4j 1 $- * 35 + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI w.P.(c) s034120r0 & cM APPL 993912010 SI-IUMEL Througtr: Mr. Bhavesh Kumar t#*:ffiocate UNION OF I]..IDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: I\ft. B.V. Niren, Advocate for UOI. Mr. Anil Grover with Ms. Noopui Singhal, Advocate for R-2. 36 + W.P.(C) s0402010 & CM APPL No. 9945120t0 KAN{LESH Ttuoiigtr: Mr. Bhavesh Kumar ttrJt*iffiiocate UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ...i R.rpondeuts Tlrrough: Mr. B.V. Niren, Advocate for UOI. Mr. Arril Grover with Ms. Noopur Singhal, Advocate for R-2. W.P.(C) s041/2010 & CM APPL No. 994612010 SONIKA Truongrr: (name not furnished) "" Petitioner vgrsr"ls UMON OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Tiuough: Mr. B.V. l.{iren, Advocate for UOI. Mr. r\nil Grcver with Ms. Noopur Singhal, Advocate rcr R-2. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURAI,ID}{AR ORDER % 02.08.2010 1. These ale three petitions b5, tlree wornen wrestlers who arc aggr;eved b1, I W.P. (civil) N os. 5074/2Oi0, 5040/70, 5041 /70 Page 7 of6 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified t_,, the non-inclusion of their names in the selection trials for India's participation in the Commonwealth Games 2010 ('CWG 2010') in different categories i.e. 48 kg, 55 kg and T2kgcompetitive events. 2. The Petitioner in W.P. (Civil) No. 4034 of 2010, Shumel, attended the CWG 2010 coaching camp between January 2009 and October 2009 in the 48 kg category. She states that she was injured during the camp and therefore could not give her best performance at the National Championship f which was held in October 2009 at the conclusion of the camp. Consequently, she did not qualifu for the next level of selection trials. It is urged that Shurnel has since been practicing in private and is confident of being selected, if given a chance to participate in the selection which trial is to be held on 7tl'and 8tl'August20IO. 3. On instrtrctions, Mr. Niren, learned counsel appearing for the Union of India ('UOI') informs the Court that Shurnel did not qualify in the top 10 wotnen wrestlers of 48 kg category in the National Charnpionship which was held in October 2009 and, therefore, she could not be sent up to the next level of selection trials. It is pointed out that in each category four persons are selected and frorn among these four, one will be selected to represent India in the CWG 2010. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that in matters of selecting the best possible candidate to represent India in an international competitive event, there cannot be any interftrence by this Court in the selection criteria set down by the concerned national sports W.P. (Civil) Nos.5034/2070, s040/70, S04t/70 Page 2 of 6 6 federation. If the Petitioner has not been able to qualify in the top 10 wrestlers in the national championship held at the conclusion of a ten months long coaching camp and on that basis was excluded from participation in the next level of selection trials, that action cannot be held to be either arbitrary or unreasonable warranting interference by this Court. 5. The Petitioner in W.P. (C) 5040 of 2070 Karnlesh participated in the camp - 'l of 55 kg category between January and October 2009. The facts are tnore or less sirnilar to that of Shumel. Kamlesh too did not qualify in the top 10 wolnen wrestlers in the 55 kg category in the national charnpionship and, therefdre, she did not qualify for the next le'rel of selection trials. 6. For the reasons explained hereinabove as regards W.P. (Civil) No. 5040 of 2010 by Shntnel, this Court is not able to hold the action of the Respondents in excluding Kamlesh from the next level of selection trials to -'a be arbifiary or unreasonable. 7. The Petitioner in W.P. (Civil) No. 5041 of 2010 Sonika Kaliraman Malik is in the 72 kg category. In her case, it is stated by Mr. Niren, learned counsel for the UOI that acting on her representation about her exclusion from the training camp forthe CWG 2010, the Government of India in the Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports set up a Committee which met on 5tl' January 2010. The coaching carnp attendance records of the Petitioner were summoned frorn the National Institute of Sports (lttrIs), Patiala. The Petitioner was fonnd to have attended the carnp frorn 1" January 2009 to 3l't January 2009. She was on tonr to the USA with effect fiorn 1" February W.P. (Civil)Nos. 5034/2070, 5040/70, 5041/70 L t Page 3 of 6 wr 1 ? 