication sent by the respondent no.3 dated 5.2.2009. Further, the eligibility to get employment in the sports category as per the criteria specified in the resolution dated 30.4.2005 (Exh.C) is that the incumbent should have participated either individually or as member of team in the State level tournament and secured medal or first, second or third position. In other words, unless the petitioner was to secure medal or first, second or third position, the question of the petitioner being eligible for appointment under sports category did not arise. As clarified by the respondent no.3 in the communication dated 5.2.2009, the petitioner was only allowed to participate in the event and did not qualify either to get position or medal having secured only 311 points and not the qualifying 425 points. If it is so, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief, as has been sought in this petition. To get over this position, it was then contended that the certificate dated 3.5.2006 was issued by the Organizing Committee under the signatures of the President, Treasurer and Organizing Secretary. As such this certificate can not be nullified by the opinion of the Assistant Secretary as noted in his communication dated 5.2.2009. The argument clearly overlooks the fact that the opinion of the Assistant Secretary is founded on the scheme, which is appended to the petition at Exhibit F at page 43. As aforesaid, unless the petitioner was to secure 425 out of 600 points, the petitioner would not qualify either to get position or any medal, much less bronze medal. The fact that the petitioner secured only 311 points out of 600 points is not in dispute before us. If it is so, the opinion noted - 6 - in the communication dated 5.2.2009 is un-exceptional. 6] Taking any view of the matter, the petition is devoid of merits and hence the same is dismissed. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner submits that the interim protection given to the petitioner be continued for a period of four weeks to enable the petitioner to carry the matter in appeal, if so advised. We see no reason to reject this limited relief. It is accordingly ordered that the interim arrangement shall continue for a period of four weeks from today. It is made clear that request for extension of this arrangement shall not be entertained on any count hereafter. (S.S. Shinde, J.) (A.M. Khanwilkar, J.) ndk/c42107