Disposed

Chiranth Bharadwaj v. Government of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Feb 2021WA/3333/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Ekalavya Award selections were challenged for non-compliance with eligibility requirements and alleged canvassing. Following separate opinions, the court preserved the existing awards and directed consideration of the appellant within one month, with conferment if he satisfied all eligibility criteria.

What did the court decide?

Authorities directed to consider the appellant within one month of receiving a certified copy and confer the award if all eligibility criteria are satisfied; existing awards preserved.

Chiranth Bharadwaj Vs Government of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE Mrs. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA

¶8

W.A.No.3333/2018 (GM –RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

Chiranth Bharadwaj, Son of K.R.Raghunath, Aged 21 years, Residing at No.118/1, Ratna Vilasa Road, Basavanagudi, Bengaluru – 560 004. … Appellant

¶11

(By Sri. Raghu Prasad B.S., Advocate (Through V/C))

¶12

AND:

¶13

Government of Karnataka, Represented by the Department of Youth Services & Sports, Nrupathunga road, Bangalore – 560 001. By its Director.

¶14

Miss Varsha Puranik, Daughter of Ramakrishna, Aged 30 years, Residing at No.209, Opp to Bus stand, 3^rd stage, Naidu Nagar, Mysuru – 570 007.

¶15

¶16

Miss Sanjana Srinivas, Daughter of Srinivas, Aged 23 years, Residing at No.119, 7^th Cross, Navilu Road, Kuvempunagar, Mysuru – 570 023. 4. The Karnataka Roller, Skating Association, Opposite to Bowring Club, St. Marks Road, Bengaluru – 560 002. By its Gen Secretary.

¶17

Nilasha H.A. Daughter of H.J.Anand Kumar, Aged 25 years, Residing at No.1, Gokula Road, 4^th Main Road, V.V.Mohalla, Mysuru – 570 002. … Respondents

¶18

(By Sri. A.C.Balaraj, AGA for R-1, Sri. A.V.Amarnathan, Advocate for C/R-2, Smt. C.G.Asha Devi, Advocate for R-3, Sri. Keshavamurthy and Sri M.Byre Gowda, Advocates for R-4, Sri. O.Mahesh, Advocate for R-5)

¶19

This appeal is filed under Section 4 of Karnataka High Court Act, praying to set aside the order dated 23/10/2018 passed in WP. 38600/2013 (GM-RES) and allow the Writ Petition.

¶20

This appeal, having been heard and reserved for Judgment, coming on for pronouncement this day, SANJAY GOWDA, J., delivered the following:

¶21

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

1. The bestowing of the Ekalavya Award for the

¶24

year 2012 to the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents by the State was the subject matter of challenge before the learned Single Judge.

¶25

Mr. Chiranth Bharadwaj - the appellant herein was the writ petitioner and was aggrieved by the award being conferred on Miss Varsha Puranik and Miss Sanjana Srinivas – respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein respectively.

¶26

It was the case of the appellant that respondent Nos.2 and 3 were the recipients of Ekalavya Award in contravention of the guidelines framed by the State and that they were basically ineligible to be conferred with the said award.

¶27

The learned Single Judge, on consideration of the entire matter, came to the conclusion that the guidelines framed by the State did not have the force of law and the guidelines issued was only to indicate a

¶28

¶29

broad outline within which the Committees were

¶30

required to consider the case of eligible applicants.

¶31

The learned Single Judge insofar as it related

¶32

to the case of Miss Varsha Puranik came to the conclusion that the guidelines cannot be used as a means to undo or disregard the achievements of Miss Varsha Puranik over a period of ten to twelve years and her non-participation in one Championship could not be considered as a disqualification for conferment of the award. The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that no fault could be found with the decision of the Selection Committee and keeping in mind the parameters of judicial review, the writ petition did not deserve to be entertained and he proceeded to dismiss the same.

