Case title: 

Dadaso Balaso Awad & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Date of Order: 

5th December 2023

Bench: 

Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Kulkarni

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jitendra Jain

Parties: 

Petitioner(s): 1. Dadaso Balaso Awad

                        2. Yogesh Prakash More

            Respondent(s): 1. State of Maharashtra

                           2. The Directorate of Sports and Youth Services

                           3. The District Sports Officer, Pune

SUBJECT:

In the instant case, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court (hereinafter referred to as ‘the High Court’ or ‘the Court’) affirmed the validity of an advertisement issued by the Directorate of Sports and Youth Services. The advertisement permits individuals with degrees in Physical Education and those holding State-level sports achievements to participate in the competition for Sports Coach positions. A writ petition filed by sports coaches Dadaso Balaso Awad and Yogesh Prakash More, seeking consideration exclusively for diploma holders from NIS (Netaji Subhash National Institute of Sports) for the Sports Coach post, was dismissed by the division bench.

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS:

The Constitution of India, 1950:

• Article 226
• Article 16

OVERVIEW:

• The petitioners hold diplomas in Sports Coaching from the Netaji Subhash National Institute of Sports (NIS) in Patiala and have participated in Kabaddi and Kho-kho sports at the National and State levels.
• On July 19, 2023, the respondents, the authorities responsible for the Sports Coach recruitment, issued an advertisement for 50 vacancies for the position of Sports Coach.
• The advertisement outlined various qualifications for the Sports Coach position, including a degree in physical education, a diploma from specific NIS centers, a degree in physical education with a focus on the subject, or receiving State/National Awards in a specific sport.
• The petitioners challenged the advertised qualifications, arguing that only diploma holders from NIS should be considered for the Sports Coach position.
• They contended that other qualifications, such as a degree in physical education, were irrelevant for the post.
• In response, the respondents oppose the petition, contending that sports authorities, as experts, are best suited to determine qualifications for the Sports Coach position.
• They argue against judicial interference, stating that the expert body has appropriately prescribed qualifications as policy decisions under Article 226 of the Constitution.
• The dispute is being addressed in this Court.

ISSUES RAISED:

• Whether the power of judicial review under Article 226 can be exercised insofar as fixing the qualifications for appointment of “Sports Coach” is concerned?
• Whether the desirable qualifications are on par with the prescribed other qualifications?

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE PETITIONER(S):

• The Sports Coach recruitment advertisement violates Article 16 of the Constitution of India. They argue that the advertisement unfairly prejudices candidates who have completed the diploma course from the Netaji Subhash NIS.
• The diploma holders are specifically trained to provide sports coaching, while candidates with a degree are only qualified as physical instructors in schools and colleges.
• The petitioners claim that the advertised qualifications create discrimination against those who hold diplomas from NIS.
• The candidates with degrees are given preference, even though their training is not as specific to sports coaching as that of diploma holders.
• The petitioners relied on decisions from the Supreme Court, specifically citing the cases of Chandan Banerjee & Ors. Vs. Krishna Prosad Ghosh & Ors. and Devesh Sharma Vs. Union of India & Ors.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT(S):

• The sports authorities are experts in determining the qualifications necessary for the position of a Sports Coach. The expertise of these authorities in the field of sports makes them best suited to decide the requirements for the role.
• The respondents argued against judicial interference, emphasizing that the court should not intervene when an expert body, such as sports authorities, has already prescribed qualifications for the specific post.
• Decisions related to qualifications are within the purview of policy decisions and should be left to the discretion of the expert body.
• The decisions related to qualifications are policy decisions, and the court should refrain from interfering in matters covered by Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
• Policy decisions are beyond the scope of judicial review.
• The common parameter in all the qualifications specified for the Sports Coach position is the requirement for candidates to have been trained in physical education and sports.
• The legal precedents cited by the petitioners, specifically the cases of Chandan Banerjee & Ors. Vs. Krishna Prosad Ghosh & Ors. and Devesh Sharma Vs. Union of India & Ors., do not apply to the present case. They contend that the decisions relied upon by the petitioners do not align with the facts and circumstances of the current dispute.
• The respondents requested the dismissal of the petition, asserting that the qualifications outlined in the advertisement are justified, reasonable, and not in violation of constitutional provisions.

JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS:

• The High Court addressed the primary issue of whether judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be exercised concerning the qualifications for the appointment of a Sports Coach.
• It was emphasized that the power of judicial review does not extend to substituting the court's decision for that of the employer in determining qualifications.
• It was asserted that the qualifications for a particular post are within the employer's discretion.
• The Court acknowledged that sports authorities are considered experts in deciding qualifications for sports-related positions.
• It rejected the idea that the court should interfere with policy decisions made by these authorities and underscored that the court lacks the expertise to substitute its judgment.
• The Court considered legal precedents, including decisions from the Supreme Court in similar cases. It cited the Anand Yadav case, emphasizing the importance of deferring to the views of educationists and the discretion of expert bodies in matters of education.
• The Court also cites the Dilip Kumar Garg case, highlighting that administrative authorities are best positioned to determine qualifications.
• It reiterated that decisions on qualifications are policy decisions falling within the discretion of the employer.
• It stressed that the court cannot interfere with the selection process unless there are allegations of malafide, serious violations, or illegalities in the decision-making process.
• The Court rejected the relevance of legal precedents cited by the petitioners, asserting that the cases relied upon do not align with the circumstances of the present dispute.
• No merit was found in the petitioners' contentions. No illegality was found in the qualifications prescribed by the respondents for the Sports Coach position.

CONCLUSION:
In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the petition challenging the qualifications outlined in the Sports Coach recruitment advertisement, asserting that the determination of qualifications for a specific post lies within the discretion of the employer, in this case, the sports authorities. Emphasizing the expertise of sports authorities and the limited scope of judicial review, the court rejected the petitioners' arguments, finding no illegality in the prescribed qualifications. The court underscored the principle that decisions on qualifications are policy matters best left to expert bodies and that the court should refrain from substituting its judgment for that of the employer, ultimately dismissing the petition without costs.