1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1039 of 2009 Mohammed Arif Shaikh Ayub Petitioner Versus The Government of India. And others. Respondents with WRIT PETITION NO. 2667 OF 2009 Suresh s/o. Pralhad Pawar Petitioner Versus The Government of India and others. Respondent. ------ Mr.H.D. Deshmukh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Alok Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General for respondent No.1 Mr. A.P. Bhandari, Advocate for respondent No.2 Mr. A.S. Shelke, Advocate for respondent No.2. ---- CORAM : D.B. BHOSALE R.M. BORDE,JJ.. DATE : 23rd February, 2011. PER COURT : 1] Heard learned counsel for the parties. Since, in both the writ 2 petitions, selection of respondent No.3 by respondent No.2, as LPG distributor, is under challenge, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2] The selection of respondent No.3 (Smt. Madhuri w/o. Vishal Kadam) in both the writ petitions as LPG Distributor, from the category of outstanding sports person, has been challenged on the ground that respondent No.3 does not fall in this category inasmuch as the certificate of National Championship, relied upon by her, is not issued by the Secretary of the National Sports Federation. 3] The petitioner claims to be a Power Lifting Champion. So far as his eligibility certificate is concerned, it is not in dispute. The petitioner, however, has challenged the certificate, on which respondent No.3 has relied upon to claim that she is an Outstanding Sports Person, mainly on the ground that the said certificate issued by the Department of Youth Affairs and Sports, Government of India, is not issued by the Secretary of the National Sports Federation as contemplated by Resolution dated 30/4/2005, issued by the Government of Maharashtra. 4] We have perused the certificates relied upon by respondent No.3 in support of her claim and more particularly, the certificate issued by the Department of Youth Affairs and Sports, Government of India. This certificate clearly shows that respondent No.3 secured first place in Gymnastics ( Team Championship ). Similarly, there are several other certificates issued by different authorities showing that respondent No.3 is a sports person. The aforesaid certificate has been issued by the Executive Director, Sports Authority of India. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that this certificate cannot be relied upon to treat her as outstanding sports person/National Champion since it was not issued by the Secretary of the Sports Authority of India, as contemplated by 3 Govt. Resolution dated 30/4/2005. 6] We have perused the Govt. Resolution dated 30/4/2005. It was issued by the State Government for the purposes of keeping reservations for the sports persons in its employment. In our opinion, this resolution cannot be relied upon, to contend that the aforesaid certificate issued by the Department of Youth Affairs & Sports, Government of India, is not in conformity with the terms and conditions/guidelines mentioned in the application form (Exhibit R-6). The eligibility criteria for outstanding sports persons, in so far as the petitioner and respondent No.3 are concerned, is that the applicant should be National Champion under the recognized National Championship. From the certificates produced by the petitioner and respondent No.3, we are satisfied, they both, fall in the category of outstanding sports persons. 7] We have also perused the affidavit filed by the respondent No. 2, wherein, in para.5 thereof, it is stated as to why they have selected respondent No.3 as against the petitioner. Having regard thereto, we are satisfied that the concerned authority while evaluating the comparative merit of two sports persons, i.e. petitioner and respondent No.3, found the case of respondent No.3 to be more meritorious than the case of the petitioner. We do not find any reason to interfere with the decision taken by the concerned authority, for the reasons stated by them in their affidavit in reply dated 24.2.2009. Moreover, there are no allegations of malafides made by the petitioner while selecting respondent No.3, apart from the fact, we do not find any illegality in her selection. 8] In the circumstances, the writ petitions fail and dismissed as such. [R.M. BORDE,J] [D.B. BHOSALE, J] grt/wp