Dismissed

Santosh Dnyanoba Chavan v. The State of Maharashtra and others

Bombay HC6 May 2016WP/5730/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged denial of 5% sports quota reservation due to his federation's loss of Indian Olympic Association affiliation in 2011. Court upheld Government Resolution criteria requiring IOA recognition for certification, rejecting claims of discrimination against late applicants.

What did the court decide?

Petition stands rejected. Rule stands discharged. No relief granted to the petitioner.

Santosh Dnyanoba Chavan Vs The State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

5730.2015WP.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.5730 OF 2015

¶5

Santosh s/o. Dnynoba Chavan,
Age 31 Years, Occ.Service,
R/o. Jijamata Niwas, Sant
Tukaram Society, Vikas Nagar,
Udgir, Tal. Udgir, Dist. Latur PETITIONER

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

1] The State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary for School Education and Sports Department, Mantralaya Extension, Mumbai-32.

¶8

2] Atyapatya Federation of India, Through its Secretary, Nagpur Sharirik Shikshan Mahavidyalaya, Dr.Munje Marg., Dhantoli, Nagpur 440 012.

¶9

3] The Assistant Director, Sports and Youth Service, Maharashtra State, Pune.

¶10

4] Maharashtra Public Service Commission, Head Office 8^th Floor, Uparej Telephone Building, Maharshi Karve Road, Uparej, Mumbai – 400 021. RESPONDENTS

¶11

...

¶12

Mr.P.R.Katneshwarkar,Advocatefor
petitioner.

¶13

Mr.S.B.Yawalkar, AGP for respondent Nos.1 & 3
Respondent nos.2 and 4 served.

¶14

...

¶15

5730.2015WP.odt

¶16

¶17

CORAM: S.S.SHINDE &

¶18

SANGITRAO S.PATIL,JJ.

¶19

Reserved on : 18.04.2016
 Pronounced on : 06.05.2016

¶20

JUDGMENT: [Per S.S.Shinde, J.]:

¶21

Rule.Rulemadereturnable

¶22

forthwith, and heard finally with the consent
of the parties.

¶23

2]Heard the learned counsel appearing
for the respective parties.

¶24

3]It is the case of the petitioner

¶25

that while taking education, he constantly
practised Indian Origin Sport known as
‘Atyapatya’. The petitioner has acquired

¶26

mastery in the said sport. He also received

¶27

participation certificate for the years

¶28

2008-2009, 2010-2011, 2012-2013 at State

¶29

level and for the year 2012-2013 at National
level, and secured second place in the said

¶30

¶31

5730.2015WP.odt

¶32

sport. All these sport competitions in
respect of Atyapatya were held by Atyapatya
Federation of India which is affiliated to
All India Olympic Association. In order to
promote sports in the State of Maharashtra
and more particularly, Indian Origin Sports,

¶33

the Government of Maharashtra has taken a

¶34

policy decision to reserve 5% of posts in
jobs for sports persons by issuing Government
Resolution dated 30.04.2005. An object to be

¶35

achieved by the said policy is that the
persons who show progress in National sports
need to be taken care of, because of their

¶36

career in sports, they may not able to
concentrate on educational career, and they
may not in a position to compete with other
students who focus on educational career.

¶37

After the young age is over, the meritorious
sports person has to search for service.
This reservation would be applicable in all
offices of State of Maharashtra, Corporations

¶38

5730.2015WP.odt

¶39

¶40

and undertakings of State of Maharashtra,
Local Self Bodies and other Institutions
which would receive direct or indirect
benefits from the State Government.