¶33

The writ petitioner, being aggrieved of the

¶34

dismissal of the writ petition, is in appeal.

¶35

Sri B.S.Raghu Prasad, learned counsel for the

¶36

appellant contended that Miss Varsha Puranik was

¶37

¶38

ineligible to be conferred with the Ekalavya Award because as required under the guidelines, she had not participated in the National Championships for a consecutive period of five years preceding 2012. He contended that Miss Varsha Puranik had admitted that she did not participate in the Championship of the year 2007, she could not therefore be eligible for consideration of the award itself.

¶39

He also submitted that the writ petitioner was entitled to be conferred with the award, if it was found that Miss Varsha Puranik was ineligible and he placed strong reliance on the judgment rendered by another learned Single Judge in W.P.No.33483/2011 to fortify his argument in this regard.

¶40

Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State, on the other hand, supported the impugned order and contended that there was absolutely no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the conferment of award

¶41

¶42

was in accordance with the guidelines. He submitted

¶43

that the objective of conferring the Ekalavya Award was meant to encourage sporting development in the State and also to recognize the sporting personalities who had brought glory to the State by the dint of their hard work and excellence in their chosen sport. He submitted that the awards were conferred after the applications were carefully scrutinized by a Scrutiny Committee which comprised of Officials and Arjuna Awardees and who, after scrutiny, recommended to a

¶44

Five Member Selection Committee headed by a Minister and an Arjuna Awardee apart from two other Officials, for grant of the Ekalavya awards. The Selection Committee, thereafter, either accepted or refused the recommendation and would send it to the Government for approval and after approval was accorded, the awards would be bestowed. He submitted that the mechanism created and followed by the State was designed to ensure that there was

¶45

¶46

no arbitrariness either in the scrutiny of the

¶47

applications or in the grant of the award.

¶48

He submitted that the applicants were required to make a self appraisal of their own achievements for the past five years and from out of the said self appraisal, they were entitled to highlight those three achievements, which, under the guidelines, entitled them to the highest marks and this self appraisal was taken into consideration by the Scrutiny Committee for making the recommendation.

¶49

He submitted that on a perusal of the guidelines would indicate that the entire scheme was designed to ensure that the most meritorious sports person was conferred with the Ekalavya Award. He ultimately submitted that an interpretation of the guidelines which had negative connotations insofar as the achievement of sports person was required to be avoided and the ultimate objective of the State in honouring the sports person by taking into

¶50

¶51

consideration the performance over a period of time would have to be taken into consideration for the purposes of this case and the learned Single Judge has rightly viewed the matter in this light and had arrived at a proper conclusion which did not warrant interference in this appeal. He, therefore, sought for dismissal of the writ appeal.

¶52

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 - Miss Varsha Puranik also supported the order of the learned Single Judge. He submitted that the achievement of respondent No.2 in her chosen sport, namely, roller skating was beyond dispute and it was not merely over a span of five years, but over of span exceeding a decade. He submitted that the achievements of respondent No.2 in the field of roller skating was unparalleled in the State and achievements of respondent No.2 as compared to that of the writ petitioner was indeed a case of no comparison at all. He submitted that the writ petition was actuated by malice and was definitely contrary to

¶53

¶54

the spirit of sportsmanship that is required to be exhibited. He submitted that even on merits, the contentions advanced by the writ petition was incorrect and respondent No.2 had actually participated and represented the State in the past five consecutive National Championships. He submitted that it was a fact that respondent No.2 did not represent the State in one Championship in 2007 because of her examinations, but the Championship of the year 2007 was actually conducted in 2008 and she had indeed participated in the Championships from the year 2008 and she, therefore, fulfilled the eligibility criteria.

¶55

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 i.e., the Association submitted that the recommendation made by it for bestowing the award on respondents 2 and 3 could not be found fault with and it was in accordance with the guidelines. He submitted that the achievements of respondents 2 and

¶56

3 was evaluated by a Committee of the senior most

¶57

¶58

skaters and they had found that the respondents had secured more marks than the petitioner, and therefore, the conferment of the award could not be found fault with.

