IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 8TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 17TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 26199 of 2008(R) -------------------------- 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. MR. BABU KARUKAPADATH MS. M.A.VAHEEDA BABU MR. JAGAN GEORGE MR. K.A.NOUSHAD MR. P.G.PRAMOD 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, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY ADV. MR. PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHEER,SC FOR R3 MR. C.A.CHACKO FOR R2 MR. C.V.BIMAL ROY FOR R2 MR. DILIP MOHAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO. 26199/2008 : 2 : APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER IN NATIONAL CYCLE POLO CHAMPIONSHIP 2004- 2005. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER AS CAPTAIN IN NATIONAL CYCLE POLO CHAMPIONSHIP 2004-2005. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER IN THE FIRST FEDERATION CUP CYCLE POLO CHAMPIONSHIP 2004-2005. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER IN THE STATE CYCLE POLO CHAMPIONSHIP 2004- 2005. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 04.02.2006 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11.01.2007 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 18.04.2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17.05.2008 OF THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER FORWARDING THE DETAILS OF THE APPLICATION OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. W.P.(C) NO. 26199/2008 : 3 : EXT.P10(a): TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OBTAINED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P10(b): TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OBTAINED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P10(c): TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OBTAINED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P10(d): TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OBTAINED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P10(e): TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OBTAINED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P10(f): TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OBTAINED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P10(g): TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OBTAINED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P10(h): TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OBTAINED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P10(i): TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OBTAINED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF THE NEWSPAPER REPORT DATED 27.08.2008 IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY. EXT.P12: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 28.01.2008. W.P.(C) NO. 26199/2008 : 4 : RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- EXT. R2(a) SERIES: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATES OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.R2(b): TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF THE RESPONDENT OF FIRST PRIZE IN 1ST ASIAN WOMAN KABIDI CHAMPIONSHIP EXT.R2(c): TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION LETTER ISSUED BY AMATURE KABIDI FEDERATION OF INDIA TO THE PETITIONER. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------ WP(C) No.26199 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated, this the 8th day of September, 2009 ----------------------------- 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