Petitioners, NCC cadets who won medals in a National Sailing Championship, sought Priority-II (e) status. The Court held that since NCC did not sponsor the team, the statutory requirement of 'participation through NCC' was not met, and the writ petition was dismissed.
Writ pettion dismissed; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE V. RAMASUBRAMANI AN AND
THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTI CE ANI S
WRI T PETI TI ON Nos.32906 & 33064 of 2016
W.P.No.32906/2016
Betw een:
Ms. G. Sreeja
PETITIONER
And
RESPONSENTS
VRS,J & ASN,J. W.P.Nos.32906 & 33064/2016
2
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE V. RAMASUBRAMANI AN AND THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTI CE ANI S
WRI T PETI TI ON Nos.32906 & 33064 of 2016
COMMON ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Ramasubramanian)
The petitioners before us are candidates, who hold B-certificates in the National Cadet Crops Directorate and both of them have also participated in a National Sailing Championship conducted in Bangalore in February, 2015 by the Sailing Federation of India and secured Silver and Bronze medals respectively. Though the medal winners in some of the units are entitled to Priority-II (e) under G.O.Ms.No.75, dated 8.09.2015, the NCC Directorate accorded Priority-II (c) to the petitioners, valuing only B-certificates held by them. Therefore, contending that they are entitled to be accorded Priority-II (e), the petitioners are before us.
Heard Mr. A. Raghunandan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. B. Narayana Reddy, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the 4th respondent and Mr. A. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
In order to find out whether the petitioners are entitled to be accorded Priority at II (e), it is necessary to see what that Priority is, and it is necessary to take note of Note-5 under G.O.Ms.No.75. Priority-II (e), reads as follows:
“Medal Winners in Para Jumps / Skydiving / Mountaineering / Sailing / Para Sailing / Rafting / Canoeing & Kayaking / Shooting Competitions / Equestrian conducted by the respective Federations / Associations at National Level / NCC Games at National Level
i. Gold. ii. Silver. iii. Bronze.”
Note-5 reads as follows:
VRS,J & ASN,J. W.P.Nos.32906 & 33064/2016
3
“The above priorities will be given to the certificates acquired if the candidates represented through NCC only and the same to be endorsed on the certificate.”
It is categorically stated on instructions by Mr. B. Narayana Reddy,
learned Assistant Solicitor General that the petitioners are not eligible to be considered for Priority-II (e) since their participation in the National event was not through NCC. According to him they were not sponsored by NCC.
But the contention of the petitioners is that the certificates issued to them disclose that they participated as NCC A.P Cadets and that the ANO also endorsed the same. In order to clear the suspicion created by the NCC Directorate, the petitioners draw our attention to the reply given to the RTI query. The query raised by some other candidates through the RTI to the NCC Directorate reads as follows:
“Selection procedure to represent State NCC team in activities Via, Canoeing, Rafting, Para Sailing events at national level.
The reply given is as follows:
“Para-V. Information/opportunities received from different associations is circulated to the cdts through Gps / Bns, Coys, Volunteer cadets approach respective association for participation and selection procedures. Name of the cdt selected in any event is info to coy (ANOs) which is be intimated to higher HQs.”
On the basis of the reply given to the RTI query it is contended by
the learned Senior Counsel that when the petitioners were sponsored by the Principal of the College, who happened to be the ANO and when they participated as NCC team from A.P., the stand taken by the NCC Directorate was completely unjustified and inappropriate.
We are carefully considered the above submissions. Note-5 of the G.O.Ms.No.75, dated 8.09.2015 makes it clear that the participation should be through NCC. The distinction that has to be seen in such cases
VRS,J & ASN,J. W.P.Nos.32906 & 33064/2016
4
is that participation as a NCC team in an event is completely different from participation through NCC. For participation through NCC, the NCC itself should have sponsored the team.
The procedure indicated in the reply to the RTI query does not alter the position. According to the learned Assistant Solicitor General, the NCC Directorate is not sponsoring candidates to some events including Sailing. Therefore, we find nothing wrong in the stand taken by the NCC Directorate. Hence the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
closed.
________________
JUSTI CE V. RAMASUBRAMANI AN
JUSTI CE ANI S.
30 th September, 2016
Js.
VRS,J & ASN,J. W.P.Nos.32906 & 33064/2016
5
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE V. RAMASUBRAMANI AN AND
THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTI CE ANI S
WRI T PETI TI ON Nos.32906 & 33064 of 2016
30th September, 2016
Js.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether candidates who secured medals in a National Sailing Championship conducted without being sponsored by the NCC are entitled to Priority-II (e) under the relevant Government Order.
Whether the distinction between participating as an NCC team versus participation through NCC is legally significant for entitlement to priority.
Whether the NCC Directorate's refusal to accord Priority-II (e) was justified based on the lack of direct sponsorship for the sailing event.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
G. Sreeja
State of Telangana
V. Ramasubramanian
Ani S.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