¶59

We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the material on record.

¶60

In the year 2009, the State Government decided to confer Ekalavya Award to the outstanding sportsperson from the State. Symbolically, this award was to be disbursed on the day Sri Dhyanchand the Hockey legend was born.

¶61

In order to select the eligible candidates, a Scrutiny Committee was also constituted and an order to that effect had been issued in 2009, which was also revised in the year 2011.

¶62

Ultimately, the Government issued guidelines on 01.08.2013 detailing the manner in which

¶63

¶64

applications for conferment of Ekalavya Award would have to be invited, considered, recommended and awarded. The said guidelines dated 01.08.2013 was framed with the ultimate objective of ensuring that the sporting fraternity would be recognized and the sports persons, who had achieved excellence in their chosen sport, would be identified and honoured. The guidelines were basically designed to ensure that there should be a prescribed procedure for receipt of applications and for consideration of the same.

¶65

The guidelines contemplate receipt of applications from Institutes and also from individual sports person within a specified date. The applications seeking for conferment of the award are required to list all their achievements including the recognition obtained by the applicants for the past five years along with an supporting affidavit. The applicants, under the guidelines, are required to make a self evaluation or self appraisal of their achievements for a period of five years preceding the application and they

¶66

¶67

are required to award marks by themselves to each of their achievements in the manner stated therein. The applicants are also required to highlight three events in which they would be entitled to be granted the highest marks. Thus, it is obvious from the guidelines that the State desired to know the entire set of achievements from the words of the aspirants themselves and it also wanted the aspirants to self evaluate not only on the basis of all their achievement, but by the best three events chosen by the applicants themselves in which they would be entitled to award the highest marks to themselves.

¶68

The appraisal made by the

¶69

applicants/aspirants would then be scrutinized and verified by the Scrutiny Committee and who would thereafter make recommendations to the Selection Committee. The Selection Committee would on acceptance of the recommendation thereafter propose the conferment of the award by seeking the approval of the Government. On approval of the Government,

¶70

¶71

the awards would be ultimately bestowed on the

¶72

sportsperson.

¶73

The guidelines also stipulate that the decision of the Government in this regard would be final and no appeal would be available against the said order.

¶74

The guidelines also indicate the eligibility criteria. Clause 12 (i) of the guidelines states that an aspirant should have represented the State for a continuous period of five years at the National and International level and also possess leadership qualities, qualities exemplifying sportsmanship and discipline in order to be eligible for the award.

¶75

The guidelines also stipulate that an applicant, who furnishes false information, would be ineligible for the award apart from being liable for prosecution. It is also made clear that if subsequently it is found that the applicant had misinformed the authorities and obtained an award, the same would be liable to be cancelled.

¶76

¶77

One significant aspect to be noticed here is that Clause 23 of the guidelines specifies that the Scrutiny Committee is required to take into consideration the three biggest achievements of the applicant, which would entitle the aspirant to secure the highest number of marks, while making its recommendation to the Selection Committee. Thus, within a span of five years also, the three best achievements are considered for bestowing the award. This thereby indicates that the best three achievements of the five preceding years is a significant factor for the conferment of the award.

¶78

The principal ground of attack by the writ petitioner was that Miss Varsha Puranik was ineligible in the face of Clause 12(1) of the guidelines, which mandated that the applicant in order to be eligible for Ekalavya Award, ought to have represented the State

¶79

for a continuous period of five years preceding the year the award was granted and since she admitted

¶80

¶81

that she did not participate in the National

¶82

Championship in the year 2007 because of her examinations, she stood automatically disqualified. It is submitted that the Selection Committee had committed a serious error in ignoring this disqualification and granting the award despite the disqualification.