20Qg to I3u' February 2009. She was on leave from 14h Febnrary 2009 to 28n'February 2009. She did not attend the camp tirereafter. She was called by-the Cornmittee for hearing on 1lil'January 2010 at 11.00 arn. When askeci why she irad not attended the coaching cainp, the Petitioner explained that slre lrad suffered injury during'a 'tournament in the USA in Febnrary 2009. She produced niedical certificates and claimed that she was not fit to join the camp. 8. in view of her pa-st perfbnnance where she had won a silver medal, iire Conimitteo recorrilrended that the Petitioner should be giveir a ohancd an,J allowed to join the camp from 180'to 30tl'Janua ry 2010. Another Cornmittee was constituted to monitor the Petitioner's performance at tiie canrp and ' sribrnit its recoininendations. 9. It appears tliat the said Cornrnittee conducted open selection triais-crun- assessment.test among the72 kg weight category on 10n'anci lltl'February 2A1.A at NlS, Patiala to evaluate the perforrnance of the Petitioner "for continuity as a core probable fr.rr CWG 2010." The Cornmittee ocnducted the achrai botits through tlained referee/iudges. T'he result..vas that tire Petitioner lost on.points basis in the first and second round to Ms. Gursharan Preet Kaur and again she lost her bout on poirrts basis to Ms. Babita. Consequently, the Conmittee corrciuded that campers were better in performance than the Petitioner (Sonika), and as such her inclusiol in the camp was not feasibie. 10. h para 10 rrf the writ petition the Petitioner states as rurder: W.P. (Civit) Nos. 5934/2070, 5040/70, 5047/70 page 4 o! 6 r( g \/ "10. That on 28tl' January 2010 the Petitioner joined the Coaching Camp NIS Patiala. The Chief Coach went to USA with Wornen Team. The perfonnance was taken in Patiala NIS Carnp of the Petitioirer with two wrestlers. One Wrestler was of 10 kg. lnore weight than the Petitioner. One another wrestler refused to give her performance with the Petitioner and thereafter the wrestling coach directed to the Petitioner to release (sic 'leave') the camp without giving any reason and cause, reason best known to them. Thereafter, the Petitioner carne to Delhi and personally rnet with the authorities, and told them about the abovesaid incident, but to no result. It is pertinent to mention here that the Cornrnittee/Chief Coach did not cover with any movie (sic) proceeding to the performance trial of the Petitioner." 11. Learned counsel for the Petitioner vehemently argrred that she was never earlier infonned of not being regular in her attendance at the NIS, Patiala camp. He also disputed the fact that the Petitioner lost two bouts in the same category i.e.72kg in the selection trials-culn-assessment test held on 10tl' & -r-' lltr'Febrnary 2010. He maintained that this was only a'perfonnance' ffial. According to him, one of the wrestlers was 10 kg lnore in weight than the Petitioner. He disputed that there was a second bout held. 12. This Court finds that the Petitioner is raising highly disputed questions : as regards the selection trial-cum-assessment test which took place on 10tl' and 1ltr'February 2010. The Petitioner not only disputes that there were two bouts, one of which she lost, but about the weight of one of the wrestlers to whom she lost as well. These questions obviously cannot be decided by this Court in a petition nnder Article 226 of the Constitution. W.P. (Civil) Nos. 5034/2070, 5040/70, 5041/10 Page 5 ofG r ? L1 13. Considering that the best possible candidate has to be selected to represent India in the CWG 2010 in the 72 kg category, the rnethodology adopted by the Respondents by holding a coaching camp, followed by a national championship and conducting selection trials for the top women a' wrestlers in such championship, to ultirnately choose one, cannot be held to be arbitrary or unreasonable. Consistent with the high standards of the CWG 2010, it is but essential that the candidate who qualifies by consistent performance through a rigorous procedure of selection, is picked up to represent India in the varions sports events. How the relative merits of the different candidates should be evaluated is not a matter for this Court to decide. That is best left to the experts in a particular field of sport. Irrespective of what may have been the past performance of a sportsperson, the current consistent fonn of such sportsperson should be critical in such decision rnaking given the objective of ensuring that the be'st performing candidate should represent India at the CWG 2010. On an overall conspectus of what has transpired, this Court is not able to conclude that the exclusion of the Petitioner from the selection trials for the 72 kg class women's wresting for the CWG 2010 r,vhich is to take place on 7fl' and 8th August 2010 is either arbitrary or unreasonable. 14. For the above reasons, the three applications a.re disrnissed. petitions and all the pending 15. Order dasti. S. MURALIDHAR. J AUGUST O2,2OIO rk W.P. (Civil) Nos.5034/2070, 5040/70, 5041/70 .a t writ Poge 6 of 6