Partly allowed

Miss. Prajakta Sanjay Sawant v. Pullela Gopichand Chief National Coach Badminton Association of India and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC3 Nov 2014WP/2829/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenging selection bias and conflict of interest due to Chief National Coach's private academy participation. Court declined judicial intervention on selection ethics, directing Ministry of Sports to decide, but granted employment direction to Maharashtra Government.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's selection grievance referred to Ministry of Sports; Petitioner granted leave to add State of Maharashtra as respondent and directed to consider her employment application within one month

Miss. Prajakta Sanjay Sawant Vs Pullela Gopichand… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

1 of 9 WP(L).2541.2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION (L) NO.2541 OF 2014

¶4

Miss Prajakta Sanjay Sawant Petitioner versus Pullela Gopichand and others Respondents

¶5

Mr.Piyush Shah for Petitioner.

¶6

Mr.Nimay Dave, Mr.Ayaz Bilawala and Ms.Neha Bhatt i/by Bilawala & Co. for Respondent no.4.

¶7

Mr.Rajiv Chavan with Mr.Jagjit Rehel, Ms.Rutuja Ambekar and Mr.Ajay Patil for Respondent nos.2 and 3.

¶8

CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. AND B.P.COLABAWALLA, J.

¶9

DATE : 3 November 2014

¶10

PC :

¶11

In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Petitioner has prayed for a direction to the Respondent no.4 Badminton Association of India and Respondent no.1 Pullela Gopichand, Chief National Coach, Badminton Association of India, to allow the Petitioner to play all the future women doubles as well as mixed doubles events tournaments at national as well as in international level at their expenses. The Petitioner has also alleged bias on the part of Respondent no.1 in selection of players for the Indian Badminton Team participating in the international tournaments and conflict of interest on the ground that Respondent no.1 owns and runs a private badminton academy.

¶12

2 of 9 WP(L).2541.2014

¶13

The writ petitioner had also filed Writ Petition No.2690 of 2012. The Petitioner is a badminton player who had following achievements to her credit, as mentioned in order dated 18 March 2013 of this Court in Writ Petition No.2690 of 2012 viz. :

¶14

“The Petitioner is an International Badminton Player and representing India since last 8 years continuously in sub-junior, junior and senior level in singles, doubles and mixed doubles events. Petitioner won 7 international medals for the country in various events which include Gold medal in Sub Junior Asian Badminton Championships in 2007, Bronze Medal in World Junior Badminton Championships in 2008, Bronze medal in Junior Asian Badminton Championships in 2009, Bronze medal in India Grand Prix Gold in 2010, Silver medal in Bulgarian Open 2011 and Gold Medal in Swiss Open International 2011 in the month of October 2011. Petitioner has represented India in Senior, Junior and Sub Junior Asian Badminton Championships for 7 years continuously, Senior and Junior World Championships for last 3 years. Senior Asian games and Sudhirman Cup Thomas & Uber Cup etc. Petitioner's name is also published in the Limca Book of Records 2010 for being the first ever Indian Girl in history of India Badminton to win a Gold Medal in the Sub Junior Asian Badminton Championships. The Petitioner was also a National Champion at Senior level in women doubles and Mixed doubles for the year 2010, 2011 events and was National Champion at Junior level and Sub Junior levels in singles, doubles and mixed doubles in previous years.”

¶15

In the year 2012, the Petitioner filed the above numbered petition making certain grievances and the common thread running through the grievances being that she is not being treated fairly by the

¶16

3 of 9 WP(L).2541.2014

¶17

Respondents. Allegations were made that Respondent no.1 was acting in a biased manner i.e. bias in favour of the players who were taking training at the private academy owned and run by Respondent no.1.