¶41

4]It is further the case of the

¶42

petitioner that the candidate who seeks
reservation from the sports quota must
possess required educational qualification
besides sports qualification and for that
purpose four groups i.e. (a), (b), (c) and
(d) are made. The petitioner falls in group
(b). He has obtained second place in
Atyapatya competition. The petitioner was

¶43

representing State of Maharashtra in the said
competition. Thus, the petitioner is entitled
for appointments in all institutions and
service places as mentioned in the Government
Resolution dated 30.04.2005. The petitioner
appeared for Maharashtra Public Service
Commission Examination [Pre], 2014. The
petitionerhaspassedpreliminary

¶44

5730.2015WP.odt

¶45

¶46

examination. Thereafter, he appeared for
main examination and the petitioner got
qualified in main examination also. The
petitioner was also called for verification
of his documents. Since the petitioner
sought appointment from sports quota, he was
asked to submit the sport certificates as
contemplated under the Government Resolution.
After verification of documents, the Deputy
Director, Sports and Youth Service,
Maharashtra State, Pune issued a letter dated
17.03.2015, who is supposed to do the
verification of certificates, and the said
authority held that as per Circular dated
11.02.2011, Indian Olympic Association has
withdrawn the affiliation of Atyapatya
Federation of India, and therefore, the
petitioner did not qualify / possess
eligibility from sports quota.

¶47

5]The learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner submits that the impugned

¶48

¶49

5730.2015WP.odt

¶50

Government Resolution dated 30.12.2013 is
contrary to the policy of the Government.
The aims and object of the policy creating
sports quota is stated in the Government
Resolution dated 30.04.2005. This policy is
still intact. However, the impugned
Resolution runs contrary to this policy. The
impugned Government Resolution has no nexus
with the object which is to be achieved. The
object is to promote sports persons who in

¶51

their peak period of education career devote
to the sport, engage in sport activities and
are not in a position to compete with other

¶52

persons who focus on educational career and
so as to give protection to such sports
persons, the Government Resolution dated
30.04.2005 was issued. In the impugned
Government Resolution, there is no deviation
from the policy. In such circumstances,
depriving the petitioner on technicality that
the affiliation of Atyapatya Federation of

¶53

¶54

5730.2015WP.odt

¶55

India is withdrawn by All Indian Olympic
Associationwouldbeillegaland
discriminatory. The object which is to be
achieved by the above referred policy has to

¶56

be taken into consideration. The impugned
Government Resolution running contrary to the
object which is to be achieved by the policy

¶57

of State of Maharashtra, thus, is
unreasonable, discriminatory and violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

¶58

6]It appears that, Indian Olympic

¶59

Association has withdrawn affiliation of 31
National Federations on 11.02.2011 which
includes Atyapatya Federation of India.
This fact came to be noticed by the
Government of Maharashtra, for the first time
in February, 2013, as can be seen from para 2

¶60

of the impugned Government Resolution.
However, by this Resolution, the Government
protected the sports persons by holding them
as eligible, who had played during the period

¶61

¶62

5730.2015WP.odt

¶63

from February, 2011 to December, 2013 and on
that basis were selected for Government
Service. This protection was given on the
ground that the said sports persons were not
aware about withdrawal of affiliation. It was
resolved that the sports certificates which
were sent to the Directorate of Sports for
verification prior to 28.02.2014 only should
be presumed to have approval of Indian
Olympic Association and accordingly, it
should be verified. It was made clear that
the certificates of such sports persons sent
after 01.03.2014 would not be verified.

¶64

7]According to the learned counsel for

¶65

the petitioner, this clause is violative of
Article 14 since it creates two sections,
though identically / similarly situated qua
the sports eligibility is concerned. On this
ground also, this Government Resolution needs
to be quashed and set aside.

¶66

¶67

5730.2015WP.odt

¶68

8]It is further submitted that the

¶69

Government itself has taken the fact into

¶70

consideration that the Government as well as

¶71

the students were not aware of withdrawal of

¶72

affiliation till February, 2013. In such
circumstances, no fault can be attributed to
the sport persons. The sports persons who

¶73

were contemporary to the petitioner got
service from 5% reserved sports quota, merely
because their selection was prior in time.