¶83

This argument of the learned Counsel does not merit acceptance. A holistic reading of the guidelines would indicate that it was the intention of the State to ensure that a sports person who had excelled over a period of time should be rewarded with an award which would in turn encourage other sports persons to strive for glory and thereby also ensure the reputation of the State stood enhanced in the sporting arena.

¶84

In other words, the conferment of an award for past achievements cannot be viewed in a narrow and pedantic manner. What is to be seen is whether

¶85

¶86

the aspirant who seeks for an award had achieved significant results in his/her chosen field, over a consistent period of time in his/her sporting career to merit an award. For this purpose, the guidelines state that achievements over the past five years would be a relevant factor to determine the relative merit of the aspirants.

¶87

It is for this reason that the guidelines indicate that there would be a scrutiny by a Committee, comprising of both officials and Arjuna awardees to scrutinize the applications and make recommendations. The presence of sporting persons who were Arjuna awardees, in the Scrutiny Committee is itself an indicator that the State wants to lean upon the rich experience of previous Arjuna awardees who had excelled in their respective fields to assess the relative merits of the applicants. The guidelines, according to us, ensures the sporting peers of the applicants and high ranking officials identify and scrutinize the entitlement of a successful sports

¶88

¶89

personality. This scrutiny made by a body comprising of eminent sports persons who form an integral part of the Scrutiny Committee cannot be viewed in a negative manner so as to disentitle or disqualify a deserving sports person. After all, in the field of sports, excellence over a period of time is what is contemplated by the State for the recognition and honour of the Sports persons.

¶90

Merely because a sports person for some

¶91

reason does not represent the State in a particular year, that by itself, should not disqualify him/her from being considered for the award. In the field of sports, especially competitive sport, it is not uncommon for even the greatest of sportsperson to suffer an injury and miss an entire season and if there is such an incident to be taken note of while scrutinizing the applications, the State should not be curtailed in not considering the candidature of a successful sporting personality to be bestowed with the award.

¶92

¶93

If the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant were to be accepted, the achievements of Miss Varsha Puranik over a period of 10 to 12 years would be diluted and her entire achievements would stand nullified because she did not represent the State in one particular year. In our view, this is not the objective in which the Ekalavya Award was instituted. We are, therefore, not inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that Miss Varsha Puranik was disqualified to be considered for conferment of the award.

¶94

The other argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant was that the Ekalavya Award was given to Miss Sanjana Srinivas on the basis of the recommendation as evidenced by the recommendation letter from the office of the Chief Minister cannot also be accepted.

¶95

The State Government in its counter has categorically stated that this communication

¶96

¶97

emanating from the Chief Minister’s office did not in any way influence the Selection Committee and since she was eligible to be bestowed with the award having regard to her self evaluation and the marks that she had secured thereon, we are not inclined to accept the argument on this count alone.

¶98

It is to be stated here that the State Government in its counter has stated that the writ petitioner had secured only 40 points, whereas Miss Varsha Puranik had secured a total of 555 points and if the three of her best events were considered, she had secured 305 points. It is, therefore, clear that apart from the alleged disqualification, respondent No.2 had secured many more marks than the petitioner.

¶99

Insofar as respondent No.3 – Miss Sanjana Srinivas is concerned, the State has stated that she had secured 55 points as against the 40 points secured by the petitioner and it is, therefore, clear

¶100

¶101

that she had also secured more marks than the petitioner.

¶102

It therefore follows from the above that the achievements of respondent Nos.2 and 3 were much more than the petitioner and they had secured much more marks than the petitioner and it cannot, therefore, be said that by the scale of their achievements they were in any way inferior or disentitled for the bestowment of Ekalavya Award.

¶103

Hence, I am of the view that the learned Single Judge was justified in coming to the conclusion that the guidelines, on which much reliance was placed to putforth an argument that the awardees were disqualified, do not have the force of law and cannot be used to disentitle the otherwise eligible sports persons. We, therefore, find no reason to entertain this appeal.