¶18

Having regard to the nature of grievances, we had tried to persuade the parties to amicably resolve the issues and the Petitioner agreed to withdraw the allegations against Respondent no.1 as well as Respondent no.4 Association. Since Respondent no.1, while denying the allegations made against him, stated on 18 March 2013 that in order to avoid any controversy, the Respondent no.1 will opt out of the Selection Committee when the Petitioner's case will be considered at the meetings of Selection Committee to be held up to 31 December 2013. The petition was accordingly disposed of after making the following observations :

¶19

“4. When the sports bodies in the country do not enjoy as much confidence of the people in the country as they should, whatever the Respondents may feel about the statement made by the Petitioner in the memo of petition, the very fact that the Petitioner had some grievances to nurse is very unfortunate. After all, the Petitioner with excellent credentials and achievements to her credit is a young girl of the tender age of 17 years. Coaches and officials much older in age could certainly look at the issues in terms of wider and more mature perspective. Anyway, it is hoped and expected that all parties will not look at the past and will look forward to the future in the interest of the game and also in the interest of the players.”

¶20

4 of 9 WP(L).2541.2014

¶21

The Petitioner has filed the present petition on 17 September 2014 making a grievance against Respondent nos.1 and 4 regarding her non selection for Uber Cup at the selection committee meeting held on 6 April 2014 when the Respondent no.1 participated as a member of the Selection Committee. The principle contention of the Petitioner in this petition is that the Respondent no.4 ought not to have allowed participation of Respondent no.1 as a member of the selection committee having regard to the fact that Respondent no.1 himself owns and runs a private badminton coaching academy and players trained in his academy get selected. Therefore, there will be conflict of interest when he also acts as not only the Chief National Coach but also as a member of Selection Committee.

¶22

Affidavit-in-reply has been filed on behalf of Respondent no.2 Sports Authority of India as also on behalf of Respondent no.4 Badminton Association of India.

¶23

The stand of Respondent no.2 Sports Authority of India, which supervises the functioning of Respondent no.4 Badminton Association of India, is that selection of players has been done solely by National Sports Federation, which is Respondent no.4 in the present case, and it is their prerogative. It is also stated that besides the National Coach, there are other members also in the Selection Committee of the National Sports Federation and as the selection is made on the basis of performance and other relevant factors declared well before the selection, it is not possible for one or two committee members to adopt discriminatory tactics against any player and select players in a biased manner.

¶24

5 of 9 WP(L).2541.2014

¶25

A detailed affidavit has been filed by the General Secretary of Respondent no.4 Association contending broadly as under.

¶26

The Selection Committee consists of senior expert players who were former national or international players and some of them were also Chief National Coach. Some of them have been Arjuna and Padmashri Awardees. It is stated that Respondent no.1 who is the Chief National Coach, is also an All England Champion and an awardee of Arjuna Puraskar, Rajiv Gandhi Khel Ratna Puraskar, Dronacharya Puraskar and was conferred Padmashree and Padma Bhushan. It is also stated that till January-2014, the Government of India used to send observers to observe the Selection Committee meeting of Respondent no.4 and such observers were also former international players. It is further stated that role of the “Chief National Coach” is to appraise the Selection Committee about the fitness and performance of the players while the ultimate decision is taken by Selection Committee. In the circumstances, it is necessary to have the Chief National Coach as a member of the Selection Committee and it is also a mandatory requirement as per Government guidelines. The affidavit further states that the following selection criteria is followed for selection of senior national players by the Selection Committee :

¶27

(i) World ranking as on date of selection;

¶28

(ii) Performance of players in domestic and international tournaments during last six months;

¶29

6 of 9 WP(L).2541.2014

¶30

(iii) Head to head result of the players in the last six months;

¶31

(iv) Fitness of the players over last six months;

¶32

(v) Report of Coaches of training camps and competitions.

¶33

As regards Petitioner's contention about conflict of interest in respect of the Chief National Coach, who also owns and runs a private academy and also functions as a member of Selection Committee, the defence of Respondent no.4 Association is that all along there were coaches amongst the national panel of coaches for badminton who were also running their private coaching schemes and academies, and a list of such coaches running private badminton academies and list of other coaches in respect of other sports, is enlisted in paragraph 15 of the affidavit. Respondent no.4 has also relied upon an e-mail communication from Mr.Prakash Padukone, former executive president of Respondent no.4 to Respondent no.1, which reads as under :

¶34

“Dear Krishnan,

¶35

We spoke on the above subject and I request you to kindly publish the following clarification.

¶36

`Even though ethically it would seem incorrect that the national coach also run a private academy, in reality things are different in our country. All former national coaches have been attached to either private academies or SAI centres. Even in my case when I was the Executive President of BAI for 2 years in the late nineties, my Academy was training National players. Hence Gopi's case is also no different.