¶74

This caused serious injustice to the

¶75

petitioner. It is further submitted that the
Resolution is within legislative competence

¶76

of State of Maharashtra. The State of
Maharashtra has given recognition to all the
federations including Atyapatya Federation of

¶77

India. It appears from the impugned
Government Resolution that recognition of

¶78

federation given by the State of Maharashtra
has not yet been withdrawn and therefore,

¶79

whether there is affiliation by Indian

¶80

5730.2015WP.odt

¶81

¶82

Olympic Association or not should not make

¶83

any difference as such, federation is

¶84

recognized by State of Maharashtra and the
competitions are held under the control of
federation as well as the State of
Maharashtra as well Central Government.
Thus, merely because, for any reason the

¶85

affiliation is withdrawn that does not mean
that, the petitioner is not a sports person
nor does it result that he did not compete in

¶86

nationallevelcompetitionnorthe

¶87

certificate issued in Pondicherry competition
can be said to be invalid. Thus, the action
of respondent is unreasonable and unjust.

¶88

9]In pursuance of the notices issued
to the respondents. Respondent nos.1 and 3

¶89

have filed affidavit in reply. Relying upon
the said affidavit in reply, the learned AGP

¶90

appearing for the respondent - State
submitted that the contention of the
petitioner that the Government of Maharashtra

¶91

5730.2015WP.odt

¶92

¶93

has issued Resolution dated 30.12.2013

¶94

whereby the eligibility of the candidates who
play Atya Patya after 11.02.2011 is taken
away and benefits given under the Government
Resolution dated 30.04.2005 are withdrawn, is
not correct. In pursuance to the said
Government Resolution, the services of other
candidates, who were selected by the
different selection process have been
protected and their certificates have been
held to be valid upto 31st December, 2013
only. It is submitted that the provisions in
the Government Resolution dated 30.12.2013

¶95

cannot be made applicable to the case of the
petitioner on the grounds, (a) His sports
certificate was invalidated on 06.02.2015.

¶96

(b) His sports certificate was not received
upto 28th February, 2014 for re-verification.

¶97

(c) His sports certificate was received for
verification by respondent no.4 vide letter
dated 26.12.2014 and as per the provisions in

¶98

5730.2015WP.odt

¶99

¶100

the Government Resolution dated 30.12.2013
clause 2 (b) his application was treated as
fresh application and as per Government
Resolution dated 30.04.2005, the condition
to have recognition of Indian Olympic
Association was applicable to the petitioner.

¶101

10]Though the petitioner claimed that
he acquired mastery in the sports [Atya
Patya]. However, he has not produced any
documentary evidence to prove that he has
acquired mastery in the said sports. It is
submitted that the Indian Olympic Association
has amended its Constitution with effect from

¶102

12.02.2011 in the Annual General Assembly
held on 12.02.2011. The Indian Olympic
Association has de-recognized the National

¶103

Sports Federations, which includes the Atya
Patya Federation of India, vide letter dated
11.07.2011. It is submitted that as the 27th

¶104

Men and 23rd Women Senior National Atya Patya
Championship tournaments were conducted after

¶105

5730.2015WP.odt

¶106

¶107

12.02.2011 without having recognition of
Indian Olympic Association, therefore, the
players participated in those tournaments are

¶108

not held to be eligible for any job
opportunity under 5% reservation for sports
persons. Accordingly, the present petitioner

¶109

is not eligible for being appointed to the

¶110

post of Gazetted Officer Group-B, under
sports reservation quota.