¶104

¶105

Before parting, I would also like to observe

¶106

that notwithstanding the dismissal of the writ petition

¶107

and the writ appeal, if the writ petitioner is also eligible to be considered for grant of Ekalavya Award along with the other applicants, it is open for the State to consider the grant of Ekalavya Award either for the year 2012 or for any other subsequent years, if the State Government so desires.

¶108

With the above observations, this writ appeal is

¶109

liable to be dismissed .

Sd/JUDGE

PKS CT:SN

P.T.O.

Per Nagarathna J.

¶115

I have the benefit of reading the judgment prepared by my learned Brother Sanjay Gowda J. However, I wish to express a separate opinion.

¶116

This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 23.10.2018 passed in Writ Petition No.38600 of 2013 connected with Writ Petition No.39640 of 2013. By the said order of the learned Single Judge, the writ petitions were dismissed by holding that the guidelines stipulated for choosing the persons eligible for Ekalavya Award have no force of law as the guidelines are only a broad outline for considering the applications of the eligible candidates. That if a participant has not participated in one championship at the national level in a particular year would not become disqualified for the conferment of Ekalavya Award. The guidelines should not be stumbling blocks which would take away the achievements and the services rendered by sports persons. Therefore, the selection of respondent No.2/Miss Varsha S.Puranik was sustained on that basis by the learned Single Judge. It was also opined by the learned

¶117

¶118

Single Judge that the letter of the Joint secretary to the Hon'ble Chief Minister addressed to the Commissioner of Department of Youth Services and Sports, recommending Miss Sanjana Srinivas for the Ekalavya Award, cannot be construed to be a disqualification. It was only a letter requesting for consideration of her case. In the circumstances, the writ petitions were dismissed.

¶119

Learned Brother, Sanjay Gowda J. has accepted the reasoning of the learned Single Judge and has dismissed the appeal by reserving liberty to the State to consider the grant of Ekalavya Award either for the year 2012 or for any other subsequent year, if the State so desires and confer the same on the appellant herein.

¶120

I wish to express a different opinion. The two aspects highlighted by the learned counsel for the appellant is that respondent No.2 herein Miss Varsha Puranik had not complied with the stipulations or eligibility criteria or conditions to become eligible for the conferment of Ekalavya Award inasmuch as she had not represented in any national level event for the year 2008. Even then, in violation of the Rule and guidelines, she was conferred the

¶121

¶122

award, as Rule 9 of the Rules, 2000 required that an applicant ought to have represented Karnataka State initiated championship or national championship for a period of continuous five preceding years. That is not so in the case of respondent No.2.

¶123

Insofar as the other respondent i.e., respondent No.3 / Miss Sanjana Srinivas is concerned, the contention was that her name was not considered initially and it was only on the recommendation made on behalf of the Hon'ble Chief Minister that her name was considered by the Committee and through additional list prepared, she was conferred Ekalavya Award. Thus, on account of canvassing, she was conferred the award which is a disqualification under the Rules.

¶124

I have considered these submissions in the light of material on record.

¶125

At the outset, it may be noted that the controversy with regard to conferment of Ekalavya Award2010 was a subject matter of Writ Petition No.33483 of 2011 (GM-RES), Pragna H.A. vs. The Government of

¶126

¶127

Karnataka and others , wherein this Court, by order dated 13.07.2012, cancelled the conferment of Ekalavya Award to respondent No.2 therein and directed that the same be conferred to the petitioner therein for the year 2010 and further directed to consider the case of respondent No.2 therein for conferment of the Award for the year 2011.

¶128

I have considered the contentions of learned counsel for the respective parties with regard to the conferment of the award for the year 2012. The eligibility criteria for selection of the candidates for Ekalavya Award is in Annexure 'A' appended to the writ petitions. One of the eligibility conditions is that a sports person must belong to Karnataka with a domicile of ten years and must have represented Karnataka at least for preceding five years. Annexure 'B' is the copy of the acknowledgment dated 28.06.2013 for having received the application along with the booklet of the writ petitioner/appellant herein.

