Dismissed

Amrit Chattha and Another v. Sports Authority of India and Others

Delhi HC12 Feb 2024W.P.(C)/1979/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioners challenged the Tribunal's rejection of their claim for appointment as Assistant Coach (Hockey) based on a 2017 wait list. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that since all advertised vacancies were filled and the petitioners participated in a fresh selection process without demur, they could not claim appointment from the old wait list.

What the court decided

AI extract

Amrit Chattha and Another Vs Sports Authority of India… — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

Date of decision: 12.02.2024

¶4

- W.P.(C) 1979/2024 AMRIT CHATTHA AND ANOTHER ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. S.K.Anand, Mr. J.B.Sagar, Mr. Bhuvan Anand, Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

SPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND OTHERS ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Ankit Raj, Sr.Panel Counsel with Mr. Rajnish Kumar, Advs., Mr. Rishesh Mani Tripathi, G.P. for R-2.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR

¶9

REKHA PALLI, J (ORAL)

¶10

CM APPL. 8273/2024 -Ex.

¶11

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶12

The application stands disposed of.

¶13

¶14

The present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeks to assail the order dated 10.10.2023 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 1677/2022. Vide the impugned order, the learned Tribunal has

¶15

¶16

Signature Not Verified

¶17

Digitally Signed By:GARIMA MADAN Signing Da te:1 3.02.2024 17:57:13

¶18

rejected the original application filed by the two petitioners seeking directions to the respondent no.1 to appoint them as Assistant Coach (Hockey) on the strength of their having been placed in the wait list pursuant to the selection process held in 2017 in accordance with the advertisement issued in 2016.

¶19

In support of the petition, Mr. S.K. Anand, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order is liable to be set aside as the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the selection process, which was held pursuant to the advertisement issued in 2016, did not prescribe any time period for which the wait list was to remain valid and therefore the petitioners, who were placed in the said wait list, ought to have been appointed. By placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Gujarat State Dy. Executive vs. State of Gujarat and Ors, (1994) Supp (2) SCC 591, he submits that since the advertisement issued by the respondent did not specifically provide any time period for which the wait list was to be valid, appointments were required to be made from the said list till the fresh selection process for appointment to the said post was undertaken.

¶20

He further contends the petitioners have been discriminated against as while the person placed at serial no.1 in the wait list has been appointed as Assistant Coach (Hockey) on a regular basis, the petitioners are being given appointments on contractual basis from time to time. He therefore prays that the writ petition be allowed and the respondent be directed to appoint the petitioners as Assistant Coach (Hockey) on a regular basis.

¶21

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent supports the

¶22

Signature Not Verified

¶23

¶24

Digitally Signed By:GARIMA MADAN Signing Da te:1 3.02.2024 17:57:13

¶25

impugned order and submits that merely because the petitioners were placed in the wait list would not bestow any vested right on them to seek appointment. He submits that the person at serial no.1 in the wait list.1 was appointed only because one of the candidates out of the 10 candidates in the select list did not join and therefore the petitioners cannot claim any parity with him. Furthermore, the petitioners were well aware that a fresh advertisement inviting applications for the said post was issued in 2021, in response whereto they also applied but were unsuccessful. He, thus, submits that the petitioners cannot now seek appointment to the post of Assistant Coach (Hockey) and therefore prays that the petition be dismissed.

¶26

Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, we find that only ten vacancies for the post of Assistant Coach (Hockey) were advertised in 2016, all of which stands filled. Nine vacancies having been filled by the candidates in the select list and one by the candidate placed at serial no.1 in the wait list. The petitioners having been placed at lower positions in the wait list cannot have any grievance when all the ten posts, as advertised, were filled up by candidates, higher in merit than them.

¶27

We have also considered the petitioner’s plea that since it was not specified that the wait list would be valid only for one year, the same would be valid till the next regular selection is made. We, however, find that even if this plea of the petitioners were to be accepted, nothing much would turn on this since no further appointments were made till the next regular selection, which, it is the petitioner’s own

¶28

Signature Not Verified

¶29

¶30

Digitally Signed By:GARIMA MADAN Signing Da te:1 3.02.2024 17:57:13

¶31

case, commenced in March, 2021, when fresh applications for filling up the posts of Assistant Coach (Hockey) were invited. Furthermore, the petitioners without any demur, participated in the said selection process and it is only when they were unsuccessful that they chose to approach the learned Tribunal. The petitioners, having participated in the fresh selection process, cannot now be permitted to urge that by virtue of their being placed in the wait list, they should have been appointed as regular Assistant Coach (Hockey) before resorting to the fresh selection list. We, are therefore, of the considered opinion that looked at from any angle, no direction can be issued to the respondent at this belated stage to appoint the petitioners on the strength of their having been placed in the wait list in 2017.

¶32

For the aforesaid reasons, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Tribunal rejecting the petitioners’ claim for appointment as Assistant Coach (Hockey).

¶33

10.The petition being meritless is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶34

(REKHA PALLI) JUDGE

¶35

(RAJNISH BHATNAGAR) JUDGE

¶36

FEBRUARY 12, 2024 al

¶37

Signature Not Verified

¶38

¶39

Digitally Signed By:GARIMA MADAN Signing Da te:1 3.02.2024 17:57:13

Amrit Chattha and Another v. Sports Authority of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Amrit Chattha and Another v. Sports Authority of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jyoti Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors.

Vidya Vihar Cghs Ltd. & Ors. Vs Sh. Dharam Singh Yadav & Ors.

M/S Subhash Chand Kathuria Vs Punjab National Bank

Arjun Singh Vs Airport Authority of India and Ors.

Sanjeev Kumar Vs Union of India & Anr.

M/S Samraj Polytex Ltd. Vs Additional Director General, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence & Anr.

Pr.Commissioner of Income TAX-4, Vs M/S Hcil Comtel Ltd.

Jitender Kumar Vs the Lieutenant Governor and Anr.

Nigar Fatima Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (Bsnl) & Ors.

Shyam Sunder Vs Union of India & Ors.

Directorate of Education and Ors. Vs Krishan Pal Sharma and Ors.

New Delhi Municipal Council (Ndmc) Vs Mr Kishore Prasad

Kalu Prasad Vs Delhi Transport Corporation

Commissioner of Police, Delhi Vs Brijesh Moolvanshi & Ors.