¶37

7 of 9 WP(L).2541.2014

¶38

Gopi has shown good result in the past 5 years. If he is asked to step down Indian Badminton is likely to suffer. The solution lies in having a strong and pro active selection committee at the national level which will rule out issues like the present one and not in asking him to make a choice.”

¶39

The Respondent no.4 has also placed on record a statement (ExhibitO) indicating that apart from the badminton players taking training at the academy of Respondent no.4, the players who have taken training in other academies have also been selected for different tournaments.

¶40

After taking the above defence, it is also stated in the affidavit of Respondent no.4 that the Petitioner cannot get along with her doubles partners and that is why the Petitioner is having problems for which Respondent no.1 or Respondent no.4 cannot be held responsible. It is also stated in the reply affidavit of Respondent no.4 that the Petitioner and her father have been making allegations against officials of Respondent no.4 Association without any justification.

¶41

Learned counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon orders passed by this Court in Notice of Motion (L) No.4362 of 2013 in support of Petitioner's contention that subtlewere adopted to see that the Petitioner's doubles partners drop out just before the tournament, which causes serious prejudice to the Petitioner's plans for participating in tournaments. It is further submitted that there is no real answer to the Petitioner's contention about conflict of interest arising on account of Respondent no.1 owning and running a private badminton academy, being allowed to be a member of the Selection Committee.

¶42

8 of 9 WP(L).2541.2014

¶43

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties who have argued on the basis of their respective pleadings, we note that as stated by Mr.Prakash Padukone in his communication dated 12 December 2012, the ethical issue about conflict of interest is likely to arise where a person owning and running a private academy is not only appointed as a national coach and also allowed to function as a member of selection committee. But the learned counsel for Respondent no.4 would submit that the members of selection committee are bound to be those persons who are well versed in the concerned sport and that it has been the practice all along that the national coaches who are also member of selection committee are attached to their private academies or SAI centre. It is further submitted that post of Chief National Coach is a honorary post and, therefore, such person is bound to have his own private self employment or institution. It is further submitted that Respondent no.1 alone is not the only member of selection committee but there are six other members.

¶44

However, having regard to the complexity of the issue involved and the consequences and considering the issues being canvassed by the Petitioner, we are of the view that having regard to the limits on the jurisdiction of this Court as a writ Court, it would be in the fitness of things if this issue is considered by the Ministry of Sports. In any case, we hope that whenever there are any issues such as the present one, the authorities would take necessary steps including counselling of the players against any grievance of injustice being done to them.

¶45

WP(L).2541.2014

¶46

We dispose of this petition with a hope that good sense prevails amongst all concerned.

¶47

It also appears that the Petitioner has applied for employment with Government of Maharashtra in the sports quota. The application was made in the year 2011 on the basis of Government Order dated 21 May 2011 and the Petitioner was also informed on 30 September 2011 that her application was received and was being examined. It appears that Petitioner's case was also recommended by Mr.Vinod Tawade, the then Leader of Opposition by letter dated 28 August 2012. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner, however, has not received any order of appointment.

¶48

In view of the above, leave is granted to the Petitioner to add State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Ministry of Sports, Government of Maharashtra, as Respondent no.5. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. We direct Respondent no.5 to consider the Petitioner's application for employment on Grade-A post in accordance with the Government Order dated 21 May 2011. The same shall be considered as expeditiously as possible and preferably within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶49

(CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶50

(B.P.COLABAWALLA, J.)

¶51

MST

Miss. Prajakta Sanjay Sawant v. Pullela Gopichand Chief National Coach Badminton Association of India and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Miss. Prajakta Sanjay Sawant v. Pullela Gopichand Chief National Coach Badminton Association of India and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nainesh Suresh Dolas Vs the Controller of Rationing and Vicil Supply and Ors.

National Peroxide Ltd.and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mr. Pravin Murari Uttarkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Netra Ajit Vijayakar and Anr. Vs Shankar Gajanan Velkar

Rogers Francis Nunes Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Dept and Ors.

Rahul Chintamani Gajanan Velkar Vs Chintamani Gajanan Velkar