¶129

Annexure 'D' is the copy of the Rules for conferment of Ekalavya Award. The said Rules are 'Karnataka Ekalavya Awards' for Outstanding Performance

¶130

¶131

in Sports and Games Rules, 2000" (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules, 2000'). Rule 5 of the said Rules deals with the constitution of the Selection Committee; Rule 7 deals with the Method of Selection; Rule 9 deals with the Eligibility; Rule 9(ii) & 9(v) read as under:

¶132

"(9) Eligibility−No person shall be

¶133

eligible for Ekalavya Award :

¶134

(i) x x x

¶135

(ii) Unless he has good performance consistently for the preceding five years at the recognised State / zonal / National / International level sports and has also shown the qualities of leadership, Sportsmanship and sense of discipline.

¶136

x x x

¶137

(v) Unless he belongs to Karnataka and residing in Karnataka with a domicile of five years and has represented Karnataka State initiated Championship and National Championship at least for the preceding five years.

¶138

Rule 11 deals with Disqualification and the same reads

¶139

as under:

¶140

"Canvassing in any form in respect of an entry will render that entry liable for disqualification."

¶141

¶142

Rule 13 speaks of Cancellation of Award, which reads as under:

¶143

" Rule 13. Cancellation of award:- The Government may cancel or annul the award given to any person, if it is found that the recipient of award:

¶144

a) furnished bogus certificates; or

¶145

b) was not qualified for the award in any manner; or

¶146

c) violated the guidelines of the Award;

¶147

and thereupon the recipient shall be required to surrender to the Government the bronze statue, the scroll of honour, cash award and the certificate, but it shall be competent for the Government to restore the award once the cancellation and annulment has been withdrawn."

¶148

Guidelines have also been issued for conferment of the award, wherein it has been stated that the applicant shall compulsorily submit the certificates of awards for the sports achievements of five years, including the year of award to be given. The eligibility criterion is that those who have continuously represented the State since five years by participating in national and international sporting

¶149

¶150

events and who possess the leadership qualities, sportive

¶151

spirit and disciplinary qualities are eligible for this award.

¶152

The contention with regard to the conferment of the award to respondent No.2 is that she had not represented Karnataka State in the year 2008. Therefore, Rule 9(ii) of the Rules, 2000 had not been complied by her. It was contended that in January 2008, the 45^th National Championship for Roller Skating was held at Visakhapatnam in which the appellant herein had participated but respondent No.2 had not participated. This is evident from Annexure 'R4-D2' to the statement of objections filed by respondent No.4 (Page:399), wherein insofar as respondent No.2 Miss Varsha S.Puranik is concerned, for the year 2008, there have been no marks allocated insofar as the national achievement is concerned. That the years 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 are the five years which are under consideration for conferment of Ekalavya award to eligible skaters in the year 2012. That being so, she could not have been conferred the award.

¶153

Learned counsel for the appellant emphasised that Annexure 'R4-D2' is a document of the Karnataka

¶154

¶155

Roller Skating Association, from that it is clearly established that respondent No.2 did not have any national level achievement for the year 2008 and therefore, she did not comply Rule 9(v) of the Rules, 2000 and therefore, she was not eligible.

¶156

To this, learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that respondent No.2 being an achiever otherwise and a champion was considered for conferment of the award, even though she may not have participated in the year 2008. Of course, arguments were also sought to be canvassed that there was no national level event at Visakhapatnam (Vizhag) in that year, which is not true.