¶111

11]Itissubmittedthatvide

¶112

Resolution dated 30.04.2005, the Government

¶113

of Maharashtra has introduced a scheme of 5%

¶114

job reservation for the welfare of the
meritorious sport persons. As per the rule 4

¶115

(B) of the said Government Resolution for
appointment to the Group B post the sports
person who represents Maharashtra State

¶116

should have secured 1st, 2nd, 3rd position or
has secured Gold, Silver or Bronze medal in

¶117

the individual / group sports competition,
the said sports competition should have been

¶118

5730.2015WP.odt

¶119

¶120

organized by National Federation and should
have affiliated with the concerned sports of
Indian Olympic Samiti and further the sports
competition should have been organized at
National Level and it should be affiliated
with Indian Olympic Federation. The

¶121

participant in the said sports competition

¶122

should be selected from State Level Team.
Therefore, it is submitted that considering
the above mentioned eligibility criteria for

¶123

Group-B post, it is mandatory to check the
important point of affiliation / recognition
by Indian Olympic Association. Accordingly,
respondent no. 3 verified sports certificate

¶124

of the present petitioner and came to the
conclusion that as per the circular dated
11.02.2011, Indian Olympic Association has
withdrawn the recognition of Atya Patya
Federation of India and therefore the
petitioner does not qualify / possess
eligibility from sports quota, and therefore,

¶125

¶126

5730.2015WP.odt

¶127

an action initiated by respondent no.3 is
proper and correct. Therefore, the learned
AGP appearing for the respondent – State
submits that the Petition may be rejected.

¶128

12]We have carefully considered the
submissions of the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner and the learned AGP
appearing for the Respondent – State. With
their able assistance, perused the pleadings
and the grounds taken in the petition,
annexures thereto, affidavit in reply and
annexures thereto, and we are of the opinion
that, the Petition deserves no consideration
for the reasons set out hereinbelow.

¶129

13]The respondents have placed on
record inter se communication between the
Secretary General, Indian Olympic Association
addressed to the National Sports Federations,
dated 11th July, 2011, [Exhibit-R2 Page-49].
The said letter reads thus:

¶130

5730.2015WP.odt

¶131

¶132

IOA/Recogn./107/2011/316 July 11, 2011

¶133

To,

¶134

The National Sports Federations

¶135

(List attached)

¶136

This is to inform you all that the Constitution of the Indian Olympic Association was amended in the Annual General Assembly on 12^th February, 2011.

¶137

As per the amended Constitution, the National Sports Federations and State Olympic Associations (list at annexure ‘A’) which are affiliated with the Indian Olympic Association will only be its members and none else. There shall be no category of recognized members henceforth. Amended Constitution has been uploaded in the website www.olympic.ind.in.

¶138

Yours faithfully,

¶139

Sd/- (Randhir Singh) Secretary General

¶140

Therefore, what decision is to be

¶141

taken by the Indian Olympic Association is
within the domain of the said Association,
and the aforementioned decision was taken by

¶142

the said Association in the year 2011 itself.

¶143

¶144

5730.2015WP.odt

¶145

The letter dated 17th March, 2015, written by

¶146

the Joint Director, Sports and Youth
Activities, Maharashtra State, Pune to the

¶147

Deputy Secretary, MPSC, Mumbai [Exhibit-E
Page-29], clearly mentions in clause 5 as
under:

¶148

5- ‘kklu fu.kZ; dz- dzhLi/kkZ&2108 @¼iz-dz-440@08½ dzh;qls&2 fn-20 lIVsacj 2013-

¶149

vUo;s dzhMk izek.ki=kph iMrkG.kh dsyh vlrk] lnj [ksGkP;k la?kVusph ekU;rk 11&2&2011 P;k ijhi=dkUo;s vk;vks-,- us dk<wu Vkdysyh vkgs- R;keqGs gs izek.ki= vik= vkgs- ;kLro Jh-larks"k Kkuksck pOgk.k gs mesnokj 5 VDds vkj{k.kkarxZr xV&c]d o M ;k inkdfjrk foghr dsysyh [ksGfo"k;d vgZrk iw.kZ djhr ukghr

¶150

True translation of the clause 5 of

¶151

the said letter done by the Translator, is as

¶152

under:

¶153

5. As per Govt. Resolution No. SC-2108 (C.No. 440/08) SUS-2, dated 20th September ,2013, when the Sport Certificate is verified, the recognition of said Sport Organization has been withdrawn by I.O.A.

