M. NAGAPRASANNA
V. Varshith S/o B. Venugopal – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondent
ORDER :
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 24-08-2015 issued by the 3rd respondent/Youth Services and Sports Department of the State Government in drawing up of guidelines for award/allocation of marks for participation under the National Championship on par with marks allotted for participation in Senior National Championship.
2. Heard Sri B. N. Suresh Babu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Navya Shekar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.
3. Sans details, facts in brief are as follows:-
The petitioner claims to be a young roller skating player and further claims to have participated in junior and senior National, International and Asian Championships and has won gold, silver and bronze medals and accordingly appended plethora of documents to the petition to demonstrate his participation in such events. The 1st respondent/Department of Sports and Youth Services encourages development of games and sports in the State by giving recognition to those players who participate and win medals by conferring awards called Karnataka Ekalavya Award on those participants. The eligibility for enlistment in th
State of U.P. v. Johri Mal (2004) 4 SCC 714
Taherakhatoon v. Salambin Mohammad (1999) 2 SCC 635
Union of India v. Mohan Lal Capoor [(1973) 2 SCC 836 : 1974 SCC (L&S) 5: (1974) 1 SCR 797]
Vijay Shankar Pandey v. Union of India 108 (2003) DLT 383
Zee Telefilms v. UOI 2005 (4) SCC 649
Chandra Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 2003 SC 2889
Chandra Singh v. State of Rajasthan
Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke v. Dr. B.S. Mahajan
Damoh Panna Sagar Rural Regional Bank v. Munna Lal Jain AIR 2005 SC 584
Filmistan Exhibitors Ltd. v. NCT of Delhi
Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque AIR 1955 SC 233
M.V. Thimmaiah v. Union Public Service Commission
Om Prakash Poplai and Rajesh Kumar Maheshwari v. Delhi Stock Exchange Association Ltd.
ONGC Ltd. v. Sendhabhai Vastram Patel (2005) 6 SCC 454
PIL v. Union of India (2011) 4 SCC 1
R.K. Jain v. Union of India (1993) 4 SCC 119
Secy. (Health) Deptt. Of Health & F.W. v. Dr. Anita Puri, (1996) 6 SCC 282
Judicial review of policy decisions in sports is limited; courts should not interfere unless there is clear evidence of arbitrariness or mala fides.
Judicial review in sports policy matters is limited to cases of evident arbitrariness; courts should defer to the expertise of selection committees unless clear injustice is demonstrated.
The discretion of the National Sports Federation in making selection decisions and the limited scope of judicial review in matters of sports representation.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of judicial review in the case of selection/appointment and the requirement to adhere to the conditions stipulated in the adverti....
Denial of sports quota admission based on non-recognition of valid sports certificates was held unconstitutional, emphasizing equal treatment under the law for sports distinctions recognized by autho....
Mere representation at a National or International level does not guarantee reservation under the J&K Sports Policy. Eligibility for reservation requires outstanding proficiency and participation in ....
The Rules of 2017 for sports medal winners only apply to open category events, excluding junior category achievements from eligibility for government appointments.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.