¶157

Thus, the question is, whether, despite there being non-compliance with the Rule as well as guidelines, Ekalavya Award could have been conferred on respondent No.2 herein. The Rules as well as the guidelines have been extracted above. Rule 9(ii) categorically states that the applicant must have good performance consistently for the preceding five years at recognised State / zonal / national / inter-national level sports. The guidelines also state that the candidate, who has continuously represented

¶158

¶159

the State for the past five years including the year of the award, shall be considered. The said stipulation is to be read in the context of the submission of certificate of performance / achievement for a period of five years including the year of the award as a compulsory requirement. The said requirement has not been complied with by respondent No.2 herein, which is also evident from Annexure 'R4-B', which is another document of respondent No.4/ Roller Skating Association, to the statement of objections filed by the said Association (page: 383). In the said document, regarding the conferment of Ekalavya Award for the year 2012, it is shown that respondent No.2 had participated in National Championship for the year 2008. However, on perusal of Annexure 'Z' to the writ petition, which is a document pertaining to respondent No.2, it is stated that in the year 2008 when the National Championship was held in Visakhapatnam/Vizhag, she did not participate. The reason being, that she had to attend examinations and the dates on which the national championship coincided with the dates on which she had to attend her examination and therefore, she could not attend the national level championship held in the year

¶160

¶161

2008 at Visakhapatnam, although she was selected to participate in the said championship. Therefore, it is demonstrated by the appellant herein that respondent No.2/Miss Varsha S.Puranik had not complied with Rule 9(v) of the Rules, 2000 as well as the guidelines. Hence, she was not eligible for being conferred with the Award.

¶162

I have perused the Rules, 2000. The object of the Rules is to encourage development of games and sports in the State by conferment of Karnataka Ekalavya awards. The Rules prescribe constitution of a Selection Committee, method of selection, eligibility of the candidates for conferment of the award, disqualification and cancellation of the award amongst other things. Rule 8 deals with Government's discretion. It states that notwithstanding the entries received from the organisations specified in Rule 4, the Government may give Ekalavya Awards to any sportsman or sportswoman considering their outstanding performance.

¶163

In these appeals, it is not the case of the Government that discretion has been exercised to confer the award on respondent No.2 on account of her

¶164

¶165

outstanding performance. In fact, the entire controversy is centered around her eligibility to be conferred Ekalavya Award.

¶166

Respondent No.2 had participated in the National Championship in the years 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011, and in the year 2010, she had participated in 16^th Asian Games held in China. Admittedly, she has not participated in the National Games held in the year 2008, vide Annexure 'H'. Thus, she has not participated in the National Championship for five continuous years prior to the conferment of the award.

¶167

As far as respondent No.3 is concerned, the contention of learned counsel for the writ petitioner/appellant herein is that she was not included in the list of selected awardees. That the award is for rollerskating and not for ice-skating. Nevertheless, respondent No.3 was conferred the award for ice-skating on the basis of the recommendation made by Joint Secretary to the Hon'ble Chief Minister. As per Annexure 'W', it has been stated that respondent No.3 had submitted a representation to the Hon'ble Chief Minister requesting for

¶168

¶169

conferment of Ekalavya Award and the same may be considered according to Rules, was the direction of the Hon'ble Chief Minister. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the same amounts to canvassing and on that ground alone, she is disqualified.

¶170

In that regard, our attention was drawn to Annexure 'R1' to the statement of objections filed on behalf of respondent No.1 to contend that 3rd respondent's name did not find a place for Roller Skating and it was only 2^nd respondent's name, which was mentioned and 15 persons were enlisted/selected for the said award. But, subsequently, another order dated 26.08.2013 was issued under which respondent No.3 was selected for the conferment of the award. The said award is in the form of an inclusion order made. The same was made at the behest of the Hon'ble Chief Minister as the first list of candidates selected for the award was on 22.08.2013 and after receipt of the recommendation on behalf of the Hon'ble Chief Minister dated 20.08.2013, the additional list was prepared on 26.08.2013. Therefore, respondent No.3 herein was disqualified from being

¶171

¶172

conferred the award on account of the fact that she had made a representation to the Hon'ble Chief Minister for consideration of her case and on the basis of the recommendation made through the Joint Secretary to the Hon'ble Chief Minister dated 20.08.2013, her name was included in the list of Ekalavya Awards on 26.08.2013.

