Disposed

Anmol Singh v. Indian Olympic Associates

Delhi HC8 Aug 2018W.P.(C)/8095/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a Karate player, sought mandamus directing the IOA to consider him for the Asian Games 2018 despite not meeting selection criteria. Court found petitioner unqualified and disposed of the petition without issuing directions as selection dates had passed.

What did the court decide?

None. Court held no direction to issue as petitioner did not qualify and submission deadlines passed.

Anmol Singh Vs Indian Olympic Associates — Delhi HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

$~31

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 8095/2018

¶4

ANMOL SINGH ..... Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr Rishi Malhotra, Advocate.

¶6

versus

¶7

UNION OF INDIA &ANR. ..... Respondent Through: Mr Ruchir Mishra and Mr Mukesh Kumar Tiwari, Advocates for IOA. Mr Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, CGSC with Mr Santosh Kumar Pandey, Govt. Pleader and Mr T. P. Singh, Advocate for UOI/R-1.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU O R D E R

¶9

% 08.08.2018

¶10

The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying as under:-

¶11

“A. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other similar writ directing the respondent lOA to consider the case of the petitioner on merits as not only he is highly qualified and eligible to participate in the forthcoming Asian Games, 2018 but also he deserves to represent India under -67 kgs. weight senior individual category being many time National Champion and Asian Cup Champion.”

¶12

The petitioner is an accomplished sportsperson in the sport of Karate. However, he has not participated in any Asian level Tournament after 2015. The petitioner’s name has not been selected for participation in the 18^th

¶13

Asian Games to be held at Jakarta, as the petitioner failed to meet the relevant criteria – “athletes who have achieved benchmark equivalent of 6^th position in the last Asian Games.”

¶14

The petitioner submits that India had not participated in the said event at the last Asian Games, which were held in 2014 and, therefore, there was no question of the said criteria being to be applied in this case. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the IOA states that the IOA had accepted the names that were sent by the National Sports Federation (Karate Federation of India) and further, screened the said names on the basis of the criteria as specified. That is, in case of a team event, only teams which were ranked amongst the top 8 teams in their latest Asian ranking; and in case of an individual event, athletes who had achieved 6^th position in the last Asian Games were considered. He submits that in the case of Karate, IOA had diluted the criteria further by taking into account the results of other Asian level tournaments as well.

¶15

The petitioner had not participated in any Asian Level tournament held in 2016 on account of an injury. Further, no such event was held in 2017. The petitioner relies on his performance at the 15^th Asian Karate Sports Federation held in Amman (Jordon) during the period 11^th to 15^th July, 2018. The petitioner had achieved 7^th position in the said games. However, he claims that no athlete was placed at the 6^th position and, therefore, his 7^th ranking must be considered as compliance of the criteria adopted by the IOA. The said contention is unmerited as it is seen that there were two players who were placed at the third position in that event and, accordingly, the fourth position was left vacant. Similarly, there were two players who were placed at 5^th position and, therefore, the 6^th position

¶16

remained vacant. In all there were six players who had performed better than the petitioner and, therefore, there is no question of petitioner being considered as having scored a ranking equivalent to the 6^th position. 6. It is, thus, apparent that the petitioner does not qualify the criteria as adopted.

¶17

It is also relevant to observe that the last date for submission of the list of players to the organizers of the 18th Asian Games, 2018 was 30.06.2018. This court is informed that the last date for submission of any change in this regard was 15^th July, 2018. The calendar of the events is now confirmed. In view of the above, this Court does not consider it apposite to issue any directions in this petition.

¶18

During the course of arguments, it was pointed out that in certain cases where there is a disputes between Sports Federations, the players who are not affiliated to the recognized Federation are being excluded. This issue needs to be addressed. However, this Court does not consider it necessary to address that issue in this petition. The same will be considered in an appropriate case.

¶19

The petition is disposed of.

¶20

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

¶21

AUGUST 08, 2018 MK

Anmol Singh v. Indian Olympic Associates

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anmol Singh v. Indian Olympic Associates

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sh. Ashminder Kumar Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Sh. Azad Singh Vs Government of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

All India Punjab National Bank Officers Association Vs Union of India & Anr.

Muzibur Rehman Vs Central Public Information Officer and Anr.

Dev Raj & Anr. Vs D.D.A (Delhi Development Authority) & Anr.

Union of India and Anr. Vs Karan Thapar and Ors.

Union Public Service Commission Vs Jitendra Kumar and Ors.

Sep Sunil Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors.

All India Punjab National Bank Officers Association Vs Union of India & Anr.

Muzibur Rehman Vs Central Public Information Officer and Anr.

Rajinder Kumar Vs Council of Architecture & Anr.

Anil Dutt Sharma Vs Govt. of N.C.T of Delhi and Ors.

Col Rohit Ratan (Retd) Vs Union of India and Ors.

Biocon Ltd. Vs Union of India and Ors.