l, \*4: >-2 .?{ t1 $- :t 35 ir 'T- IN THE HIGH COURT. OF DELHI A'I NEW DELI{I w.P.(c) s0s4t20L0 & cM AppL 9939t20r0 SHUMEL ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Bhaveslr Kumar Shanna, Advocate versus UMON OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: IW. B.V. Niren, Advocate for UOI. Mr. Anil Grover with Ms. Nooprr Singhal, Advocate for R-2. W.P.(C) s04012010 & CM APPL No. 994512010 KAMLESH ..... Petitioner Through: N{r. Bhavesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. B.V. Niren, Advocate for UOI. N,ft. Anil Grover with Ms. Noopur Singhal, Advocate for R-2. And W.P.(C) s04ll20r0 & CM APPL No. 994612010 SONIKA ..... Petitioner Through: (name not furnished) VETSUS UNICN OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. B.V. Niren, Advocate for UOI. Mr. Anil Grover with Ms. Noopur Singhal, Advocate for R-2. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR. ORDER % 02.08.2010 1. These are three petitions by three women wrestlers who are aggrieved by l ;, 37 l- W.P. (Civ!l) Nos. 5034/2070, 5040/70, 5047/70 Page 7 of 6 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 1*-tj -t -!i 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 Charnpionship 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 Shumel 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 7ft and 8il'August20l0. 3. On instructions, Mr. Niren, learned counsel appearing for the Union of India ('UOI') informs the Court that Shumel did not qualitr in the top 10 \r/omen wrestlers of 48 kg category in the National Championship 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 fou persons are selected and {orn 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 interference by this Cotrrt in the selection criteria set down by the concerned national sports -r-! W.P. (Civil) Nos. 5034/2070, 5040/70, 5041/70 Page 2 of 6 b ./ -11: federation. If the Petitioner has not been able to qualifu in the top 10 vr.restlers in tire 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 2010 Karnlesh paAicipated in the camp of 55 kg category between January and October 2009. The facts €ue rnore or less similar to that of Shumel. Kamlesh too did not qualify in the top 10 women w'restlers in the 55 kg category in the national championship and, therefore, she did not qualifii for the next level of selection trials. 6. l'or the reasons explained hereinabove as regards W.P. (Civii) No. 5040 of 2010 by Shumel, this Court is not able to hold the action of the Respondents in excluding Kamlesh from the next level of selection trials to be arbitrary'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, learneci counsel for the UOI that acting on her representation about her exclusion from the training camp for the CWG 2070, the Government of India in the Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports set up a Committee which met on 5ft January 2010. The coaching'camp attendance records of the Petitioner were summoned from the National Instihrte of Sports (MS), Patiala. The Petitioner was found to have attended the camp from l" January 2009 to 3l't January 2009. She was on tour to the USA with effect fi'orn l't February t-? W.P. (Civil) Nos.5o34/2070, 5040/70, 5047/70 Page 3 of 6 1 2009 to 13e Februaq, 2009. She was on leave from t4h Febmary 2009 to 28ft Febm ary 2009. She did not attend the camp thereafter. She was called by the Committee for hearing on 1 lft January 2010 at 11.00 am. When asked rvhy she had not attended the coaching camp, the Petitioner explained that she had suffered injury during a tournament in the USA in February 2009. ' She produced rnedical certificates and c.laimed that she was not fit to join the *-/ camp. *+ 8. In view of her past performance where she had won a silver medal, the Comrnittee recomlnended that the Petitioler should be given a chance and allowed to join the camp from 18ft to 30ft January 2010. Another Comrnittee was constituted to monitor the Petitioner's performance at the camp and submit its recommendations. firr 9. It appears that the said Comrnittee conducted open selection trials-curn- assessment test among the 72 kgweight category on 10e and llfr February 20i0 at NIS, Patiala to evaluate the perfonnance of the Petitioner "tbr continuity as a core probable for CWG 2010." The Cornmittee conducted the actual bouts through trained referee/judges. The result was that the Petitioner iost on points basis in the first and second round to Ms. Gursharan Preet Kaur and again she lost her bout on points basis to Ms. Babita. Conseqirently, the Cornmittee concluded that campers were better in performance than the Petitioner (Sonika), and as such her inclusicn in the camp was not feasible. 10. In para 10 of the writ petition the Petitioner states as rurder: W.P. (Ci,til) Nos. 5034/2070, 5040/70, 5047/70 Pag" A ol e r a _ . "10. That on 28th January 2010 ifr. Petitioner joined the Coaching Camp NIS Patiala. The Chief Coach went to USA with Women Team. The performance was taken in Patiala NIS Carnp of the Petitioner with trvo wrestlers. One Wrestler was of 10 kg. more weight than the P-etitioner. One another wrestler reftised to give her performance with the Petitioner and flrereafter the wrestling coach directed to the Petitioner to release (slc 'leave') the camp without giving any reason and. cause, reason best known to them. Thereafter, the Petitioner came to Delhi and personally met with the authorities, and told them about the abovesaid incident, but to no result. It is pertinent to mention here that the Committee/Chief Coach did not cover with any movie (slc) proceeding to the perfonnance trial of the Petitioner." I 1. Learned counsel for the Petitioner vehemently argued that she was never earlier informed 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.72 kg in the selection trials-crun-assessment test held on 1Otl' & 1le Febmary 2010. He rnaintained that this was only a'performance' trial. According to him, one of the wrestlers was 10 kg more 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 1Oft and 1lft 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 under Article 226 of the Constitution. W.P. (Civil) Nos. 5034/2070, s040/70, s047/70 i>\, Page 5 of 6 1 t *J 13. Considering that the best possible candidate has to be selected to represent India in the CWG 2010 in the 72kg category, the rnethodology adopted by the Respondents by holding a coaching camp, followed by a national championship and conducting selection hials for the top women wrestlers in such championship, to ultirnately choose one, cannot be held to be arbitrary or unreasonable. Consistent with tbe 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 various sports events. How the relative rnerits of the different candidates should be evaluated is not a matter for this Court to decide. That is best left to the experts iU a particular field of sport. Irrespective of what may have been the past performance of a sportsperson, the current consistent fonn of such sportsperson shoulo' be critical in such decision rnaking given the objective of ensuring that the best perfonning candidate should represent India at the CWG 2010. On an overall conspectns of lvhat has transpired, this Court is not able to conclude that the exclusion of tlre Petitioner from the selection trials for the 72 kg class wotnen's wresting for the CWG 2010 which is to take place on 7tr' and 8th Augrrst 2010 is either albinary or unreasonable. 14. For the above reasons, the three writ petitions and all the pending applications are disrnissed. 15. Order dasti. \/ ;.' AUGUST O2,2OIO rk W.P. (civil) Nos.5034/2070, 5040/10, s047/70 S. MURALIDHAR, J Page 6 of 6