¶154

¶155

5730.2015WP.odt

¶156

vide Circular dated 11-2/2011. Therefore this certificate is invalid. Hence the candidate - Shri.Santosh Dnyanoba Chavan is not fulfilling the sport related qualification required under the 5 % reservation provided to the Group B, C & D Posts.

¶157

Upon careful perusal of the
aforementionedcommunication,itis

¶158

abundantly clear that as per the amended
Constitution, the Indian Olympic Association

¶159

has decided to treat their members only

¶160

those National Sports Federations and State

¶161

Olympic Associations, whose names are
mentioned in the list at Annexure-A of the
communication. Therefore, once such decision

¶162

was taken by the Indian Olympic Association
in the year 2011, it was not possible for the
respondents to grant benefit to the sport
event / activity performed by the petitioner.

¶163

The contentions of the learned counsel

¶164

appearing for the petitioner that keeping in
view the object of the Government Resolution

¶165

5730.2015WP.odt

¶166

¶167

dated 30th April, 2005, issued by the School
Education and Sports Department, the
weightage of 5% available to the sports event
/activitywhereinthepetitioner
participated ought to have been continued,
deserves no consideration because which sport
activity / event should be considered for
giving 5% reservation quota would fall within
the domain of the respondents and it is not
for the Courts to rewrite the policy of the
Government.

¶168

14]It is true that by the Government
Resolution dated 30th December, 2013, by way
of one time measure the Government of

¶169

Maharashtra decided to re-verify the
certificates if submitted prior to 28th
February, 2014, by the concerned Department,
since at the relevant time the sports persons
were not aware about the decision taken by
the Indian Olympic Association withdrawing

¶170

recognitiontotheNationalSports

¶171

5730.2015WP.odt

¶172

¶173

Federations under whose supervision the sport
activity was conducted and the certificates

¶174

were issued in favour of such candidates.
However, in the said Government Resolution
itself, it was made clear that from 1st March,
2014, no verification of the sports
certificate will be done. Therefore, upon
perusal of the contents of the said
Government Resolution, it appears that as one
time measure the said exemption was granted

¶175

to the sports persons who participated in the
selection process for re-verification for
their sports certificate provided that if
certificate is submitted through the
concerned Department on or before 28th
February, 2014. The petitioner’s case is not

¶176

from the same selection process of the
candidates to whom the aforementioned
exemption has been granted. Therefore, the
contention of the petitioner that there is
discrimination by the respondents, deserves

¶177

¶178

5730.2015WP.odt

¶179

no consideration. It is not necessary to
reiterate the contentions raised by
respondent nos. 1 and 3 in their affidavit-
in-reply. Suffice it to say that those are
in consonance with the decision taken by the
Indian Olympic Association and the decision
taken by the State Authorities.

¶180

15]In that view of the matter, we are
unable to persuade ourselves to grant any
relief to the petitioner, hence, Petition
stands rejected. Rule stands discharged.

¶181

Sd/- Sd/-

¶182

 [SANGITRAO S.PATIL] [S.S.SHINDE]
 JUDGE JUDGE

¶183

DDC

Santosh Dnyanoba Chavan v. The State of Maharashtra and others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Dnyanoba Chavan v. The State of Maharashtra and others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jijau Bahuuddeshiya Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Bokangaon Dist Latur through Its President and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Anand Pratishthan Latur Dist Latur through Its Secretary and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Al Raheman Education and Welfare Foundation Latur through Its Secretary and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dhanwantari Shikshan and Samajik Pratisthans through Its President H R Jadhavar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dhanwantari Shikshan and Samajik Pratisthans through Its President H R Jadhavar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shree Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Mandal through Vice President Mahendra Sonu Prabhakar Mande and Anr. Vs Prashant Nago Badgujar and Others