The Kerala High Court recently directed the State Sports Council to reconsider the application of an individual under the Khelo India Scheme.
The candidate’s application was initially rejected because they exceeded the prescribed upper age limit for the position of Swimming Trainer at the District Sports Academy, Pirappancode. Additionally, the candidate failed to demonstrate continued involvement in swimming after 2002.
However, the Court highlighted that the selection notification included a provision for age relaxation for deserving candidates, particularly exceptional sportspersons. Upon reviewing the documents presented by the candidate during their appeal, which demonstrated recent involvement in swimming, the Court acknowledged that the candidate had not provided sufficient supporting documents during the interview process. As a result, their eligibility for age relaxation was not considered, leading to the rejection of their application.
A division bench of Justice Alexander Thomas and Justice C Jayachandran, made an observation:
“..if the petitioner had produced necessary documents as above at the time of interview, to convince the official respondents, he could have been granted relaxation. But the respondents never stipulated that the candidates must produce the upto date testimonials, often than the certificates to prove the basic eligibility, which he has produced. So the respondents were duly bound to demand such upto date certificates and should have given minimum reasonable time to the petitioner to produce such additional materials.”
The appellant lodged an appeal against the decision of a single judge who rejected his plea to contest the selection process. The single judge’s ruling was based on the appellant’s inability to demonstrate continuous involvement in swimming since 2002, as well as the argument that his achievements were over 20 years old.
The Kerala Sports Council, following the guidelines of the Khelo India Scheme, had called for applications for coaching positions at District Sports Academies throughout the state. The maximum age limit for applicants was set at 40 years, with the possibility of relaxation in deserving cases. Additionally, candidates were required to be accomplished athletes with national and international medals.
In relation to the position in question, two candidates had applied, including the individual challenged by the appellant. The selected candidate (referred to as the 2nd respondent) was appointed as the Swimming Trainer at the District Sports Academy in Pirappancode for a one-year term.
Appearing for the Appellant, Advocate T Sanjay contended that the Respondent only fulfilled the eligibility criteria as the 3rd preference, whereas the Appellant met the qualifications set as the 2nd preference. The Appellant presented swimming certificates as evidence of their continued involvement in the sport after 2002, asserting that they deserved age relaxation. The Appellant also raised concerns about the selected candidate’s eligibility, pointing out that their achievements were in water polo rather than swimming specifically.
The Counsel representing the Sports Council countered that the Appellant was not considered due to the credentials they provided, which were more than 20 years old. Conversely, the 2nd Respondent was able to demonstrate recent activity in swimming. The Sports Council argued that since the Appellant failed to present any documents showcasing exceptional swimming ability, their application was not considered for age relaxation.
The bench noted that the Appellant had not submitted certificates to the Interview Board demonstrating their continued involvement in swimming after 2001. As a result, the Board was unable to assess whether the Appellant’s case warranted age relaxation. Upon reviewing the certificates presented by the Appellant during the appeal, the Court acknowledged that it “certainly deserves serious consideration to find out whether the petitioner’s case is a deserving one for the purpose of age relaxation”.
Additionally, the bench observed that “when the selection notification was in the discipline of swimming, it is seriously open to doubt as to whether the contesting respondent, who is in the discipline of water polo, was eligible.”
Consequently, the bench ordered the Sports Council to reconsider the Appellant’s application, taking into account the documents provided to establish their ongoing participation in the sport after 2002.