¶173

I find considerable force in the arguments of appellant's counsel in this regard, as the Rules, 2000 contemplate constitution of a Selection Committee, which has to scrutinise the awards, prepare the list and make recommendations to respondent No.1 for conferment of the awards. When such a Selection Committee has been constituted, the said Committee was expected to discharge its duties and make the recommendations for conferment of the awards purely on the basis of merit of the candidates and on the basis of the Rules and guidelines, but not on the recommendation made by any other person or authority. Therefore, on that ground, the conferment of award on respondent No.3 also has to be cancelled.

¶174

Further, there is another aspect of the matter to be considered. The controversy in this case relates to

¶175

¶176

conferment of Ekalavya awards for achievements in Sports. It is demonstrated by the appellant that the authorities have erred in conferring the awards on respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein. The same is in respect of the year 2012. The recipients of the said awards, namely respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein, are under an impression that they have been conferred with the said award on account of their achievement and sportsmanship. But, in reality that is not so, as has been discussed above. While it may not be just and proper to judge about their achievements in this matter, however the manner or process adopted in bestowing the awards on the said respondents is not in accordance with the Rules as well as the guidelines and hence faulty.

¶177

The respondent-Authorities have formulated the Rules as well as the guidelines for ensuring that uniform standards are applied to the applicants who seek conferment of Ekalavya award. The objective criteria stipulated in the Rules as well as the guidelines cannot be bypassed or given a go-by by the Selection Committee. In the event the same is done, it would result in subjective

¶178

¶179

selection and be an instance of arbitrariness. It is necessary to avoid and/or mitigate subjectivity and arbitrariness in such matters. It is only with that object in view, that the State has formulated the Rules, 2000 as well as guidelines. The same cannot be diluted or given a go-by while selecting the candidates for the conferment of Ekalavya award. But, in the instant case, Rule 9(v) and Rule 11 of the Rules, 2000 as well as guidelines have been violated by respondent-Authorities. Therefore, the conferment of Ekalavya Award on respondent Nos.2 and 3 are contrary to the Rules and the guidelines. In the circumstances, while exercising discretion in the matter, I am of the considered view that the respondent-Authorities may not withdraw or cancel the awards conferred on respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶180

In the circumstances, I direct that the respondent-Authorities to consider the case of the writ petitioner/appellant herein also for the conferment of the award and to do so, in case he has satisfied all the conditions stipulated for the year 2012.

¶181

¶182

Such exercise shall be carried out within a period

¶183

of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of

¶184

this judgment.

¶185

The writ appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid

terms.

No costs.

Sd/JUDGE

RK*

P.T.O.

ORDER OF THE COURT

¶193

The Writ Appeal is disposed of in the following

¶194

terms:

¶195

(i) The conferment of "Ekalavya Award" on respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall not be cancelled or withdrawn.

¶196

(ii) The respondent-Authorities to consider the

¶197

case of the writ petitioner/appellant herein for the conferment of the Award within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment and to confer the award on him if he satisfies all eligibility criteria.

¶198

(iii) Parties to bear their respective costs.

¶199

Sd/JUDGE

¶200

Sd/JUDGE

¶201

PKS / RK* CT:SN

Chiranth Bharadwaj v. Government of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chiranth Bharadwaj v. Government of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Serve and Volley Outdoor Advertising Pvt. Ltd., Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

The State of Karnataka Vs Pranav v Deshpande

Smt Bhavyaranganath Vs Smt R Saraswathiramanjiappa

Gas Authority of India Limited Vs M/S Manyata Residents Association

Bangalore Development Authority Vs Manyatha Residents Association

Bangalore Development Authority Vs Manyatha Residents Association