SANJANA SHARMA vs CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE & ORS.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: January 08, 2024
+ W.P.(C) 12403/2022
SANJANA SHARMA ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sachin Awana and
Mr. Gyanprakash Maurya, Advs.
versus
CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE & ORS.
….. Respondents
Through: Mr. Vineet Dhanda, CGSC with
Mr. Sarvan, GP for UOI
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL)
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:
In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is most respectfully prayed that this Honble Court may in exercise of writ jurisdiction and be pleased to:
a) Quash or set aside para no. 15 of circular no.13/2018/sports, dated 24.10.2018, containing sports policy only for sports personnel.
b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/order or direction thereby directing Respondent No.1 to provide NOC (No Course for Sports Coaching 2022-23, in Netaji Subhash National Institute of Sports (Academic wing of Sports Authority of India,; and
c) Pass any other writ or order or direction which this Honble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The case of the petitioner is that she joined the respondent No.1, i.e., Central Industrial Security Force (CISF, for short) as Constable on September 2, 2006. On March 21, 2019, the respondent No.1 inducted the petitioner in the Kabaddi Team at NFL Panipat. After approximately two years, on February 11, 2021 on removal from Kabaddi Team by the respondent No.1, the petitioner was sent back to join duty.
3. On April 28, 2022, the petitioner filled an online application form for the entrance examination of one year Diploma Course in Sports Coaching conducted by the Netaji Subhas National Institute of Sports (NSNIS) Old Moti Bagh, Patiala for the academic year 2022-2023. She had also on May 6, 2022 submitted an application to the respondent No.1 through proper channel for grant of NOC for seeking admission to the aforesaid course.
4. On May 26, 2022, the respondent No.1 rejected the application of the petitioner for NOC by mentioning that, her recruitment was not from Sports Quota. Aggrieved by the decision dated May 26, 2022, of the respondent No.1, she on May 30, 2022, submitted an application to the Deputy Inspector General for personal interview, regarding the rejection of her NOC application, required for admission in Diploma Course in Sports Coaching, 2022-2023, but she was not allowed to meet Deputy Inspector General.
5. On June 18, 2022, she appeared in the entrance exam held for the aforesaid course wherein the petitioner secured 41 marks out of 60 and she was declared qualified for interview. She also appeared in the interview on July 28, 2022, and in the final result declared thereof, it transpired that she has secured 26th rank at the All India Level. In the earlier round of litigation initiated by the petitioner being W.P.(C) 11603/2022, this Court on August 5, 2022 disposed of the petition by granting liberty to her to challenge the CISF Circular dated October 24, 2018 as per law which resulted in the withdrawal of the said writ petition. Accordingly, the present petition has been filed challenging the said circular.
6. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is primarily relatable to two provisions in the circular dated October 24, 2018, being Clauses 15(a) and (c) to contend that the said stipulations in the policy are arbitrary as it excludes a person like the petitioner, who was part of the Kabaddi Team at NFL Panipat, and had excelled in the Sport to be eligible to coach the Kabaddi Team of CISF. Further, she was not sent to any International Tournament for her to have the eligibility under Clause (c). The relevant clauses are reproduced as under:-
15. NIS Course of Sports Personnel: –
The following criteria have been fixed for granting permission to attend the NIS diploma course in various disciplines for CISF Sportsmen who apply for study at SAI or other Centres:
(a) Must have put In 05 years service continuously in CISF & should be appointed under sports Quota.
xxx xxx xxx
(c) Must have attended at least 02 International Tournaments / Championship.
7. He states that if these two stipulations are relaxed, the petitioner shall be eligible to get NOC for undertaking the Course.
8. We are not impressed by the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner for the simple reason that the permission is granted only to those CISF Sportsmen, who have been appointed under the Sports Quota. Admittedly, the petitioner was not appointed under Sports Quota. It is only those persons, who have been appointed under Sports Quota, who are more appropriate / eligible to take the duties of coach because they are meant to devout time and expertise only in sports activities unlike an employee who is not appointed under Sports Quota.
9. That apart, even the stipulation of having attended two International Tournaments / Championship is justified as it is only a sportsman having experience at international level, who by his / her very participation has learnt the techniques / expertise as prevalent internationally, so as to impart those techniques to the sportsmen representing the CISF.
10. We note that Clause 2 of the Circular dated October 24, 2018, which relates to AIM OF SPORTS POLICY states the following:
The aim of Sports Policy of CISF is to provide a structured framework and approach for organizing sports in the CISF to get to the pinnacle of sporting excellence. Its objective is also to ensure that the personnel have access to a broad range of sports activities and lays down guidelines and broad directions for sportspersons, Coaches, nodal officers to ensure smooth and appropriate conduct of sporting activities in a systematic manner. Laying down a clearly defined policy will ensure & encourage enhancement of sporting excellence by streamlining the selection, training, proper maintenance of sports teams, various kinds of requirements of sports teams, overall sports administration, concentration and coaching.
(emphasis supplied)
11. We are of the view that a policy having been framed by the respondents to suit their requirement with some objective, the same cannot be interfered with by the Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The law with regard to judicial review, in respect policy matters is well settled by the Supreme Court. In the case of Census Commr. v. R. Krishnamurthy, (2015) 2 SCC 796, wherein the Supreme Court has held as under:
25. Interference with the policy decision and issue of a mandamus to frame a policy in a particular manner are absolutely different. The Act has conferred power on the Central Government to issue notification regarding the manner in which the census has to be carried out and the Central Government has issued notifications, and the competent authority has issued directions. It is not within the domain of the court to legislate. The courts do interpret the law and in such interpretation certain creative process is involved. The courts have the jurisdiction to declare the law as unconstitutional. That too, where it is called for. The court may also fill up the gaps in certain spheres applying the doctrine of constitutional silence or abeyance. But, the courts are not to plunge into policy-making by adding something to the policy by way of issuing a writ of mandamus. There the judicial restraint is called for remembering what we have stated in the beginning. The courts are required to understand the policy decisions framed by the executive. If a policy decision or a notification is arbitrary, it may invite the frown of Article 14 of the Constitution. But when the notification was not under assail and the same is in consonance with the Act, it is really unfathomable how the High Court could issue directions as to the manner in which a census would be carried out by adding certain aspects. It is, in fact, issuance of a direction for framing a policy in a specific manner.
(emphasis supplied)
12. In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Lata Arun, (2002) 6 SCC 252, the Supreme Court held that the prescribed eligibility qualification for admission to a course or for recruitment to or promotion in service are matters to be considered by the appropriate authority. It is not for courts to decide whether a particular educational qualification should or should not be accepted as equivalent to the qualification prescribed by the authority.
13. In Dilip Kumar Garg & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (2009) 4 SCC 753, Supreme Court held that the administrative authorities are in the best position to decide the requisite qualifications for promotion from Junior Engineer to Assistant Engineer, and it is not for this Court to sit over their decision like a Court of Appeal.
14. In view of the above, the writ petition is without merit, the same is dismissed.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
SAURABH BANERJEE, J
JANUARY 08, 2024/aky
W.P.(C) 12403/2022 Page 6